Ann Coulter: Newsweek dissembled, Muslims dismembered!: "No matter how I look at it, I can't grasp the editorial judgment that kills Isikoff's stories about a sitting president molesting the help and obstructing justice, while running Isikoff's not particularly newsworthy (or well-sourced) story about Americans desecrating a Quran at Guantanamo.
Even if it were true, why not sit on it? There are a lot of reasons the media withhold even true facts from readers. These include:
* A drama queen nitwit exclaimed she'd kill herself. (Evan Thomas' reason for holding the Lewinsky story.)
* The need for 'more independent reporting.' (Newsweek President Richard Smith explaining why Newsweek sat on the Lewinsky story even though the magazine had Lewinsky on tape describing the affair.)
* 'We were in Havana.' (ABC president David Westin explaining why 'Nightline' held the Lewinsky story.)
* Unavailable for comment. (Michael Oreskes, New York Times Washington bureau chief, in response to why, the day The Washington Post ran the Lewinsky story, the Times ran a staged photo of Clinton meeting with the Israeli president on its front page.)
* Protecting the privacy of an alleged rape victim even when the accusation turns out to be false.
* Protecting an accused rapist even when the accusation turns out to be true if the perp is a Democratic president most journalists voted for.
* Protecting a reporter's source.
How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item: 'Protecting the national interest'? If journalists don't like the ring of that, how about this one: 'Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories.'"
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Emmett Tyrrell: Galloway's comic relief
Emmett Tyrrell: Galloway's comic relief: " The reason Galloway is not credible is that Levin's committee has documents, mounds of documents, linking European officials to profits from the oil-for-food scam that now appears to be the largest case of political graft in history. Saddam used it to arm himself, buy political allies around the world and fund terrorists. Galloway admits that he met repeatedly with Saddam's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and even with Saddam, twice -- as frequently as did Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Galloway admits puckishly and pointlessly. Galloway does not deny the import of documents showing him working with a Jordanian businessman, Fawaz Zureikat, in various deals in Baghdad. He simply denies that he received money from the 20 million barrels of oil documents say he and Zureikat got.
Galloway's buffoonery aside, the evidence now being displayed by our government explains why so many European politicians were so patient with Saddam's numerous breaches of UN resolutions. There was money in it for them personally. Up until the revelations of the oil-for-food scam, I had thought that the Europeans' refusal to attack Saddam was simply another example of European cowardice. There was in the months before the invasion of Iraq no great debate over weapons of mass destruction. There was only the Europeans' feigned claim that we had not exhausted every diplomatic approach to Saddam. He ignored UN resolutions. He rejected international inspections. He acted willfully and with impunity. Yet at the UN, officials refused to take action. Now we know why: There and in many foreign capitals officials were on the take."
Galloway's buffoonery aside, the evidence now being displayed by our government explains why so many European politicians were so patient with Saddam's numerous breaches of UN resolutions. There was money in it for them personally. Up until the revelations of the oil-for-food scam, I had thought that the Europeans' refusal to attack Saddam was simply another example of European cowardice. There was in the months before the invasion of Iraq no great debate over weapons of mass destruction. There was only the Europeans' feigned claim that we had not exhausted every diplomatic approach to Saddam. He ignored UN resolutions. He rejected international inspections. He acted willfully and with impunity. Yet at the UN, officials refused to take action. Now we know why: There and in many foreign capitals officials were on the take."
The New Republic Online: What God Owes Jefferson (1 of 2)
The New Republic Online: What God Owes Jefferson
What God Owes Jefferson
by Alan Wolfe
Excerpts from the book
* * * * * * *
The First Amendment's other clause--the one separating church and state--is another liberal idea without which conservative religion could not exist. Written just two decades after the publication of The Wealth of Nations, the First Amendment essentially created a free market in the salvation of souls. Left without the financial guarantees offered by state monopolies--especially, in the early American Protestant imagination, the decadent and reactionary Catholic Church--congregations would live or die by their own efforts in recruiting members, tithing their purses, and kindling their enthusiasm.
By the time Tocqueville arrived in the 1830s, the pattern had been set. The itinerant preacher, the bewildering variety of new denominations, the determination to evangelize: all took advantage of America's remarkable experiment in church-state separationism to organize on behalf of God. European religion--not only in its Catholic form, but also in its various Calvinist and Episcopal manifestations, burdened by the privileges secured by established churches--withered and, in the opinion of many, died. But American religion, banned from the state, infused the culture. The more it was kept out of politics, the deeper would be its reach into every other area of life.
///////////////////////////////////
eligions that draw too close to politics lose their capacity to innovate. If they receive government money, they become bureaucracies, which is one reason that at least some deeply conservative believers are skeptical of President Bush's talk about faith-based initiatives. If their objective is to get out the vote, they will want an obedient flock, not disputatious otherworldly saints. Their clergy will become more comfortable in the country club than on the street corner; worried about their standing, the status of their capital campaign, and their ties to local business, they will lose their ability to speak to the economically marginalized, from whom conservative religion has always drawn the bulk of its new recruits. (Whatever its commitment to real Darwinism, the Bush administration's unblinking support for social Darwinism ensures that untold numbers of potential conservative Christians will never live to adulthood.) Their churches may grow, to be sure; indeed, they will develop management objectives, best practices, and consumer surveys to ensure their growth. But the resources of the spirit are limited, and the more that goes into committee work, the less there is for God. Evangelicals did well in America not least because they had little or no political power.
What God Owes Jefferson
by Alan Wolfe
Excerpts from the book
* * * * * * *
The First Amendment's other clause--the one separating church and state--is another liberal idea without which conservative religion could not exist. Written just two decades after the publication of The Wealth of Nations, the First Amendment essentially created a free market in the salvation of souls. Left without the financial guarantees offered by state monopolies--especially, in the early American Protestant imagination, the decadent and reactionary Catholic Church--congregations would live or die by their own efforts in recruiting members, tithing their purses, and kindling their enthusiasm.
By the time Tocqueville arrived in the 1830s, the pattern had been set. The itinerant preacher, the bewildering variety of new denominations, the determination to evangelize: all took advantage of America's remarkable experiment in church-state separationism to organize on behalf of God. European religion--not only in its Catholic form, but also in its various Calvinist and Episcopal manifestations, burdened by the privileges secured by established churches--withered and, in the opinion of many, died. But American religion, banned from the state, infused the culture. The more it was kept out of politics, the deeper would be its reach into every other area of life.
///////////////////////////////////
eligions that draw too close to politics lose their capacity to innovate. If they receive government money, they become bureaucracies, which is one reason that at least some deeply conservative believers are skeptical of President Bush's talk about faith-based initiatives. If their objective is to get out the vote, they will want an obedient flock, not disputatious otherworldly saints. Their clergy will become more comfortable in the country club than on the street corner; worried about their standing, the status of their capital campaign, and their ties to local business, they will lose their ability to speak to the economically marginalized, from whom conservative religion has always drawn the bulk of its new recruits. (Whatever its commitment to real Darwinism, the Bush administration's unblinking support for social Darwinism ensures that untold numbers of potential conservative Christians will never live to adulthood.) Their churches may grow, to be sure; indeed, they will develop management objectives, best practices, and consumer surveys to ensure their growth. But the resources of the spirit are limited, and the more that goes into committee work, the less there is for God. Evangelicals did well in America not least because they had little or no political power.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
iowahawk: Newsweek Lutefisk Story Sparks Fury Across Volatile Midwest
iowahawk: Newsweek Lutefisk Story Sparks Fury Across Volatile Midwest
Newsweek Lutefisk Story Sparks Fury Across Volatile Midwest
Decorah, IA - The debris-strewn streets of this remote Midwestern hamlet remain under a tense 24-hour curfew tonight, following weekend demonstrations by rock- and figurine-throwing Lutheran farm wives that left over 200 people injured and leveled the Whippy Dip dairy freeze. The rioting appeared to be prompted, in part, by a report in Newsweek magazine claiming military guards at Spirit Lake’s notorious Okoboji internment center had flushed lutefisk down prison toilets. Newsweek’s late announcement of a retraction seems to have done little to quell the inflamed passions of Lutheran insurgents in the region, as outbreaks of violent mailbox bashings and cow tippings have been reported from Bowbells, North Dakota to Pekin, Illinois.
Whether the violence was triggered by Newsweek’s report of lutefisk desecration or frustration over chronic shortages of Beanie Babies and Old Style, one thing seems certain – occupying U.S. troops face a steep road to reestablish trust in this tinderbox of ancient hatreds and delicious dairy products. Some analysts say the latest outbreak represents the most vexing challenge to US strategy since its invasion the region three years ago.
“It could be months before we get the area back under control,” said Brigadier Gen. Glen Hastings of the US Army’s Southern Minnesota Command. “We’re hoping the tractor pull and swap meet seasons will help calm down some of the violent elements.”
‘Campground of Evil’
Military efforts to stabilize the violent ethnic Protestantism of the region have had a mixed record of success. U.S. paratroopers first landed along the Iowa/Minnesota border in early 2002 to root out extremist Uff Da militants, followers of the charismatic Lutheran cleric Pastor Duane Gunderson. Despite fears of being bogged down in the harsh Mankato winter, troops encountered little resistance, save sporadic eggings from ill-equipped insurgents atop the grain elevators of local cornlords. U.S. forces achieved swift success, taking as many as 1,500 Lutheran rebels into custody and bringing a momentary measure of stability to what has long been considered a dangerous Scandinavian backwater.
The initial battlefield victories, however, have since proven to be only the beginning of the American struggle here. The subsequent occupation created a number of difficult challenges critics claim were overlooked by the White House’s top Midwest war planners. The tipping point seems to have been a 2004 incident at the now notorious Okoboji.
First constructed as a boredom punishment camp for Midwest dissident youth, the US Military Command converted the sprawling Arnold’s Park / Lake Okoboji area into an internment facility to house insurgent detainees. Almost immediately stories began to surface of prisoner mistreatment, including vivisections, anal probes by extraterrestrial strippers, and blackouts of Viking games.
American military spokesmen initially dismissed the stories, but several news organizations – led by Newsweek – obtained a series of shocking photos of a Texas Army Reservist, Tyffanie Cruddup, laughing as she humiliates a naked inmate by putting a Dallas Cowboys stocking hat on his head.
The photos sent the Lutheran street into riots as far as Rheinlander, Wisconsin, and sent shockwaves throughout the media world. The incident received heavy play on network and cable news, the New York Times, Washington Post, Le Monde, the Guardian, Packers Illustrated, and was the subject of over a dozen off-Broadway dramas during the 2004 season. For its part, Newsweek ran a record eight consecutive covers on Okoboji, along with a special commemorative November 3 collector’s issue with pull-out humiliation poster.
Luting and Looting
In the wake of the incident, American military spokespeople have taken pains to defend handling of prisoners at Okoboji. A series of new guidelines instruct guards to “respect the rituals and traditions of our valued Lutheran prison guests,” including “dietary needs, Wednesday Nite Bingo, and twice daily viewing of Wheel of Fortune.”
“It is important that we remember that Lutheranism is a religion of peace,” said Army spokesman Maj. Richard Lehrman. “And we need to remember to avoid insensitive behavior and remarks that will cause these peaceful Lutherans to go on another bloody killing rampage.”
Despite officials’ claims of intensified sensitivity, rumors have persisted of continued prisoner abuse at Okoboji, including lutefisk desecration – an especially heinous crime under Lutheran doctrine. Some analysts have viewed the rumors skeptically, pointing to the Uff Da insurgent training manual “How To Lie About Lutefisk Desecration By Infidels.” Still, dozens of news organizations continue to investigate the charges.
In its May 6 “Midwest Quagmire Wire” section, Newsweek appeared to have confirmed the lutefisk rumors. Bylined by Senior Correspondent Michael Isikoff, the magazine cited an unidentified source claiming that Okoboji guards had deliberately flushed an entire batch of the pungent cod-and-lye concoction that prisoners had been aging in a specially prepared commode. “The guard smelled it and thought it was prison burrito night,” the source was quoted as saying.
News of the desecration spread quickly from Iowa to the Dakotas to Minnesota and Wisconsin, fanned by radio soybean reports and Lutheran clerics in fiery pancake breakfast sermons. Soon, enraged farm wives, clad in their traditional sweater vests and Disney jackets, had taken to the streets and begun a wild spree of destruction, overturning hundreds of rusty Blazers and Pontiac Grand Ams and hurling flaming Lladro porcelain figurines. Decorah was particularly hard-hit, as a frenzied throng of ululating Iowa women were seen looting needlepoint geese and rabbit tchotchkes from a Victorian craft shop. In a chilling moment caught on Army night vision cameras, their plus-size leader urges the mob to attack the near-by Pamida.
“Ya, you betcha!” came the chant of her enraged coreligionist.
After battling back the women with volleys of teargas and Land’s End catalogs, a detachment of California reservists finally quelled the riot early Sunday morning, and attended to the injured.
Fake But Not Completely Implausible
As soldiers patrolled the streets of Decorah, Faribault and La Crosse Sunday, Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker issued a surprising, terse clarification of the original story, saying that the magazine could “no longer vouch for every detail of the story, including the brand of lye used, the number of soldiers and prisoners present, or possibly whether any of it actually happened.”
Whitaker, however, declined to retract the story, saying that the magazine was “standing behind its essential plausibility.”
“Obviously, if it causes thousands of native gals go on a berserk looting rampage, there’s got to be something believable in there somewhere,” said Whitaker. “Obviously, it’s now up to the Administration and the DoD to disprove these charges, once they finish cleaning up the carnage.”
In a later and terser clarification, Whitaker said that the magazine’s anonymous source could no longer remember whether he had ever been to Iowa, was in the military, or knew how to pronounce ‘lutefisk.’ In a still-later, and yet-terser clarification, Whitaker finally retracted the story after revealing that its anonymous source was Kippy, Michael Isikoff’s imaginary childhood friend.
“This is a really unfortunate accident for everybody,” said Whitaker. “But let’s not forget the real victims here – Newsweek, Mike Isikoff, and especially Kippy.”
While retracting the Okoboji accusations, Whitaker said Newsweek stood by the original article’s final two sentences, “Boo-yah! In your FACE, Chimpy!”
Despite the Newsweek’s humiliating public retraction of the controversial lutefisk abuse charges, tensions remain high across the upper Midwest. Many here discount the retraction as being coerced by White House “crusaders,” and believe that other abuses are being covered up at Okoboji.
“Oh yahh, I tell ya what, dere’s a lotta bad stuff goin’ on in dat outfit over dere,” said a young Decorah cleric who identified himself only as ‘Pastor Doug.’ “I heard dem infidels are switchin’ da prisoner’s Leinies with Schlitz.”
Newsweek Lutefisk Story Sparks Fury Across Volatile Midwest
Decorah, IA - The debris-strewn streets of this remote Midwestern hamlet remain under a tense 24-hour curfew tonight, following weekend demonstrations by rock- and figurine-throwing Lutheran farm wives that left over 200 people injured and leveled the Whippy Dip dairy freeze. The rioting appeared to be prompted, in part, by a report in Newsweek magazine claiming military guards at Spirit Lake’s notorious Okoboji internment center had flushed lutefisk down prison toilets. Newsweek’s late announcement of a retraction seems to have done little to quell the inflamed passions of Lutheran insurgents in the region, as outbreaks of violent mailbox bashings and cow tippings have been reported from Bowbells, North Dakota to Pekin, Illinois.
Whether the violence was triggered by Newsweek’s report of lutefisk desecration or frustration over chronic shortages of Beanie Babies and Old Style, one thing seems certain – occupying U.S. troops face a steep road to reestablish trust in this tinderbox of ancient hatreds and delicious dairy products. Some analysts say the latest outbreak represents the most vexing challenge to US strategy since its invasion the region three years ago.
“It could be months before we get the area back under control,” said Brigadier Gen. Glen Hastings of the US Army’s Southern Minnesota Command. “We’re hoping the tractor pull and swap meet seasons will help calm down some of the violent elements.”
‘Campground of Evil’
Military efforts to stabilize the violent ethnic Protestantism of the region have had a mixed record of success. U.S. paratroopers first landed along the Iowa/Minnesota border in early 2002 to root out extremist Uff Da militants, followers of the charismatic Lutheran cleric Pastor Duane Gunderson. Despite fears of being bogged down in the harsh Mankato winter, troops encountered little resistance, save sporadic eggings from ill-equipped insurgents atop the grain elevators of local cornlords. U.S. forces achieved swift success, taking as many as 1,500 Lutheran rebels into custody and bringing a momentary measure of stability to what has long been considered a dangerous Scandinavian backwater.
The initial battlefield victories, however, have since proven to be only the beginning of the American struggle here. The subsequent occupation created a number of difficult challenges critics claim were overlooked by the White House’s top Midwest war planners. The tipping point seems to have been a 2004 incident at the now notorious Okoboji.
First constructed as a boredom punishment camp for Midwest dissident youth, the US Military Command converted the sprawling Arnold’s Park / Lake Okoboji area into an internment facility to house insurgent detainees. Almost immediately stories began to surface of prisoner mistreatment, including vivisections, anal probes by extraterrestrial strippers, and blackouts of Viking games.
American military spokesmen initially dismissed the stories, but several news organizations – led by Newsweek – obtained a series of shocking photos of a Texas Army Reservist, Tyffanie Cruddup, laughing as she humiliates a naked inmate by putting a Dallas Cowboys stocking hat on his head.
The photos sent the Lutheran street into riots as far as Rheinlander, Wisconsin, and sent shockwaves throughout the media world. The incident received heavy play on network and cable news, the New York Times, Washington Post, Le Monde, the Guardian, Packers Illustrated, and was the subject of over a dozen off-Broadway dramas during the 2004 season. For its part, Newsweek ran a record eight consecutive covers on Okoboji, along with a special commemorative November 3 collector’s issue with pull-out humiliation poster.
Luting and Looting
In the wake of the incident, American military spokespeople have taken pains to defend handling of prisoners at Okoboji. A series of new guidelines instruct guards to “respect the rituals and traditions of our valued Lutheran prison guests,” including “dietary needs, Wednesday Nite Bingo, and twice daily viewing of Wheel of Fortune.”
“It is important that we remember that Lutheranism is a religion of peace,” said Army spokesman Maj. Richard Lehrman. “And we need to remember to avoid insensitive behavior and remarks that will cause these peaceful Lutherans to go on another bloody killing rampage.”
Despite officials’ claims of intensified sensitivity, rumors have persisted of continued prisoner abuse at Okoboji, including lutefisk desecration – an especially heinous crime under Lutheran doctrine. Some analysts have viewed the rumors skeptically, pointing to the Uff Da insurgent training manual “How To Lie About Lutefisk Desecration By Infidels.” Still, dozens of news organizations continue to investigate the charges.
In its May 6 “Midwest Quagmire Wire” section, Newsweek appeared to have confirmed the lutefisk rumors. Bylined by Senior Correspondent Michael Isikoff, the magazine cited an unidentified source claiming that Okoboji guards had deliberately flushed an entire batch of the pungent cod-and-lye concoction that prisoners had been aging in a specially prepared commode. “The guard smelled it and thought it was prison burrito night,” the source was quoted as saying.
News of the desecration spread quickly from Iowa to the Dakotas to Minnesota and Wisconsin, fanned by radio soybean reports and Lutheran clerics in fiery pancake breakfast sermons. Soon, enraged farm wives, clad in their traditional sweater vests and Disney jackets, had taken to the streets and begun a wild spree of destruction, overturning hundreds of rusty Blazers and Pontiac Grand Ams and hurling flaming Lladro porcelain figurines. Decorah was particularly hard-hit, as a frenzied throng of ululating Iowa women were seen looting needlepoint geese and rabbit tchotchkes from a Victorian craft shop. In a chilling moment caught on Army night vision cameras, their plus-size leader urges the mob to attack the near-by Pamida.
“Ya, you betcha!” came the chant of her enraged coreligionist.
After battling back the women with volleys of teargas and Land’s End catalogs, a detachment of California reservists finally quelled the riot early Sunday morning, and attended to the injured.
Fake But Not Completely Implausible
As soldiers patrolled the streets of Decorah, Faribault and La Crosse Sunday, Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker issued a surprising, terse clarification of the original story, saying that the magazine could “no longer vouch for every detail of the story, including the brand of lye used, the number of soldiers and prisoners present, or possibly whether any of it actually happened.”
Whitaker, however, declined to retract the story, saying that the magazine was “standing behind its essential plausibility.”
“Obviously, if it causes thousands of native gals go on a berserk looting rampage, there’s got to be something believable in there somewhere,” said Whitaker. “Obviously, it’s now up to the Administration and the DoD to disprove these charges, once they finish cleaning up the carnage.”
In a later and terser clarification, Whitaker said that the magazine’s anonymous source could no longer remember whether he had ever been to Iowa, was in the military, or knew how to pronounce ‘lutefisk.’ In a still-later, and yet-terser clarification, Whitaker finally retracted the story after revealing that its anonymous source was Kippy, Michael Isikoff’s imaginary childhood friend.
“This is a really unfortunate accident for everybody,” said Whitaker. “But let’s not forget the real victims here – Newsweek, Mike Isikoff, and especially Kippy.”
While retracting the Okoboji accusations, Whitaker said Newsweek stood by the original article’s final two sentences, “Boo-yah! In your FACE, Chimpy!”
Despite the Newsweek’s humiliating public retraction of the controversial lutefisk abuse charges, tensions remain high across the upper Midwest. Many here discount the retraction as being coerced by White House “crusaders,” and believe that other abuses are being covered up at Okoboji.
“Oh yahh, I tell ya what, dere’s a lotta bad stuff goin’ on in dat outfit over dere,” said a young Decorah cleric who identified himself only as ‘Pastor Doug.’ “I heard dem infidels are switchin’ da prisoner’s Leinies with Schlitz.”
ChronWatch Writers' Blog: "Tom Delay: You May Be Surprised!
'Ever since he was a young man, he and his wife have taken in foster kids. Not just little kids — older kids — sometimes what others call 'dangerous kids.' He gives them a good home and good opportunities and, for many, they go on to form a good life.
He did the same for harassed Jewish families during the height of the Soviet Union. Some he helped secret out.
He forced a Republican president to talk about them, save them and ultimately free them.
At one point, this born-again Christian even helped arrange a Passover Seder for a Jewish family that had never had the privilege.
He's helped minority-owned businesses cut through red tape and have a fighting chance and helped others get the government off their back so they could get on their feet.
He gives a lot to charity, but tells those charities not to say a word about who's the one giving.
He comes from a party that many say is all about the rich, but most of the time he devotes himself to helping the poorest of the poor.
He's given unwed mothers a chance and those from broken homes a hope. You might know him.
His name is Tom DeLay.'
(From the Common Sense segment of Your World With Neil Cavuto, May 16, 2005)"
'Ever since he was a young man, he and his wife have taken in foster kids. Not just little kids — older kids — sometimes what others call 'dangerous kids.' He gives them a good home and good opportunities and, for many, they go on to form a good life.
He did the same for harassed Jewish families during the height of the Soviet Union. Some he helped secret out.
He forced a Republican president to talk about them, save them and ultimately free them.
At one point, this born-again Christian even helped arrange a Passover Seder for a Jewish family that had never had the privilege.
He's helped minority-owned businesses cut through red tape and have a fighting chance and helped others get the government off their back so they could get on their feet.
He gives a lot to charity, but tells those charities not to say a word about who's the one giving.
He comes from a party that many say is all about the rich, but most of the time he devotes himself to helping the poorest of the poor.
He's given unwed mothers a chance and those from broken homes a hope. You might know him.
His name is Tom DeLay.'
(From the Common Sense segment of Your World With Neil Cavuto, May 16, 2005)"
Andrew C. McCarthy on Newsweek & Koran on National Review Online
Andrew C. McCarthy on Newsweek & Koran on National Review Online: "Someone alleges a Koran flushing and what do we do? We expect, accept, and silently tolerate militant Muslim savagery — lots of it. We become the hangin' judge for the imbeciles whose negligence 'triggered' the violence, but offer no judgment about the societal dysfunction that allows this grade of offense to trigger so cataclysmic a reaction. We hop on our high horses having culled from the Left's playbook the most politically correct palaver about the inviolable sanctity of Holy Islamic scripture (and never you mind those verses about annihilating the infidels — the ones being chanted by the killers). "
Michelle Malkin: IT'S NOT JUST NEWSWEEK
Michelle Malkin: IT'S NOT JUST NEWSWEEK: "IT'S NOT JUST NEWSWEEK"
Instapundit.com -: "SIGNS OF PROGRESS IN SYRIA?
Beset by U.S. attempts to isolate his country and facing popular expectations of change, Syrian President Bashar Assad will move to begin legalizing political parties, purge the ruling Baath Party, sponsor free municipal elections in 2007 and formally endorse a market economy, according to officials, diplomats and analysts. . . .
Emboldened opposition leaders, many of whom openly support pressure by the United States even if they mistrust its intentions, said the measures were the last gasp of a government staggering after its hasty and embarrassing troop withdrawal last month from neighboring Lebanon.
The debate over the changes comes during a remarkable surge in what constitutes dissent in this country of 18 million. For the first time in years, opposition figures and even government allies are openly speculating on the fate of a party that, in some fashion, has ruled Syria since 1963 in the name of Arab nationalism, and today faces perhaps its greatest crisis."
Beset by U.S. attempts to isolate his country and facing popular expectations of change, Syrian President Bashar Assad will move to begin legalizing political parties, purge the ruling Baath Party, sponsor free municipal elections in 2007 and formally endorse a market economy, according to officials, diplomats and analysts. . . .
Emboldened opposition leaders, many of whom openly support pressure by the United States even if they mistrust its intentions, said the measures were the last gasp of a government staggering after its hasty and embarrassing troop withdrawal last month from neighboring Lebanon.
The debate over the changes comes during a remarkable surge in what constitutes dissent in this country of 18 million. For the first time in years, opposition figures and even government allies are openly speculating on the fate of a party that, in some fashion, has ruled Syria since 1963 in the name of Arab nationalism, and today faces perhaps its greatest crisis."
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Fire and Ice, a poem
Fire and Ice” by: Robert Frost
Some say the world will end in fire;
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Some say the world will end in fire;
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
"Greenbacks and 'Wetbacks': Mexico's Northern Strategy" by Robert Klein�Engler
"Greenbacks and 'Wetbacks': Mexico's Northern Strategy" by Robert Klein�Engler: "By carrying out its Northern Strategy unopposed, the Mexican government commits an act of slow and dispersed terrorism against the U. S. Besides the personal cost of this terrorism to our citizens, Columbia University economists David Weinstein and Donald Davis estimate the net economic losses to the nation from illegal immigration is $68 billion a year. If the immediate short term cost of the September 11th attacks on the WTC are estimated to be $27.2 billion, then the losses from illegal immigration are more that twice that much.
George Washington never promised the United States would last forever. If we have 11 million illegal immigrants in our midst, and more than half of them are unwitting Mexican agents with no desire to assimilate, then we do not have to wait for a sudden 9/11 terror attack to happen again. Coatlicue awakens. The cultural divide widens. Another catastrophe is already upon us."
George Washington never promised the United States would last forever. If we have 11 million illegal immigrants in our midst, and more than half of them are unwitting Mexican agents with no desire to assimilate, then we do not have to wait for a sudden 9/11 terror attack to happen again. Coatlicue awakens. The cultural divide widens. Another catastrophe is already upon us."
blood-for-oil-
A Western Heart: "Saddam Hussein rewarded Russia with oil for protecting Iraq from key British and American initiatives in the UN Security Council, US Senate investigators believe.
The Senate Permanent Sub-Committee on Investigations found evidence that the Russian presidential administration and the political party that backs President Vladimir Putin were among those paid off with oil allocations in what Iraqi officials knew as the 'Saddam bribery system'.
At one point, Saddam gave Russia additional oil and food contracts under the UN's oil-for-food scheme, specifically to 'show gratitude' to Moscow for vetoing a plan by the US to crack down on cross-border smuggling by Iraq, the report says.
Russia was also rewarded for derailing a British and American plan to restrict Iraqi oil sales to an approved list of recognised oil traders."
The Senate Permanent Sub-Committee on Investigations found evidence that the Russian presidential administration and the political party that backs President Vladimir Putin were among those paid off with oil allocations in what Iraqi officials knew as the 'Saddam bribery system'.
At one point, Saddam gave Russia additional oil and food contracts under the UN's oil-for-food scheme, specifically to 'show gratitude' to Moscow for vetoing a plan by the US to crack down on cross-border smuggling by Iraq, the report says.
Russia was also rewarded for derailing a British and American plan to restrict Iraqi oil sales to an approved list of recognised oil traders."
Torture advocate
Torture advocate on refugee tribunal | BN Victoria | Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au (17-05-2005): "Torture advocate on refugee tribunal
May 17, 2005
From: AAP
A MELBOURNE professor who advocates torturing terrorism suspects revealed today he is also a member of the Refugee Review Tribunal and a lecturer in human rights law.
Professor Mirko Bagaric today defended his controversial paper, entitled Not enough (official) torture in the world?.
The former Victorian policeman argues that torture is justifiable 'when it is the only means possible in order to avert a moral catastrophe'.
'I would only condone it in the rarest of circumstances and certainly not as your garden variety interrogation or punitive technique,' he said on ABC radio today.
Professor Bagaric said he was not an authority on torture methods, but also said the preferred form of torture should be sticking needles under people's fingernails to cause excruciating pain.
He insisted his views did not conflict with his role on the tribunal.
But The Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture director Paris Aristotle said it was 'terrifying' that a person in Professor Bagaric's position held such views.
'Our clients, survivors of torture and trauma – women, men, young children – have all been tortured by regimes that use a similar theoretical base to justify their actions,' Mr Aristotle said.
'What happened in Iraq under Saddam, Hussein, what happened in Central America what's happened in countries throughout Africa, all of those regimes have used the natural extension of the arguments in Professor Mirko Bagaric's paper,' he told ABC radio.
'We would have great concerns if he were allowed to continue to hear any of the cases that our clients were presenting with.
'It would be very difficult for someone who had been tortured to feel safe and secure that their experiences were going to be treated in the manner that they would hope that they would be treated, if the person they were in front of had in fact mounted a very strong case for torture.'
Mr Aristotle said the academic's arguments were 'superficial and shallow' and relied on hypotheticals.
'The problem with that is that there's a great disparity between that as a theory and what happens in the real world where none of those elements are in fact secure and the guarantees simply do not exist.'
Victorian Premier Steve Bracks said although he had not read the whole paper, on face value he did not think it was acceptable.
'On face value it seems like a provocative stance to take, doesn't it?' he said."
May 17, 2005
From: AAP
A MELBOURNE professor who advocates torturing terrorism suspects revealed today he is also a member of the Refugee Review Tribunal and a lecturer in human rights law.
Professor Mirko Bagaric today defended his controversial paper, entitled Not enough (official) torture in the world?.
The former Victorian policeman argues that torture is justifiable 'when it is the only means possible in order to avert a moral catastrophe'.
'I would only condone it in the rarest of circumstances and certainly not as your garden variety interrogation or punitive technique,' he said on ABC radio today.
Professor Bagaric said he was not an authority on torture methods, but also said the preferred form of torture should be sticking needles under people's fingernails to cause excruciating pain.
He insisted his views did not conflict with his role on the tribunal.
But The Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture director Paris Aristotle said it was 'terrifying' that a person in Professor Bagaric's position held such views.
'Our clients, survivors of torture and trauma – women, men, young children – have all been tortured by regimes that use a similar theoretical base to justify their actions,' Mr Aristotle said.
'What happened in Iraq under Saddam, Hussein, what happened in Central America what's happened in countries throughout Africa, all of those regimes have used the natural extension of the arguments in Professor Mirko Bagaric's paper,' he told ABC radio.
'We would have great concerns if he were allowed to continue to hear any of the cases that our clients were presenting with.
'It would be very difficult for someone who had been tortured to feel safe and secure that their experiences were going to be treated in the manner that they would hope that they would be treated, if the person they were in front of had in fact mounted a very strong case for torture.'
Mr Aristotle said the academic's arguments were 'superficial and shallow' and relied on hypotheticals.
'The problem with that is that there's a great disparity between that as a theory and what happens in the real world where none of those elements are in fact secure and the guarantees simply do not exist.'
Victorian Premier Steve Bracks said although he had not read the whole paper, on face value he did not think it was acceptable.
'On face value it seems like a provocative stance to take, doesn't it?' he said."
Monday, May 16, 2005
Power Line: Trouble At Turtle Bay
Power Line: Trouble At Turtle Bay: "My column for the Weekly Standard has been posted: 'Trouble At Turtle Bay'. As much as the U.N. has been in the news lately, it is remarkable how little attention has been paid to the organization's proposed $1.2 billion headquarters renovation project, to be financed by American taxpayers. The funny thing--well, not so funny in view of the U.N.'s history--is that no one can figure out why the project should cost even half that much money. Donald Trump says there are only two possible explanations for the U.N.'s budget: fraud and incompetence. Read all about it, the U.N. scandal that hasn't yet hit the radar screen, but should, and soon."
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Rich/ Poor a perspective
The New Vintage: "The Affluent and Their Bubble
Thomas Sowell has a very interesting piece up about why those that are born with a silver spoon in their mouth are more likely to complain about income distribution and less likely to be grateful about their fortunes.
Here's the dead on quote:
Once you have ever had to go hungry, it is hard to get worked up over the fact that some people can only afford pizza while others can afford caviar. Once you have ever had to walk to work from Harlem to a factory south of the Brooklyn Bridge, the difference between driving a Honda and driving a Lexus seems kind of petty as well.
Would a poverty-stricken peasant in Bangladesh find the difference between the average American's standard of living and that of a millionaire to be something to get excited about? If he had a choice between a certainty of getting the first and one chance in two of getting the second, would he take the risk to go for a million bucks? I doubt it.
When you grow up rich (I imagine), you see other 'less priveleged' people driving a Toyota and feel bad for them. But the person driving the Toyota is most likely saying to themselves, 'Thank goodness I can drive a Toyota and not have to walk five miles to the train station'. Those with less money are perhaps more aware of how life could be much worse, and therefore don't take things for granted.
Sowell goes on to talk about how those that are more affluent tend to take a greater interest in the environment. Another money quote:
Environmentalism is another of the playgrounds of the affluent and the wealthy. 'Nature' is wonderful when you can look out on it from your luxury cabin in the woods or from your upscale digs at the shore.
Roughing it in the wild is great when you know that, if something goes wrong, a helicopter can come in and lift you to safety or to a hospital, as the case may be. This is what might be called artificial nature or the illusion of nature.
Again, it's that basic survival instinct. It's easy to worry about the environment and then reprimand other people for not caring enough, when you have your basic needs, plus, let's say, two hundred dollar opera tickets. But, when you need that money for gas and your kids' education, you're just not going to sweat about having enough trees in our forests.
Read the whole thing. Trust moi.
"
Thomas Sowell has a very interesting piece up about why those that are born with a silver spoon in their mouth are more likely to complain about income distribution and less likely to be grateful about their fortunes.
Here's the dead on quote:
Once you have ever had to go hungry, it is hard to get worked up over the fact that some people can only afford pizza while others can afford caviar. Once you have ever had to walk to work from Harlem to a factory south of the Brooklyn Bridge, the difference between driving a Honda and driving a Lexus seems kind of petty as well.
Would a poverty-stricken peasant in Bangladesh find the difference between the average American's standard of living and that of a millionaire to be something to get excited about? If he had a choice between a certainty of getting the first and one chance in two of getting the second, would he take the risk to go for a million bucks? I doubt it.
When you grow up rich (I imagine), you see other 'less priveleged' people driving a Toyota and feel bad for them. But the person driving the Toyota is most likely saying to themselves, 'Thank goodness I can drive a Toyota and not have to walk five miles to the train station'. Those with less money are perhaps more aware of how life could be much worse, and therefore don't take things for granted.
Sowell goes on to talk about how those that are more affluent tend to take a greater interest in the environment. Another money quote:
Environmentalism is another of the playgrounds of the affluent and the wealthy. 'Nature' is wonderful when you can look out on it from your luxury cabin in the woods or from your upscale digs at the shore.
Roughing it in the wild is great when you know that, if something goes wrong, a helicopter can come in and lift you to safety or to a hospital, as the case may be. This is what might be called artificial nature or the illusion of nature.
Again, it's that basic survival instinct. It's easy to worry about the environment and then reprimand other people for not caring enough, when you have your basic needs, plus, let's say, two hundred dollar opera tickets. But, when you need that money for gas and your kids' education, you're just not going to sweat about having enough trees in our forests.
Read the whole thing. Trust moi.
"
"Stop Apologizing to Islam" by Barbara J.�Stock
"Stop Apologizing to Islam" by Barbara J.�Stock
Stop Apologizing to Islam
Written by Barbara J. Stock
Sunday, May 15, 2005
We Americans need to get our priorities straight. We are at war with Islam. I want President Bush, Secretary Rice, the media, and the bleeding-heart liberals to stop apologizing to Islam and I want it to stop right now. Islamists are slaughtering people all over the world. Islam has threatened to make our streets “run red with American blood.” A Saudi Islamic cleric gave bin Laden permission to detonate a nuke in a major American city. Enough already!
What has set off the latest round of breast-beating and begging for Islamic forgiveness? Allegedly, the Quran was urinated on, or placed on a toilet or something. Newsweek couldn’t wait to report this non-story knowing it would trigger anti-American riots and give the Islamic propaganda machine fodder for weeks to come. In fact, if Islam has any pattern, people will die because of these still unproven allegations. Once again, the sins of Islamists will be on the back page as we Americans scramble to be forgiven by Islam.
Look for more kidnappings that will be followed by the obligatory beheadings of innocent people so that “Islamic honor” can be restored. As we have all learned, only the death of someone not even remotely involved in whatever it is Islamists are enraged about, restores Islam’s “honor.” These beheadings will be video taped and gleefully shown on Al Jazeera every five minutes. In fact, four Afghani men have already died because of that report. Good job, Newsweek.
What has happened to this country? Four months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle and his raiders launched an attack on mainland Japan. That raid had one purpose and one purpose only: To humiliate the Japanese and let them clearly know they had picked a fight with the wrong dog. Did Franklin Delano Roosevelt “apologize” for the attack? Of course not! He approved the raid.
On December 7, 1941, 2,403 men died at Pearl Harbor. On September 11, 2001, 2,948 people died with 48 still missing and presumed dead for a total of 2,996 on American soil. Pearl Harbor was at least a military target. The World Trade Center was not.
Now we are at war again. This time with an enemy that has no borders, no country, no government, and no recognizable army. Islam is an enemy that does not hesitate to kill innocent civilians. In fact, Islam prefers civilians because it fears our military. It’s much cheaper and easier to kill a child than a Marine.
Islam was not outraged as Saddam Hussain slaughtered his people. Islam was not outraged as the Taliban executed women for any number of imagined sins. Islam is silent as Iran stones 13-year-old girls to death. Islam is not outraged as thousands of young women die at the hands of their own families in brutal honor killings. Islam says nothing as its terrorist heroes butcher Iraqi Muslims on a daily basis.
What does it take to make a Muslim angry? Say something bad about Islam and you can lose your head. Drop the Quran in the dirt and you will be hanged. In Sudan, a hapless man named Mohamed Taha Mohamed Ahmed, dared speculate that Mohammed was not the son of Abdullah and is now on trial for blasphemy and he will probably be hanged. Mobs of foaming-at-the-mouth Muslims gather outside the courthouse demanding he be torn to bits for even thinking such a thing.
Put women’s underwear on a Muslim prisoner’s head and Islamists lose total control and riot in the streets outraged at the barbaric treatment of their “soldiers.” Islamic terrorists do not uphold a single word of the Geneva Convention. They beat, torture, and behead our prisoners, many of whom are not even soldiers. They desecrate bodies by burning them and hanging them from bridges, but touch that Quran and Islam loses its collective mind.
We are apologizing to these people?
Perhaps Americans need some reminders of some of the crimes that Islam has committed against America. It is in the name of Islam these attacks have been carried out and I hold Islam responsible because it is Islam that has raised these terrorists to hero status.
On the orders of Yassar Arafat the American embassy was attacked in March of 1973 and two diplomats were killed and others were held hostage. Arafat demanded the freedom of fellow Muslim Sirhan Sirhan, in prison for killing Robert Kennedy.
A few months later, in Athens, three Americans were killed and 55 injured as Islamic terrorists threw grenades and machine-gunned civilians waiting for a flight to New York.
In 1983, 17 Americans died when Islamists blew up a car in front of the embassy in Lebanon. Four more Americans died when the American embassy in Kuwait was attacked that same year.
Returning to the American embassy in Lebanon in 1984, 24 more Americans died when yet another car bomb went off outside the embassy.
The year 1985 brought death to five Americans in Rome with 74 wounded in an Islamic attack at the airport. Also in 1985, Americans got their first glimpse into the soul of the enemy when Islamic terrorists took over the cruise ship Achilles Lauro and shot a crippled American Jew in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, and then pushed him overboard.
In May, 1987, the U.S.S. Stark was attacked by an Iraqi fighter plane and 37 American sailors died.
Libya blew up a Pan Am flight over Scotland killing 189 Americans on their way home for Christmas.
Eighteen American soldiers died in Somalia in 1993 and six Americans died in the first World Trade Center bombing with over a thousand injured.
At 9:03 on the morning of April 19, 1995, a Ryder truck blew up in front of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. On that spring day 168 people died—many of them small children. This classic Islamic attack was quickly blamed on two “home-grown” terrorists. This case is in the process of being re-examined due to overwhelming evidence that al Qaeda and possibly Saddam Hussain were involved.
In 1996, 19 Americans died when Islamists blew up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Also in 1996 there was the mysterious downing of TWA Flight 800. There were 169 Americans on board.
August 7, 1997 was the last day on earth for 23 Americans who were at the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.
The year 2000 brought the attack on the U.S.S. Cole that killed 17 American sailors.
This, of course, brings us to the attack on September 11, 2001. There have been many more attacks leading up to that horrible day and not once has Islam apologized.
I hear, “We don’t want to sink to the Islamists’ level.” I don’t want to hear that any more either. There is absolutely no comparison to be made. Islamic prisoners are fed, clothed, and allowed to practice the very religion that has sworn to kill us all. I don’t hear any Islamic outrage over the hostage beheadings or Iraqi children being targeted by Islamic butchers. I didn’t hear a peep of anger when a British imam said children were legitimate targets for Islam.
Islam seems to have no limit to the evil it will inflict on others. Because of this, Islam has lost all rights to protest an imagined injustice inflicted on it.
About the Writer: Barbara J. Stock is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events. She has a website at http://www.republicanandproud.com/. Barbara J. receives e-mail at dickens502003@yahoo.com.
Stop Apologizing to Islam
Written by Barbara J. Stock
Sunday, May 15, 2005
We Americans need to get our priorities straight. We are at war with Islam. I want President Bush, Secretary Rice, the media, and the bleeding-heart liberals to stop apologizing to Islam and I want it to stop right now. Islamists are slaughtering people all over the world. Islam has threatened to make our streets “run red with American blood.” A Saudi Islamic cleric gave bin Laden permission to detonate a nuke in a major American city. Enough already!
What has set off the latest round of breast-beating and begging for Islamic forgiveness? Allegedly, the Quran was urinated on, or placed on a toilet or something. Newsweek couldn’t wait to report this non-story knowing it would trigger anti-American riots and give the Islamic propaganda machine fodder for weeks to come. In fact, if Islam has any pattern, people will die because of these still unproven allegations. Once again, the sins of Islamists will be on the back page as we Americans scramble to be forgiven by Islam.
Look for more kidnappings that will be followed by the obligatory beheadings of innocent people so that “Islamic honor” can be restored. As we have all learned, only the death of someone not even remotely involved in whatever it is Islamists are enraged about, restores Islam’s “honor.” These beheadings will be video taped and gleefully shown on Al Jazeera every five minutes. In fact, four Afghani men have already died because of that report. Good job, Newsweek.
What has happened to this country? Four months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle and his raiders launched an attack on mainland Japan. That raid had one purpose and one purpose only: To humiliate the Japanese and let them clearly know they had picked a fight with the wrong dog. Did Franklin Delano Roosevelt “apologize” for the attack? Of course not! He approved the raid.
On December 7, 1941, 2,403 men died at Pearl Harbor. On September 11, 2001, 2,948 people died with 48 still missing and presumed dead for a total of 2,996 on American soil. Pearl Harbor was at least a military target. The World Trade Center was not.
Now we are at war again. This time with an enemy that has no borders, no country, no government, and no recognizable army. Islam is an enemy that does not hesitate to kill innocent civilians. In fact, Islam prefers civilians because it fears our military. It’s much cheaper and easier to kill a child than a Marine.
Islam was not outraged as Saddam Hussain slaughtered his people. Islam was not outraged as the Taliban executed women for any number of imagined sins. Islam is silent as Iran stones 13-year-old girls to death. Islam is not outraged as thousands of young women die at the hands of their own families in brutal honor killings. Islam says nothing as its terrorist heroes butcher Iraqi Muslims on a daily basis.
What does it take to make a Muslim angry? Say something bad about Islam and you can lose your head. Drop the Quran in the dirt and you will be hanged. In Sudan, a hapless man named Mohamed Taha Mohamed Ahmed, dared speculate that Mohammed was not the son of Abdullah and is now on trial for blasphemy and he will probably be hanged. Mobs of foaming-at-the-mouth Muslims gather outside the courthouse demanding he be torn to bits for even thinking such a thing.
Put women’s underwear on a Muslim prisoner’s head and Islamists lose total control and riot in the streets outraged at the barbaric treatment of their “soldiers.” Islamic terrorists do not uphold a single word of the Geneva Convention. They beat, torture, and behead our prisoners, many of whom are not even soldiers. They desecrate bodies by burning them and hanging them from bridges, but touch that Quran and Islam loses its collective mind.
We are apologizing to these people?
Perhaps Americans need some reminders of some of the crimes that Islam has committed against America. It is in the name of Islam these attacks have been carried out and I hold Islam responsible because it is Islam that has raised these terrorists to hero status.
On the orders of Yassar Arafat the American embassy was attacked in March of 1973 and two diplomats were killed and others were held hostage. Arafat demanded the freedom of fellow Muslim Sirhan Sirhan, in prison for killing Robert Kennedy.
A few months later, in Athens, three Americans were killed and 55 injured as Islamic terrorists threw grenades and machine-gunned civilians waiting for a flight to New York.
In 1983, 17 Americans died when Islamists blew up a car in front of the embassy in Lebanon. Four more Americans died when the American embassy in Kuwait was attacked that same year.
Returning to the American embassy in Lebanon in 1984, 24 more Americans died when yet another car bomb went off outside the embassy.
The year 1985 brought death to five Americans in Rome with 74 wounded in an Islamic attack at the airport. Also in 1985, Americans got their first glimpse into the soul of the enemy when Islamic terrorists took over the cruise ship Achilles Lauro and shot a crippled American Jew in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, and then pushed him overboard.
In May, 1987, the U.S.S. Stark was attacked by an Iraqi fighter plane and 37 American sailors died.
Libya blew up a Pan Am flight over Scotland killing 189 Americans on their way home for Christmas.
Eighteen American soldiers died in Somalia in 1993 and six Americans died in the first World Trade Center bombing with over a thousand injured.
At 9:03 on the morning of April 19, 1995, a Ryder truck blew up in front of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. On that spring day 168 people died—many of them small children. This classic Islamic attack was quickly blamed on two “home-grown” terrorists. This case is in the process of being re-examined due to overwhelming evidence that al Qaeda and possibly Saddam Hussain were involved.
In 1996, 19 Americans died when Islamists blew up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Also in 1996 there was the mysterious downing of TWA Flight 800. There were 169 Americans on board.
August 7, 1997 was the last day on earth for 23 Americans who were at the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.
The year 2000 brought the attack on the U.S.S. Cole that killed 17 American sailors.
This, of course, brings us to the attack on September 11, 2001. There have been many more attacks leading up to that horrible day and not once has Islam apologized.
I hear, “We don’t want to sink to the Islamists’ level.” I don’t want to hear that any more either. There is absolutely no comparison to be made. Islamic prisoners are fed, clothed, and allowed to practice the very religion that has sworn to kill us all. I don’t hear any Islamic outrage over the hostage beheadings or Iraqi children being targeted by Islamic butchers. I didn’t hear a peep of anger when a British imam said children were legitimate targets for Islam.
Islam seems to have no limit to the evil it will inflict on others. Because of this, Islam has lost all rights to protest an imagined injustice inflicted on it.
About the Writer: Barbara J. Stock is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events. She has a website at http://www.republicanandproud.com/. Barbara J. receives e-mail at dickens502003@yahoo.com.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Friday, May 13, 2005
Power Line: Something I didn't know about Tom DeLay
Power Line: Something I didn't know about Tom DeLay: "Last night, I attended a banquet in honor of Tom DeLay. Mike Krempasky was there too. Mike relates what to me the most moving part of the event, a tribute to the Majority Leader by Russian Jewish immigrant Ena Feinberg:
After attempting to leave the USSR in 1979 and being denied, fired, and blacklisted - the Feinberg family by sheer chance caught the attention of Tom Delay. Tom and Christine Delay adopted the Feinbergs and fought for YEARS to secure their right to escape opression and live in freedom. Six or seven years after first trying to leave, the Feinbergs were visited by Tom and Christine Delay - traveling on tourist visas with no official capacity. Mrs. Feinberg told a powerful tale of the Delays (evangelical Christians themselves) bringing with them everything needed for a seder meal. And with the Delay's help, the Feinbergs celebrated the first seder meal ever held in their own home. Tom Delay helped them escape the Soviet Union in 1987."
After attempting to leave the USSR in 1979 and being denied, fired, and blacklisted - the Feinberg family by sheer chance caught the attention of Tom Delay. Tom and Christine Delay adopted the Feinbergs and fought for YEARS to secure their right to escape opression and live in freedom. Six or seven years after first trying to leave, the Feinbergs were visited by Tom and Christine Delay - traveling on tourist visas with no official capacity. Mrs. Feinberg told a powerful tale of the Delays (evangelical Christians themselves) bringing with them everything needed for a seder meal. And with the Delay's help, the Feinbergs celebrated the first seder meal ever held in their own home. Tom Delay helped them escape the Soviet Union in 1987."
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Weapon of Mass Distraction
Weapon of Mass Distraction: "The pigs are dying from a strain of human virus created from the Spanish flu–a virus that doesn’t exist in nature. Somebody took the virus from its natural habitat, a laboratory freezer, and inserted it into the pigs.
Accident? Bioweapon test? Terror event? We just don’t know."
Accident? Bioweapon test? Terror event? We just don’t know."
Power Line: Where's That Video Tape?
Power Line: Where's That Video Tape?Today's hottest media story relates to a CBS News report on the judicial filibuster by Gloria Borger that aired Monday night. The segment included an interview with Ken Starr, in which Starr, seemingly in reference to the Republicans' effort to end the filibuster, said: "This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government." You can watch the CBS report here. The two Starr quotes are the main feature of the segment; what is most interesting to me is Bob Schieffer's reaction: he clearly understood Starr to be talking about the Republican effort in the above quote.
Only he wasn't. Starr learned of how CBS had edited his interview, and has made public an email in which he wrote:
I sat on Saturday with Gloria Borger for 20 minutes approximately, had a wide ranging, on-camera discussion. In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather has been lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure from our history' snippet was specifically addressed to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice and that employed viciously against your father with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process as numerous Republicans voted, rightly, to confirm a former ACLU staff worker. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer but they voted -- again rightly -- to confirm her.
As we have noted repeatedly, the mainstream media have pulled out all the stops to support the Democrats on the filibuster. This, though, would appear to be over the line. It is also being reported that Starr has asked for a copy of the video of his interview and been turned down by CBS, but I haven't yet seen that in writing anywhere. I don't know, maybe there is an innocent reason why CBS wouldn't want to give up the tape; maybe they sent it to Davos for safekeeping.
Only he wasn't. Starr learned of how CBS had edited his interview, and has made public an email in which he wrote:
I sat on Saturday with Gloria Borger for 20 minutes approximately, had a wide ranging, on-camera discussion. In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather has been lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure from our history' snippet was specifically addressed to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice and that employed viciously against your father with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process as numerous Republicans voted, rightly, to confirm a former ACLU staff worker. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer but they voted -- again rightly -- to confirm her.
As we have noted repeatedly, the mainstream media have pulled out all the stops to support the Democrats on the filibuster. This, though, would appear to be over the line. It is also being reported that Starr has asked for a copy of the video of his interview and been turned down by CBS, but I haven't yet seen that in writing anywhere. I don't know, maybe there is an innocent reason why CBS wouldn't want to give up the tape; maybe they sent it to Davos for safekeeping.
What a story from no left turns
No Left Turns Archive: "The Marines
I took a young man to an Armed Forces recruiting station yesterday to meet with an Air Force recruiter. He had made the appointment, and just wanted to hear the recruiter talk about the Air Force and why he should consider signing up. The young man, let’s call him John, has been thinking about joining up for a while, and--for reasons I can’t quite fathom--showed interest in the Air Force. The twenty minute conversation went like this. The recruiter began by saying that there are great educational benefits (it turns out that all the branches have the same educational benefits). And finally, when pressed as to why a young man should consider the Air Force over another branch of the military, the fellow said this (my paraphrase is close to a quote): 'Being in the Air Force is least like being in the military. It feels more like a regular job, you come to work at eight, and you leave at five.' I could see that John wasn’t exactly swayed by this reasoning, so he had no more questions. We left his office, passing the Marine recruiter’s office on our way out.
We were both disappointed by the meeting. I asked John if he thought the Marine recruiter would talk the same way. He said he hoped not. I said, why don’t we find out? So we walked back inside into the Marine’s office. Clearly, we had interrupted him, but he saw us anyway. I asked him a simple question: 'Why should a young man consider joining the Marines over another branch?' This was his response (again, a close paraphrase):
'All the branches offer the same tangible benefits. But we offer the intangibles. Pride, honor, patriotism. When your signing bonus runs out after joining another branch, you still have to look yourself in the mirror every morning. I do that. And I see that I am the tip of the spear. We go in first, and we have been doing this since 1775. We are always ready. We protect our embassies abroad, and all the other hard work. We are Marines.'
The Lance Corporal kept talking, and our hearts were lifted. It was five o’clock exactly as the Air Force recruiter passed us in the hallway on his way home. Soon after that we had to put an end to the conversation--the Marine wanted to keep talking--and stepped out into the sunlight. Well, John, what do you think? That was more like it, said his faster beating heart. On our drive home, we heard a news report that over one hundred bad guys were killed in heavy fighting near the Syrian border, and three Marines met their maker. Good ratio, we said. My wet eyes made it hard to see the road ahead. "
I took a young man to an Armed Forces recruiting station yesterday to meet with an Air Force recruiter. He had made the appointment, and just wanted to hear the recruiter talk about the Air Force and why he should consider signing up. The young man, let’s call him John, has been thinking about joining up for a while, and--for reasons I can’t quite fathom--showed interest in the Air Force. The twenty minute conversation went like this. The recruiter began by saying that there are great educational benefits (it turns out that all the branches have the same educational benefits). And finally, when pressed as to why a young man should consider the Air Force over another branch of the military, the fellow said this (my paraphrase is close to a quote): 'Being in the Air Force is least like being in the military. It feels more like a regular job, you come to work at eight, and you leave at five.' I could see that John wasn’t exactly swayed by this reasoning, so he had no more questions. We left his office, passing the Marine recruiter’s office on our way out.
We were both disappointed by the meeting. I asked John if he thought the Marine recruiter would talk the same way. He said he hoped not. I said, why don’t we find out? So we walked back inside into the Marine’s office. Clearly, we had interrupted him, but he saw us anyway. I asked him a simple question: 'Why should a young man consider joining the Marines over another branch?' This was his response (again, a close paraphrase):
'All the branches offer the same tangible benefits. But we offer the intangibles. Pride, honor, patriotism. When your signing bonus runs out after joining another branch, you still have to look yourself in the mirror every morning. I do that. And I see that I am the tip of the spear. We go in first, and we have been doing this since 1775. We are always ready. We protect our embassies abroad, and all the other hard work. We are Marines.'
The Lance Corporal kept talking, and our hearts were lifted. It was five o’clock exactly as the Air Force recruiter passed us in the hallway on his way home. Soon after that we had to put an end to the conversation--the Marine wanted to keep talking--and stepped out into the sunlight. Well, John, what do you think? That was more like it, said his faster beating heart. On our drive home, we heard a news report that over one hundred bad guys were killed in heavy fighting near the Syrian border, and three Marines met their maker. Good ratio, we said. My wet eyes made it hard to see the road ahead. "
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
G W Bush Wise
Chrenkoff: "President Bush's foreign policy gets attacked from many different quarters. Realists off all political stripes argue that it is too idealist and too naive. The increasingly isolationist left deems Bush's foreign policy hypocritical (why Iraq, and not North Korea or China?) and too realist in a sense that underneath all the lofty rhetoric it is really motivated only by the base commercial and power-politics considerations like control of oil supplies.
In fact, Bush is a realistic idealist, or idealistic realist, and his foreign policy faithfully translates into cold hard realities of international politics a simple prayer attributed to the theologian Dr. Rheinhold Niebuhr. I'm sure you know it - framed, it adorns many a kitchen wall from Poland to Portland, or dangles from many key-chains around the world:
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
This is it, in essence: there's plenty we would want to do - every autocrat in the world deserves to be deposed and his people given freedom and democracy - but for various reasons we cannot make it happen everywhere at the same time, so for the moment we'll only pick those fights we can win.
Iraq took courage. North Korea and many other places require serenity. Fortunately, W has got the wisdom. "
In fact, Bush is a realistic idealist, or idealistic realist, and his foreign policy faithfully translates into cold hard realities of international politics a simple prayer attributed to the theologian Dr. Rheinhold Niebuhr. I'm sure you know it - framed, it adorns many a kitchen wall from Poland to Portland, or dangles from many key-chains around the world:
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
This is it, in essence: there's plenty we would want to do - every autocrat in the world deserves to be deposed and his people given freedom and democracy - but for various reasons we cannot make it happen everywhere at the same time, so for the moment we'll only pick those fights we can win.
Iraq took courage. North Korea and many other places require serenity. Fortunately, W has got the wisdom. "
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Peg and Joe's Retirement Home
Peg and Joe's Retirement Home
(click for larger view)
This came vacant on one of our old leases and I thought it would be appropriate for our retirement home. I worked several weekends (2) to completely remodel the inside. I haven't finished the paint job on the outside yet. I plan to paint it Geo. Washington green because of the amount I saved on the place. There are some places on the inside that won't pass Peggy's white glove inspection, but I think she will get accustomed to that and the 'oily' smell. What do you think?
Judicial crisis, Congressional Lying
from: Power Line: "Reporters Gone Wild
Reporters and commentators across the mainstream media are casting aside all restraint in their effort to help the Democrats preserve the filibuster, which, after being reviled by liberals for decades, has suddenly been revealed as one of the great pillars of democracy.
This morning's article by Jim VandeHei and Charles Babington in the Washington Post is one example among many. One could spend hours dissecting it, but two quick points will perhaps suffice. First, note how the Post's reporters frame the issue:
The president, who initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term and demanding new votes this year, is essentially guaranteeing a showdown that is as much about the power of the presidency as Democratic obstinacy, according to numerous government scholars.
Got that? This 'crisis' isn't the fault of the Democrats, who, for the first time in American history, are holding out for a 60-vote requirement to confirm judges. No, it's President Bush who 'initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term.' President Bush carried out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges; the Senate, however, failed to carry out its Constitutional duty to advise and consent to those nominations. Instead, the Democrats filibustered, and no action was taken on them. Why on earth would the President not renominate those judges? They haven't yet received a vote. The idea that the President 'initiated' this conflict simply by carrying out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges to the federal courts is ridiculous.
Then there is this outright falsehood, disguised as reporting:
At his news conference, Gonzales singled out for praise Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice who is a target of Democratic filibuster efforts. While serving alongside Owen in 2000, Gonzales wrote an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism' in seeking to restrict a minor's right to an abortion.
This is the chief Democratic Party talking point against Justice Owen, but, as we have already shown, not a word of it is true. Gonzales did not criticize Owen. She did not 'seek to restrict a minor's right to an abortion,' but rather voted to affirm the findings of fact made by the trial court, as previously affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals. And her opinion could not, under any conceivable legal theory, be construed as a manifestation of 'judicial activism.'
Weirdly, immediately after the above passage, the Post goes on to quote Gonzales, who said: 'I've never accused her of being an activist judge.' The reporters make no attempt to reconcile their statement with Gonzales'. However, given that they stated as a fact that Gonzales did 'wr[i]te an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism,'' an uninformed reader would pretty much have to conclude that Gonzales is lying.
This kind of advocacy journalism is typical of what the MSM is turning out on the issue of judicial appointments."
Reporters and commentators across the mainstream media are casting aside all restraint in their effort to help the Democrats preserve the filibuster, which, after being reviled by liberals for decades, has suddenly been revealed as one of the great pillars of democracy.
This morning's article by Jim VandeHei and Charles Babington in the Washington Post is one example among many. One could spend hours dissecting it, but two quick points will perhaps suffice. First, note how the Post's reporters frame the issue:
The president, who initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term and demanding new votes this year, is essentially guaranteeing a showdown that is as much about the power of the presidency as Democratic obstinacy, according to numerous government scholars.
Got that? This 'crisis' isn't the fault of the Democrats, who, for the first time in American history, are holding out for a 60-vote requirement to confirm judges. No, it's President Bush who 'initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term.' President Bush carried out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges; the Senate, however, failed to carry out its Constitutional duty to advise and consent to those nominations. Instead, the Democrats filibustered, and no action was taken on them. Why on earth would the President not renominate those judges? They haven't yet received a vote. The idea that the President 'initiated' this conflict simply by carrying out his Constitutional duty to appoint judges to the federal courts is ridiculous.
Then there is this outright falsehood, disguised as reporting:
At his news conference, Gonzales singled out for praise Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice who is a target of Democratic filibuster efforts. While serving alongside Owen in 2000, Gonzales wrote an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism' in seeking to restrict a minor's right to an abortion.
This is the chief Democratic Party talking point against Justice Owen, but, as we have already shown, not a word of it is true. Gonzales did not criticize Owen. She did not 'seek to restrict a minor's right to an abortion,' but rather voted to affirm the findings of fact made by the trial court, as previously affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals. And her opinion could not, under any conceivable legal theory, be construed as a manifestation of 'judicial activism.'
Weirdly, immediately after the above passage, the Post goes on to quote Gonzales, who said: 'I've never accused her of being an activist judge.' The reporters make no attempt to reconcile their statement with Gonzales'. However, given that they stated as a fact that Gonzales did 'wr[i]te an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for 'an unconscionable act of judicial activism,'' an uninformed reader would pretty much have to conclude that Gonzales is lying.
This kind of advocacy journalism is typical of what the MSM is turning out on the issue of judicial appointments."
Monday, May 09, 2005
This is the Laffer Curve
The Laffer Curve
"The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future" by Artur LafferThe Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future
The story of how the Laffer Curve got its name begins with a 1978 article by Jude Wanniski in The Public Interest entitled, "Taxes, Revenues, and the `Laffer Curve.'"1 As recounted by Wanniski (associate editor of The Wall Street Journal at the time), in December 1974, he had dinner with me (then professor at the University of Chicago), Donald Rumsfeld (Chief of Staff to President Gerald Ford), and Dick Cheney (Rumsfeld's deputy and my former classmate at Yale) at the Two Continents Restaurant at the Washington Hotel in Washington, D.C. While discussing President Ford's "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) proposal for tax increases, I supposedly grabbed my napkin and a pen and sketched a curve on the napkin illustrating the trade-off between tax rates and tax revenues. Wanniski named the trade-off "The Laffer Curve."
The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future
The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future: "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future" by Artur Laffer
Here is the full article of explanation of the Laffer Curve.
Here is the full article of explanation of the Laffer Curve.
U.S. Military Band Marches on Moscow
U.S. Military Band Marches on Moscow Unbelievable! Stars and Stripes forever in Moscow!
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Thursday, May 05, 2005
WorldNetDaily: David Hackworth dies of cancer, 74
WorldNetDaily: David Hackworth dies of cancer, 74: " WND David Hackworth RIP,
dies of cancer, 74
WND columnist, most decorated
Vietnam vet, advocate for soldiers"
dies of cancer, 74
WND columnist, most decorated
Vietnam vet, advocate for soldiers"
Lex Communis
Lex Communis: "The most important battle in American history.
CINCO De MAYO!!!
On May 5, 1862, at the Battle of Puebla, a rag-tag, outnumbered, ill-equipped band of Mexican irregulars defeated the cream of the French army, which under Napoleon III was considered to be the best in the world.
In 1862, things were not going well for President Lincoln. The bloodiest day of fighting at Shiloh inApril 1862, had discredited Ulysses Grant; the Pennisular Campaign was stalemated. The immediate future held Lee assuming command of the Army of Northern Virginia and Second Bull Run.
1862 could have seen French and British interest in intervention in the Civil War. The British would have benefitted from the elimination of the American blockade and the return of the cotton trade. The French.. well, the French are the French, and they would have seen the security of their Mexican holdings benefited from a weaker Northern neighbor.
In 1862, the French and the British could have intervened by recognizing the sovereignity of the Confederate States of America and by putting diplomatic pressure on the United States of America to negotiate a peace. That was certainly the strategy that the CSA was counting on. The shape of such an alternative future is at once oddly familiarand alien. Harry Turtledove - the Dean of Alternative History Science Fiction - has played with that scenario in a series of books that eventually pit a USA/German alliance against a CSA/British/French entente in a different version of World War I.
But it never happened, and the reason it didn't happen was because 4,000 Mexican irregulars defeated the cream of the best army of Europe, which dampened the interest of Europe in becoming involved in other North American interventions.
Viva Cinco de Mayo!
Peter Sean Bradley 11:36 AM"
CINCO De MAYO!!!
On May 5, 1862, at the Battle of Puebla, a rag-tag, outnumbered, ill-equipped band of Mexican irregulars defeated the cream of the French army, which under Napoleon III was considered to be the best in the world.
In 1862, things were not going well for President Lincoln. The bloodiest day of fighting at Shiloh inApril 1862, had discredited Ulysses Grant; the Pennisular Campaign was stalemated. The immediate future held Lee assuming command of the Army of Northern Virginia and Second Bull Run.
1862 could have seen French and British interest in intervention in the Civil War. The British would have benefitted from the elimination of the American blockade and the return of the cotton trade. The French.. well, the French are the French, and they would have seen the security of their Mexican holdings benefited from a weaker Northern neighbor.
In 1862, the French and the British could have intervened by recognizing the sovereignity of the Confederate States of America and by putting diplomatic pressure on the United States of America to negotiate a peace. That was certainly the strategy that the CSA was counting on. The shape of such an alternative future is at once oddly familiarand alien. Harry Turtledove - the Dean of Alternative History Science Fiction - has played with that scenario in a series of books that eventually pit a USA/German alliance against a CSA/British/French entente in a different version of World War I.
But it never happened, and the reason it didn't happen was because 4,000 Mexican irregulars defeated the cream of the best army of Europe, which dampened the interest of Europe in becoming involved in other North American interventions.
Viva Cinco de Mayo!
Peter Sean Bradley 11:36 AM"
Gut Rumbles: if you could read my mind
Gut Rumbles: if you could read my mind: "If you could read my mind
CHECK OUT THIS DREAM!
I would break this machine. Hook ME up to it and I would manage to short-circuit every program it had. I can't even read my OWN mind.
I dream vividly and tumoultously. My subconscious mind is a playful creature and it likes to be turned loose to run free at night. Last night, I dreamed that dimes were falling from the sky and I was finding them everywhere I looked. I kept picking up dimes and sticking them in my pockets until my clothes were bulging. I kept finding more dimes.
I woke up nekkid in bed and realized that I didn't have a small fortune stuffed into my pockets. I didn't even have any pockets.
Why the hell did I dream about THAT? Why dimes? Why not $20 bills? Why not $100 bills? If I'm going to dream about gathering riches for free, my subconscious mind should aim a little higher than a tall stack of dimes.
But that's the kind of stuff my brain does at night."
CHECK OUT THIS DREAM!
I would break this machine. Hook ME up to it and I would manage to short-circuit every program it had. I can't even read my OWN mind.
I dream vividly and tumoultously. My subconscious mind is a playful creature and it likes to be turned loose to run free at night. Last night, I dreamed that dimes were falling from the sky and I was finding them everywhere I looked. I kept picking up dimes and sticking them in my pockets until my clothes were bulging. I kept finding more dimes.
I woke up nekkid in bed and realized that I didn't have a small fortune stuffed into my pockets. I didn't even have any pockets.
Why the hell did I dream about THAT? Why dimes? Why not $20 bills? Why not $100 bills? If I'm going to dream about gathering riches for free, my subconscious mind should aim a little higher than a tall stack of dimes.
But that's the kind of stuff my brain does at night."
Ace of Spades HQ
Ace of Spades HQ: "Annan Oil-For-Food Docs Handed Over to Congress
... by a man who is most definitely slicin' like an f'n' hammer, FBI agent Robert Parton.
Documents involving actions taken by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in the Oil-for-Food investigation were handed over to Congress on Wednesday night, FOX News has learned.
The documents were given to federal lawmakers by Robert Parton, a former senior investigator on the Independent Inquiry Committee probing the $64 billion program.
Parton and Miranda Duncan (search), who both resigned from the panel last month in protest, have accused the IIC of downplaying Annan's role in the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal in an interim report released by the panel last March.
The documents were handed over after Parton was issued a subpoena by the House International Relations Committee on Friday night. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, earlier was preparing subpoenas to force Parton and Duncan to testify. It was expected that those subpoenas could be issued as early as Thursday.
Congress has been trying to talk to Parton ever since his resignation two weeks ago. Last week, IIC head Paul Volcker tried to block such efforts by insisting that Parton and Duncan, both Americans, had diplomatic immunity.
And to trot out the same joke again: His claim of 'diplomatic immunity' seems to be doing him as much good as it did Joss Ackland at the end of Lethal Weapon 2.
Chris Shays, who, you know, is just about the biggest pussy in the f'n' world, whines that Parton's cooperation with Congress will undermine amity between the blah blah blah blah blah.
Who gives a shit what Chris Shays thinks?
The best part:
Parton's attorney then wrote to the United Nations and to Volcker asking if they would instruct Parton to defy a Congressional subpoena.
When both the United Nations and the Volcker committee refused to answer, Parton took action and, on Wednesday night, handed over the boxes of documents to a congressional committee.
Hee, hee. 'Put it in print that you want me to defy a Congressional subpoena in order to further a cover-up of the greatest dollar-amount swindle in human history. Put that in print, sign it, and send it to me. And then I'll think about it.'
Robert Parton is on f'n' fire. Damn, I wish I had a Top Ten in me.
Thanks to Andy the Squirrel.
Obligatory Pat O'Brien Reference Update: Andy the Squirrel also offers:
'I don't normally do this. I don't know what's wrong with me. But. I. Want. to go CRAZY. With your oil. Let's do it. Let's get some barrels, let's get some money. But you gotta pay attention to Kojo. Kojo gets very jealous. If you're down with this, just wink.'"
... by a man who is most definitely slicin' like an f'n' hammer, FBI agent Robert Parton.
Documents involving actions taken by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in the Oil-for-Food investigation were handed over to Congress on Wednesday night, FOX News has learned.
The documents were given to federal lawmakers by Robert Parton, a former senior investigator on the Independent Inquiry Committee probing the $64 billion program.
Parton and Miranda Duncan (search), who both resigned from the panel last month in protest, have accused the IIC of downplaying Annan's role in the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal in an interim report released by the panel last March.
The documents were handed over after Parton was issued a subpoena by the House International Relations Committee on Friday night. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, earlier was preparing subpoenas to force Parton and Duncan to testify. It was expected that those subpoenas could be issued as early as Thursday.
Congress has been trying to talk to Parton ever since his resignation two weeks ago. Last week, IIC head Paul Volcker tried to block such efforts by insisting that Parton and Duncan, both Americans, had diplomatic immunity.
And to trot out the same joke again: His claim of 'diplomatic immunity' seems to be doing him as much good as it did Joss Ackland at the end of Lethal Weapon 2.
Chris Shays, who, you know, is just about the biggest pussy in the f'n' world, whines that Parton's cooperation with Congress will undermine amity between the blah blah blah blah blah.
Who gives a shit what Chris Shays thinks?
The best part:
Parton's attorney then wrote to the United Nations and to Volcker asking if they would instruct Parton to defy a Congressional subpoena.
When both the United Nations and the Volcker committee refused to answer, Parton took action and, on Wednesday night, handed over the boxes of documents to a congressional committee.
Hee, hee. 'Put it in print that you want me to defy a Congressional subpoena in order to further a cover-up of the greatest dollar-amount swindle in human history. Put that in print, sign it, and send it to me. And then I'll think about it.'
Robert Parton is on f'n' fire. Damn, I wish I had a Top Ten in me.
Thanks to Andy the Squirrel.
Obligatory Pat O'Brien Reference Update: Andy the Squirrel also offers:
'I don't normally do this. I don't know what's wrong with me. But. I. Want. to go CRAZY. With your oil. Let's do it. Let's get some barrels, let's get some money. But you gotta pay attention to Kojo. Kojo gets very jealous. If you're down with this, just wink.'"
Power Line: "The Felon Swing Vote"
Power Line: "The Felon Swing Vote": "May 05, 2005
'The Felon Swing Vote'
Michelle Malkin has pulled together what we now know about illegal voting by felons in Washington state, which the Democrats have now admitted. Her conclusion:
Even if only 544 felons voted in Washington State last fall and that 85 percent of them voted for Gregoire, the felons changed a 252-vote Rossi victory into a 129-vote Gregoire victory.
That understates the impact of the felon vote because it's limited to the 544 felon voters that Democrats have identified in Rossi-leaning districts. Republicans have documented hundreds more felon voters in Gregoire-leaning districts. Based on the Florida numbers, it's reasonable to assume that a majority of felons in all districts, both Rossi-leaning and Gregoire-leaning, voted for Gregoire.
Bottom line: if felons had been prohibited from voting last fall, as the law requires, Rossi almost certainly would be governor today.
Voter fraud is like illegal immigration--an issue that the vast majority of Americans feel strongly about, but which neither political party wants to push. It's easy to see why the Democrats won't touch either issue; what's not so clear is why the Republicans won't."
'The Felon Swing Vote'
Michelle Malkin has pulled together what we now know about illegal voting by felons in Washington state, which the Democrats have now admitted. Her conclusion:
Even if only 544 felons voted in Washington State last fall and that 85 percent of them voted for Gregoire, the felons changed a 252-vote Rossi victory into a 129-vote Gregoire victory.
That understates the impact of the felon vote because it's limited to the 544 felon voters that Democrats have identified in Rossi-leaning districts. Republicans have documented hundreds more felon voters in Gregoire-leaning districts. Based on the Florida numbers, it's reasonable to assume that a majority of felons in all districts, both Rossi-leaning and Gregoire-leaning, voted for Gregoire.
Bottom line: if felons had been prohibited from voting last fall, as the law requires, Rossi almost certainly would be governor today.
Voter fraud is like illegal immigration--an issue that the vast majority of Americans feel strongly about, but which neither political party wants to push. It's easy to see why the Democrats won't touch either issue; what's not so clear is why the Republicans won't."
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
BostonHerald.com - National Politics: Kerry's expenses: That's the tickets
BostonHerald.com - National Politics: Kerry's expenses: That's the tickets: "WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry tapped campaign funds for Red Sox tickets and to pay nearly $300 in overdue Boston parking tickets in March, records show.
Kerry's Senate campaign committee wrote a $287 check to the City of Boston Parking Clerk on March 31, 2005. The Bay State senator listed ``travel expense'' as the purpose for the expenditure. "
Kerry's Senate campaign committee wrote a $287 check to the City of Boston Parking Clerk on March 31, 2005. The Bay State senator listed ``travel expense'' as the purpose for the expenditure. "
Everything I Know Is Wrong: 2005 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators
Everything I Know Is Wrong: 2005 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators: Interesting quote: "compared Lomborg to Hitler, he ran afoul of what is known in the Internet blogosphere as “Godwin’s Law,” which holds that resorting to reductio ad Hitlerum is a sure sign that someone is losing an argument."
Are Higher Prices a Blessing? - Mises Institute
Are Higher Prices a Blessing? - Mises Institute: "Consider the long journey that a litre of gas makes from faraway oil fields to your local filling station. Oil deposits must first be found — often on the other side of the world or on the bottom of the ocean.
After massive infrastructure is developed, oil is extracted, transported across the globe, refined, and trucked thousands of kilometres to where you live. Let's not forget the massive military expenditures from countries like the U.S. to secure foreign oil supplies and the political and human turmoil that this creates. Considering all that, why then should gas cost about half as much as bottled water?"
After massive infrastructure is developed, oil is extracted, transported across the globe, refined, and trucked thousands of kilometres to where you live. Let's not forget the massive military expenditures from countries like the U.S. to secure foreign oil supplies and the political and human turmoil that this creates. Considering all that, why then should gas cost about half as much as bottled water?"
WorldChanging: Another World Is Here: Phraselator
WorldChanging: Another World Is Here: Phraselator: "Phraselator
The Means of Expression - Media, Creativity and Experience
ban_cartoon.gif
You've seen text-based pocket translators. You may have even seen speech-to-speech pocket translators. But what if you're somewhere the popular European / North-Asian languages aren't spoken, and saying things other than 'where's the museum'? What if, for instance, you're doing tsunami-relief in Sri Lanka? Or helping Somalian refugees?
Phraselator is what you need, then. Like other speech-to-speech translators,the user can either speak a phrase in English or select it from various conceptually-grouped lists, and the PDA-size device will then speak the equivalent phrase in the selected language. Available languages and phrases are stored on compact flash cards, which can be swapped out for different ones tailored for various situations. The device was originally developed for military field hospitals where doctors also care for wounded locals, but it has since been expanded with modules like 'basic aircrew', 'basic Somali survival', 'disaster relief', and 'basic military interview' (i.e. interrogation), 'traffic law enforcement', and many others. Better yet, they can also provide you the tools to make your own translation modules. The device is also a good deal more rugged than the sort of thing you'd take vacationing in France.
Though the Phraselators you can buy now only offer one-way translation, a two-way translator is already being prototyped and field-tested. Military.com has a good article on the device, and how it has been used by American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. It looks like the product's development is headed more towards military and law-eforcement action rather than civilian relief action, but time will tell.
Posted by Jeremy Faludi at May 3, 2005 03:04 PM | TrackBack "
The Means of Expression - Media, Creativity and Experience
ban_cartoon.gif
You've seen text-based pocket translators. You may have even seen speech-to-speech pocket translators. But what if you're somewhere the popular European / North-Asian languages aren't spoken, and saying things other than 'where's the museum'? What if, for instance, you're doing tsunami-relief in Sri Lanka? Or helping Somalian refugees?
Phraselator is what you need, then. Like other speech-to-speech translators,the user can either speak a phrase in English or select it from various conceptually-grouped lists, and the PDA-size device will then speak the equivalent phrase in the selected language. Available languages and phrases are stored on compact flash cards, which can be swapped out for different ones tailored for various situations. The device was originally developed for military field hospitals where doctors also care for wounded locals, but it has since been expanded with modules like 'basic aircrew', 'basic Somali survival', 'disaster relief', and 'basic military interview' (i.e. interrogation), 'traffic law enforcement', and many others. Better yet, they can also provide you the tools to make your own translation modules. The device is also a good deal more rugged than the sort of thing you'd take vacationing in France.
Though the Phraselators you can buy now only offer one-way translation, a two-way translator is already being prototyped and field-tested. Military.com has a good article on the device, and how it has been used by American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. It looks like the product's development is headed more towards military and law-eforcement action rather than civilian relief action, but time will tell.
Posted by Jeremy Faludi at May 3, 2005 03:04 PM | TrackBack "
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Sunday, May 01, 2005
VDH's Private Papers :: Our Not-So-Wise Experts
VDH's Private Papers :: Our Not-So-Wise Experts
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war. Indeed, he foresaw “a great potential for deepening the conflict.” He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door?
Zbigniew Brzezinski feared that we could not do what we are in fact presently doing in Iraq: “I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we’re in now…If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated.” He added ominously that it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion, and resumption of the military draft to achieve security in Iraq. Did he mean Iraq needed more American troops than did the defense of Europe in the Cold War?
Madeleine Albright, while abroad, summed up the present American foreign policy: “It's difficult to be in France and criticize my government. But I'm doing so because Bush and the people working for him have a foreign policy that is not good for America, not good for the world.” Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, troops out of Saudi Arabia, democratic demonstrations in Lebanon, West Bank voting, promises of change in Egypt — all that and more is “not good for the world”?
For the last year, such well-meaning former "wise people" have pretty much assured us that the Bush doctrine will not work and that the Arab world is not ready for Western-style democracy, especially when fostered through Western blood and iron.
But too often we discuss the present risky policy without thought of what preceded it or what might have substituted for it. Have we forgotten that the messy business of democracy was the successor, not the precursor, to a litany of other failed prescriptions? Or that there were never perfect solutions for a place like the Middle East — awash as it is in oil, autocracy, fundamentalism, poverty, and tribalism — only choices between awful and even more awful? Or that September 11 was not a sudden impulse on the part of Mohammed Atta, but the logical culmination of a long simmering pathology? Or that the present loudest critics had plenty of chances to leave something better than the mess that confronted the United States on September 12? Or that at a time of war, it is not very ethical to be sorta for, sorta against, kinda supportive, kinda critical of the mission — all depending on the latest sound bite from Iraq?
Policy #1: Realism
Remember realism? Do we recall James Baker’s quip that the first Gulf War was about “jobs, jobs, jobs,” in line with his later realist fillip about the Balkan genocide: “We don’t have a dog in that fight”? Perhaps that was a sober assessment of the natural limitations on American strength; but had Bill Clinton followed the natural logic of such cynicism, Milosevic would still be in power. Imagine the reaction had the non-teflon Bush said that removing Saddam was about “jobs” or staying out of Dafur was about not having a dog in that fight.
In the Middle East, the tenets of the old realism went something like this: These people are either crazy or backward, and usually both. We are interested in them only to the extent they pump oil and deter Communists. So authoritarians get a pass if they don’t rock the boat and don’t kill too many of their own on television like Saddam or Assad did. Under no circumstances spend American blood or treasure in any pie-in-the-sky project to ameliorate the misery of the Arab people. That will both fail and only earn us disdain as being naïve as well as inept.
Where did this cynical policy lead us? The Saudi royal family — autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular — kept Russians out. Despite embargos and cartels, they mostly pumped overpriced oil. We nodded and stationed troops — and won for our efforts global Wahhabism, whose petrol-fueled mosques and madrassas were the laboratories of thousands of anti-Western terrorists.
The shah, unloved and dictatorial, likewise bought things American. So we kept our nose out of his politics: Khomeini and a quarter century of a nightmarish theocracy ensued. Pakistani dictators, we knew, might hate the Soviets as much as we did, and remind a socialist India to play it straight. Yet American de facto sanction of such strongmen inevitably led to the nuclear conspiracies of Dr. Khan, to the most anti-American and strident Islamists of the Middle East, and to unnecessary tension with the world’s largest democracy India. The formula for an Islamic “republic” is prior Western support for an anti-democratic strongman; the antidote for Islamic fascism is consistent promotion of democratic dissidents.
Policy #2: Punitivism
Then there was the cousin of realism, the much ballyhooed “punitive strike” strategy of “knocking heads when they popped up.” Remember the logic of all those forgotten hits: We bomb, send a message, and then leave — swatting the hornet’s nest and then staying clear when the stingers buzz out from the hive.
So we thwarted the Soviets in Afghanistan and departed happily — allowing in the Taliban and an al Qaeda sanctuary that gave us September 11. Get hit and run from Lebanon and Somalia. Don’t go to Baghdad after success in Kuwait, upsetting our Saudi friends and a corrupt U.N. when Saddam at least keeps a lid on even scarier things. And? After 1991, we got tens of thousands of butchered Kurds and Shiites and years of their subsequent distrust, hundreds of thousands of no-fly-zone sorties, General Zinni’s Operation Desert Fox — and Gulf War II.
Few ever considered that punitivism embodied the worst of all strategies — just enough muscle to enrage our enemies but not enough to scare them, just about right to earn their lasting scorn without ever solving the problem. Nothing is as dangerous in war as striking but not defeating an enemy, showing contempt without the real ability to humble and humiliate him.
The punitive strike was the embodiment of sober and judicious consensus, but all the same suggested to radical Islamists that the more power the United States brandished, the less likely it was to use it fully. That led to bin Laden’s disastrous calculation that George W. Bush was, like many former presidential advisers, someone who worried more about the opinions of the New York Times and the Council on Foreign Relations than about defeating the enemy.
Policy #3: Bribery
Bribery was a third option. We have given somewhere around $57 billion in aggregate aid to Egypt, apparently so that it would be nice or perhaps would keep away from Israel. Forget that the money helped to paper over structural pathologies in the Egyptian economy and empowered corrupt elites. It had even worse results, suggesting to the Cairo Street that a weak country was prevented from fulfilling its destiny of destroying Israel only by American and Zionist machinations — as if an underpowered bantamweight was kept from snatching the heavyweight title crown by devious boxing promoters.
Thus radical Egyptians never quite got it that their government settled for peace of sorts not because of American interference but because had they tried a fourth full-scale war, what was left of the Egyptian military, especially had it not been re-supplied by American arms, would have been ruined. That Mohamed Atta and Dr. Zawahiri came out of Cairo is logical rather than exceptional, as is the frequent murdering by offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and rumors of illicit weapons programs.
Nor did we dare insist at Oslo that Palestinians should embrace the type of humane institutions found in Israel. So Yasser Arafat met Dennis Ross 500 times. Arafat was said to be the most frequent foreign visitor to the Clinton White House. American money and appeasement followed and we saw kleptocracy, one-vote-one-time, intifadas, and suicide bombings — and the hopes that Mrs. Arafat and her Paris crowd would leave some crumbs for those on the West Bank, who in turn blamed their poverty on the Jews.
Policy #4: "Let Them Be"
And don’t forget the policy of indifference and inaction that was predicated on American paternalism and condescension. It is 2005 and few of us know the names of more than a half-dozen dissidents in Egypt, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, who were seen more as potential disruptors of the status quo than as the hopes of a new American foreign policy based on reciprocal notions of justice. Only in Egypt could an autocratic government that received billions in U.S. aid damn America for trying to give a measly million or two to its democratic reformers.
So for all the mess of trying to insist on democracy in the Middle East and fostering consensual government in the place of strongmen, at least muscular idealism is an improvement on what preceded it. September 11 was the wage of decades of American appeasement and neglect — a pathological Middle East left alone to blame others for its own self-induced mess, kept "in its box" by American money, a few missiles, and soft talk — like a spoiled child allowed to act up because it was incapable of serious mature behavior and because the ensuing tantrums were not worth the messy efforts at remediation.
Policy #5: The New Americanism
We’ve seen some very strange things since this war started on September 11. But nothing is quite as odd as the past architects of failure weighing in on the dangers of “neoWilsonianism,” “neoconservative ideologues,” and veiled references to Israeli machinations, as the Bush administration finally sets right three decades these people’s flawed policies and tries to promote a new Americanism based on our own universal values and aspirations.
If the American public has to hear another sermon from a Brent Scowcroft — “Sharon just has him [President Bush] wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerized” — or Madeline Albright — “Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?” — about what we are now doing wrong in the Middle East, I think it will collectively heave.
The past ostracism of Arafat and the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, followed by democratic engagement, will bring eventual stability to the Middle East and enhance the security of the United States. After the failures of all our present critics, this new policy of promoting American values is our last, best hope. And the president will be rewarded long after he leaves office by the verdict of history for nobly sticking to it when few others, friend or foe, would.
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war. Indeed, he foresaw “a great potential for deepening the conflict.” He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door?
Zbigniew Brzezinski feared that we could not do what we are in fact presently doing in Iraq: “I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we’re in now…If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated.” He added ominously that it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion, and resumption of the military draft to achieve security in Iraq. Did he mean Iraq needed more American troops than did the defense of Europe in the Cold War?
Madeleine Albright, while abroad, summed up the present American foreign policy: “It's difficult to be in France and criticize my government. But I'm doing so because Bush and the people working for him have a foreign policy that is not good for America, not good for the world.” Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, troops out of Saudi Arabia, democratic demonstrations in Lebanon, West Bank voting, promises of change in Egypt — all that and more is “not good for the world”?
For the last year, such well-meaning former "wise people" have pretty much assured us that the Bush doctrine will not work and that the Arab world is not ready for Western-style democracy, especially when fostered through Western blood and iron.
But too often we discuss the present risky policy without thought of what preceded it or what might have substituted for it. Have we forgotten that the messy business of democracy was the successor, not the precursor, to a litany of other failed prescriptions? Or that there were never perfect solutions for a place like the Middle East — awash as it is in oil, autocracy, fundamentalism, poverty, and tribalism — only choices between awful and even more awful? Or that September 11 was not a sudden impulse on the part of Mohammed Atta, but the logical culmination of a long simmering pathology? Or that the present loudest critics had plenty of chances to leave something better than the mess that confronted the United States on September 12? Or that at a time of war, it is not very ethical to be sorta for, sorta against, kinda supportive, kinda critical of the mission — all depending on the latest sound bite from Iraq?
Policy #1: Realism
Remember realism? Do we recall James Baker’s quip that the first Gulf War was about “jobs, jobs, jobs,” in line with his later realist fillip about the Balkan genocide: “We don’t have a dog in that fight”? Perhaps that was a sober assessment of the natural limitations on American strength; but had Bill Clinton followed the natural logic of such cynicism, Milosevic would still be in power. Imagine the reaction had the non-teflon Bush said that removing Saddam was about “jobs” or staying out of Dafur was about not having a dog in that fight.
In the Middle East, the tenets of the old realism went something like this: These people are either crazy or backward, and usually both. We are interested in them only to the extent they pump oil and deter Communists. So authoritarians get a pass if they don’t rock the boat and don’t kill too many of their own on television like Saddam or Assad did. Under no circumstances spend American blood or treasure in any pie-in-the-sky project to ameliorate the misery of the Arab people. That will both fail and only earn us disdain as being naïve as well as inept.
Where did this cynical policy lead us? The Saudi royal family — autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular — kept Russians out. Despite embargos and cartels, they mostly pumped overpriced oil. We nodded and stationed troops — and won for our efforts global Wahhabism, whose petrol-fueled mosques and madrassas were the laboratories of thousands of anti-Western terrorists.
The shah, unloved and dictatorial, likewise bought things American. So we kept our nose out of his politics: Khomeini and a quarter century of a nightmarish theocracy ensued. Pakistani dictators, we knew, might hate the Soviets as much as we did, and remind a socialist India to play it straight. Yet American de facto sanction of such strongmen inevitably led to the nuclear conspiracies of Dr. Khan, to the most anti-American and strident Islamists of the Middle East, and to unnecessary tension with the world’s largest democracy India. The formula for an Islamic “republic” is prior Western support for an anti-democratic strongman; the antidote for Islamic fascism is consistent promotion of democratic dissidents.
Policy #2: Punitivism
Then there was the cousin of realism, the much ballyhooed “punitive strike” strategy of “knocking heads when they popped up.” Remember the logic of all those forgotten hits: We bomb, send a message, and then leave — swatting the hornet’s nest and then staying clear when the stingers buzz out from the hive.
So we thwarted the Soviets in Afghanistan and departed happily — allowing in the Taliban and an al Qaeda sanctuary that gave us September 11. Get hit and run from Lebanon and Somalia. Don’t go to Baghdad after success in Kuwait, upsetting our Saudi friends and a corrupt U.N. when Saddam at least keeps a lid on even scarier things. And? After 1991, we got tens of thousands of butchered Kurds and Shiites and years of their subsequent distrust, hundreds of thousands of no-fly-zone sorties, General Zinni’s Operation Desert Fox — and Gulf War II.
Few ever considered that punitivism embodied the worst of all strategies — just enough muscle to enrage our enemies but not enough to scare them, just about right to earn their lasting scorn without ever solving the problem. Nothing is as dangerous in war as striking but not defeating an enemy, showing contempt without the real ability to humble and humiliate him.
The punitive strike was the embodiment of sober and judicious consensus, but all the same suggested to radical Islamists that the more power the United States brandished, the less likely it was to use it fully. That led to bin Laden’s disastrous calculation that George W. Bush was, like many former presidential advisers, someone who worried more about the opinions of the New York Times and the Council on Foreign Relations than about defeating the enemy.
Policy #3: Bribery
Bribery was a third option. We have given somewhere around $57 billion in aggregate aid to Egypt, apparently so that it would be nice or perhaps would keep away from Israel. Forget that the money helped to paper over structural pathologies in the Egyptian economy and empowered corrupt elites. It had even worse results, suggesting to the Cairo Street that a weak country was prevented from fulfilling its destiny of destroying Israel only by American and Zionist machinations — as if an underpowered bantamweight was kept from snatching the heavyweight title crown by devious boxing promoters.
Thus radical Egyptians never quite got it that their government settled for peace of sorts not because of American interference but because had they tried a fourth full-scale war, what was left of the Egyptian military, especially had it not been re-supplied by American arms, would have been ruined. That Mohamed Atta and Dr. Zawahiri came out of Cairo is logical rather than exceptional, as is the frequent murdering by offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and rumors of illicit weapons programs.
Nor did we dare insist at Oslo that Palestinians should embrace the type of humane institutions found in Israel. So Yasser Arafat met Dennis Ross 500 times. Arafat was said to be the most frequent foreign visitor to the Clinton White House. American money and appeasement followed and we saw kleptocracy, one-vote-one-time, intifadas, and suicide bombings — and the hopes that Mrs. Arafat and her Paris crowd would leave some crumbs for those on the West Bank, who in turn blamed their poverty on the Jews.
Policy #4: "Let Them Be"
And don’t forget the policy of indifference and inaction that was predicated on American paternalism and condescension. It is 2005 and few of us know the names of more than a half-dozen dissidents in Egypt, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, who were seen more as potential disruptors of the status quo than as the hopes of a new American foreign policy based on reciprocal notions of justice. Only in Egypt could an autocratic government that received billions in U.S. aid damn America for trying to give a measly million or two to its democratic reformers.
So for all the mess of trying to insist on democracy in the Middle East and fostering consensual government in the place of strongmen, at least muscular idealism is an improvement on what preceded it. September 11 was the wage of decades of American appeasement and neglect — a pathological Middle East left alone to blame others for its own self-induced mess, kept "in its box" by American money, a few missiles, and soft talk — like a spoiled child allowed to act up because it was incapable of serious mature behavior and because the ensuing tantrums were not worth the messy efforts at remediation.
Policy #5: The New Americanism
We’ve seen some very strange things since this war started on September 11. But nothing is quite as odd as the past architects of failure weighing in on the dangers of “neoWilsonianism,” “neoconservative ideologues,” and veiled references to Israeli machinations, as the Bush administration finally sets right three decades these people’s flawed policies and tries to promote a new Americanism based on our own universal values and aspirations.
If the American public has to hear another sermon from a Brent Scowcroft — “Sharon just has him [President Bush] wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerized” — or Madeline Albright — “Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?” — about what we are now doing wrong in the Middle East, I think it will collectively heave.
The past ostracism of Arafat and the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, followed by democratic engagement, will bring eventual stability to the Middle East and enhance the security of the United States. After the failures of all our present critics, this new policy of promoting American values is our last, best hope. And the president will be rewarded long after he leaves office by the verdict of history for nobly sticking to it when few others, friend or foe, would.
Reality of sex offenders
Doug Giles: Jesus, Justice and Jack A**es: "Here’s what we are up against in the formerly good ole US of A. Think about this before you talk about showing “love and mercy” to molesters and start doling out religious quips and clich�s to those of us who are trying to put an end to these predators prowling our parks. Here’s some reality, Saccharine Saint—if you can handle it.
REALITY: There are more than 2 million convicted sex offenders currently living among us, not in prison.
REALITY: Over a 25-year period, more than half of all child molesters will be rearrested for a new sex offense charge.
REALITY: We release more than 200,000 criminals from prison each year, and they go on to commit an extraordinary number of new crimes. For example, during just the first three years following release, these criminals commit more than 3,000 new homicides, more than 3,000 new rapes and more than 3,000 new sex assaults against children. In other words, just like the terrorists of “9/11” who killed 3,000 Americans, we release criminals every year who we know will commit more “9/11’s”.
REALITY: More than 2/3 of all criminals released from prison will be rearrested within three years.
REALITY: The average time served for rape is just six years.
REALITY: The average time served for molesting a child is just three years.
REALITY: Most studies of repeat offenders are designed to hide the true extent of this scandal. Typically, they follow released criminals for just two or three years. But one 25-year study showed that 3/4 of all subsequent convictions occurred more than three years after the criminal’s release from prison. In other words, a study that tracks offenders for just three years misses 75% of the future crimes they will commit on innocent people.
REALITY: Even if your state has long prison sentences, don’t think that makes you safe. One in eight released felons commits their next offense in a different state from the one where they served their time.
REALITY: Ever heard of the car and the bus? Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year maintaining address lists of released sex offenders, without any acknowledgement by law enforcement or public officials that nothing prevents a released child molester or rapist from getting in a car or a bus, going to another neighborhood and committing a new crime there. Every day in America, sex offenders fully compliant with Megan’s Law commit new rapes and child molestations.
REALITY: A released felon is 53 times more likely than the average man on the street to commit a subsequent homicide.
REALITY: While advocates of releasing predators cite the cost of incarceration ($17,000-$25,000 per year) as too great for government to pay to keep criminals behind bars, NO STUDY has ever tried to calculate the cost to society of the millions of women who have been raped, the millions of children who have been molested, the loss to a family when a loved one is murdered or the cost when someone is mugged or robbed or carjacked.
*These disturbing statistics came from U.S. Department of Justice were compiled by Mike Paranzino and his stellar organization, www.ThrowAwayTheKey.org .
My ClashPoint is this: I understand the need for humans to seem humane and for Christians to seem supernatural in their ability to be “merciful and loving” to the best of the worst, but I submit that being supernatural in their ability to be merciful & loving is more important than seeming so . . . and it should start with showing love & mercy to our children and neighbors first—by protecting them from these savages. Sometimes the most loving and merciful act to be shown a criminal is to prevent him from doing more harm. And someone had better begin doling out death sentences for child molesters, or our neighborhoods are quickly going to turn into one big Neverland Ranch.
* logon to www.ClashRadio.com to hear Giles’ interview with Gil Reavill author of the book, Smut: A Sex Industry Insider (and Concerned Father) Says Enough is Enough.
Doug Giles' provocative weekly one-hour radio program, 'The Clash', has re-launched with several new features. Go to clashradio.com and hit 'listen live.'"
REALITY: There are more than 2 million convicted sex offenders currently living among us, not in prison.
REALITY: Over a 25-year period, more than half of all child molesters will be rearrested for a new sex offense charge.
REALITY: We release more than 200,000 criminals from prison each year, and they go on to commit an extraordinary number of new crimes. For example, during just the first three years following release, these criminals commit more than 3,000 new homicides, more than 3,000 new rapes and more than 3,000 new sex assaults against children. In other words, just like the terrorists of “9/11” who killed 3,000 Americans, we release criminals every year who we know will commit more “9/11’s”.
REALITY: More than 2/3 of all criminals released from prison will be rearrested within three years.
REALITY: The average time served for rape is just six years.
REALITY: The average time served for molesting a child is just three years.
REALITY: Most studies of repeat offenders are designed to hide the true extent of this scandal. Typically, they follow released criminals for just two or three years. But one 25-year study showed that 3/4 of all subsequent convictions occurred more than three years after the criminal’s release from prison. In other words, a study that tracks offenders for just three years misses 75% of the future crimes they will commit on innocent people.
REALITY: Even if your state has long prison sentences, don’t think that makes you safe. One in eight released felons commits their next offense in a different state from the one where they served their time.
REALITY: Ever heard of the car and the bus? Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year maintaining address lists of released sex offenders, without any acknowledgement by law enforcement or public officials that nothing prevents a released child molester or rapist from getting in a car or a bus, going to another neighborhood and committing a new crime there. Every day in America, sex offenders fully compliant with Megan’s Law commit new rapes and child molestations.
REALITY: A released felon is 53 times more likely than the average man on the street to commit a subsequent homicide.
REALITY: While advocates of releasing predators cite the cost of incarceration ($17,000-$25,000 per year) as too great for government to pay to keep criminals behind bars, NO STUDY has ever tried to calculate the cost to society of the millions of women who have been raped, the millions of children who have been molested, the loss to a family when a loved one is murdered or the cost when someone is mugged or robbed or carjacked.
*These disturbing statistics came from U.S. Department of Justice were compiled by Mike Paranzino and his stellar organization, www.ThrowAwayTheKey.org .
My ClashPoint is this: I understand the need for humans to seem humane and for Christians to seem supernatural in their ability to be “merciful and loving” to the best of the worst, but I submit that being supernatural in their ability to be merciful & loving is more important than seeming so . . . and it should start with showing love & mercy to our children and neighbors first—by protecting them from these savages. Sometimes the most loving and merciful act to be shown a criminal is to prevent him from doing more harm. And someone had better begin doling out death sentences for child molesters, or our neighborhoods are quickly going to turn into one big Neverland Ranch.
* logon to www.ClashRadio.com to hear Giles’ interview with Gil Reavill author of the book, Smut: A Sex Industry Insider (and Concerned Father) Says Enough is Enough.
Doug Giles' provocative weekly one-hour radio program, 'The Clash', has re-launched with several new features. Go to clashradio.com and hit 'listen live.'"
Value of a Mother
Townhall.com 's The ConservativeLog: "Is That All There Is?
The article by Ilya Shapiro over at Tech Central Station touched my heart:
Generation X has arrived, made its presence felt, looked around, and is wondering, 'Is that all there is?'
It is a conversation I keep having, or talking around, with my friends and peers -- the type of folks who 20 years ago would have been called yuppies (which label I at least am happy to wear now, if in a descriptive rather than ascriptive way). They -- we -- have everything we could ever want in this stage of life, but still we search for meaning....
Of course, this overwrought tale of late-20s/early-30s overachievers' angst relates most to Purple or Blue Americans living in major cities who are at or near what we classify as the 'elite' of their professions. These are the people living supposedly perfect lives (or lives on course for perfection) yet feel empty, not being able to find meaning or fulfillment in either materialism or new age spiritualism, Porsches or pilates.
'Dispatches from Purple America' is the name of Ilya's regular column. I had Blue State credentials (Ph.D. in economics, taught at Yale), but I was always too much of a Red State Girl (grew up in Ohio and loved it) to really enjoy them. So, even though I'm an old Baby Boomer (born in 1953, very up-hip for a Generation X-er), I can say with some certainty, there is more to life than the high acheivement and Blue State lifestyle.
I really found myself, believe it or not, in motherhood. In 1991, we adopted a two-year old Romanian orphan boy, and gave birth to a little girl within six months. It became apparent to me that my little boy had to have me, in particular. Not a generic mom, not high quality, low-cost day-care, but me, to be his mom. I went overnight from worrying about the world economy, to worrying about what came out of a little kid's behind. All of a sudden, I was uniquely important in a way I had never been before. My life had meaning to them, the other members of my family.
And you know what? My mind did not turn to mush. I did not lose all my friends, social status and self-esteem. I made a decision to place my intellect and education at the service of the family, and the wider community, rather than at the service of my vitae and my ego. I've never looked back.
Having a blast, Ilya. Check it out.
[12:58 PM 25-Apr-05 | Jennifer Roback Morse |"
The article by Ilya Shapiro over at Tech Central Station touched my heart:
Generation X has arrived, made its presence felt, looked around, and is wondering, 'Is that all there is?'
It is a conversation I keep having, or talking around, with my friends and peers -- the type of folks who 20 years ago would have been called yuppies (which label I at least am happy to wear now, if in a descriptive rather than ascriptive way). They -- we -- have everything we could ever want in this stage of life, but still we search for meaning....
Of course, this overwrought tale of late-20s/early-30s overachievers' angst relates most to Purple or Blue Americans living in major cities who are at or near what we classify as the 'elite' of their professions. These are the people living supposedly perfect lives (or lives on course for perfection) yet feel empty, not being able to find meaning or fulfillment in either materialism or new age spiritualism, Porsches or pilates.
'Dispatches from Purple America' is the name of Ilya's regular column. I had Blue State credentials (Ph.D. in economics, taught at Yale), but I was always too much of a Red State Girl (grew up in Ohio and loved it) to really enjoy them. So, even though I'm an old Baby Boomer (born in 1953, very up-hip for a Generation X-er), I can say with some certainty, there is more to life than the high acheivement and Blue State lifestyle.
I really found myself, believe it or not, in motherhood. In 1991, we adopted a two-year old Romanian orphan boy, and gave birth to a little girl within six months. It became apparent to me that my little boy had to have me, in particular. Not a generic mom, not high quality, low-cost day-care, but me, to be his mom. I went overnight from worrying about the world economy, to worrying about what came out of a little kid's behind. All of a sudden, I was uniquely important in a way I had never been before. My life had meaning to them, the other members of my family.
And you know what? My mind did not turn to mush. I did not lose all my friends, social status and self-esteem. I made a decision to place my intellect and education at the service of the family, and the wider community, rather than at the service of my vitae and my ego. I've never looked back.
Having a blast, Ilya. Check it out.
[12:58 PM 25-Apr-05 | Jennifer Roback Morse |"
Friday, April 29, 2005
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid
The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid: "The new op-ed columnist at the New York Times, John Tierney, finally engages the Social Security debate -- and it's a whopper. After an endless parade of lies from Paul Krugman about how bad reform with personal accounts has been in Chile (for example, this), Tierney actually got on a plane and checked it out himself (Krugman, of course, never leaves his office in Princeton; he gets all the facts he needs from radical leftist websites). Here's what Tierney discovered, upon conferring with a Chilean pal Pablo:
After comparing our relative payments to our pension systems (since salaries are higher in America, I had contributed more), we extrapolated what would have happened if I'd put my money into Pablo's mutual fund instead of the Social Security trust fund. We came up with three projections for my old age, each one offering a pension that, like Social Security's, would be indexed to compensate for inflation:
(1) Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age.
(2) Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66.
(3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.
You may suspect that Pablo has prospered only because he's a sophisticated investor, but he simply put his money into one of the most popular mutual funds.
Welcome to the fight, John!"
After comparing our relative payments to our pension systems (since salaries are higher in America, I had contributed more), we extrapolated what would have happened if I'd put my money into Pablo's mutual fund instead of the Social Security trust fund. We came up with three projections for my old age, each one offering a pension that, like Social Security's, would be indexed to compensate for inflation:
(1) Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age.
(2) Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66.
(3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.
You may suspect that Pablo has prospered only because he's a sophisticated investor, but he simply put his money into one of the most popular mutual funds.
Welcome to the fight, John!"
Monday, April 25, 2005
Power Line: Name That Speaker
Power Line: Name That Speaker: "Senator John Cornyn's web site has a new feature called 'Name That Speaker.' The game is to identify the source of the following quote, delivered on the Senate floor:
I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down.
Go to Senator Cornyn's site for the answer." HERE
I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down.
Go to Senator Cornyn's site for the answer." HERE
Blog d'Elisson: IF I COULD BE...
Blog d'Elisson: IF I COULD BE...: "...the creator of a successful meme, I’d sit back and watch it rip its way around the Bloggy-Sphere.
But I’m not. The one meme I tried to start, the Punchbowl Meme, never got any legs. Possibly that's because (1) it was disgusting, and (2) I relied on people who read Bd’E to pass it on spontaneously. What a dolt.
I’m lucky if I get comments equal to 5% of my visitors on a given day. To grab a meme? Too much work. So you need a meme that you can tag people with. Then, a good one will grow like a chain letter.
Well, I got tagged with this one by TeaFizz - so here goes.
First, here’s how it works. You need to pass this on to three bloggers. Tag! [Select three who have not already answered this thing, as otherwise you are merely trying to Piss People Off.]
Now, below you will find a list of 18 occupations. Select at least five of them (more is OK) and feel free to add to the list after you have made your selection from the list that was sent to you.
For each one you select, simply finish each sentence with what you would do as a member of that profession. Be serious, be funny, do whatever the hell you like: just complete the sentences, OK?
Here's the list I got from TeaFizz, with one more tacked on by me:
If I could be a scientist...
If I could be a farmer...
If I could be a musician...
If I could be a doctor...
If I could be a painter...
If I could be a gardener...
If I could be a missionary...
If I could be a chef...
If I could be an architect...
If I could be a linguist...
If I could be a psychologist...
If I could be a librarian...
If I could be an athlete...
If I could be a lawyer...
If I could be an innkeeper...
If I could be a professor...
If I could be a writer...
If I could be a backup dancer...
If I could be a llama-rider...
If I could be a bonnie pirate...
If I could be a midget stripper...
If I could be a proctologist...
If I could be a TV-Chat Show host...
If I could be a knish-stuffer...
Now, for my answers:
If I could be a writer, I could spend time writing an online journal for no compensation other than the occasional linky ego-boost or comment. On second thought, no.
If I could be a missionary, I could, at least, have job security. A missionary is always assured of having a position.
If I could be a lawyer, I could sue myself and get rich.
If I could be a painter, I could spend my time deciding whether to paint pictures or houses.
If I could be a proctologist, I could study under the G.I. Bill. And I’d study the Big Question facing members of my profession: Is it true that a proctoscope is a silver tube with an asshole at both ends?
If I could be a chef, I could start the Extremely Slow Food movement, for those people who want their food prepared lovingly and carefully from the finest ingredients and who are willing to pay through the eyeballs for the privilege. But every so often, I would have to have a greasy Lump-o’-Crapburger from one of the Fast Food Emporia: Know thy enemy.
And a parting shot: If I could be independently wealthy, I could sit on my ass and blog all day. But I’m not, so I can’t. Shit."
But I’m not. The one meme I tried to start, the Punchbowl Meme, never got any legs. Possibly that's because (1) it was disgusting, and (2) I relied on people who read Bd’E to pass it on spontaneously. What a dolt.
I’m lucky if I get comments equal to 5% of my visitors on a given day. To grab a meme? Too much work. So you need a meme that you can tag people with. Then, a good one will grow like a chain letter.
Well, I got tagged with this one by TeaFizz - so here goes.
First, here’s how it works. You need to pass this on to three bloggers. Tag! [Select three who have not already answered this thing, as otherwise you are merely trying to Piss People Off.]
Now, below you will find a list of 18 occupations. Select at least five of them (more is OK) and feel free to add to the list after you have made your selection from the list that was sent to you.
For each one you select, simply finish each sentence with what you would do as a member of that profession. Be serious, be funny, do whatever the hell you like: just complete the sentences, OK?
Here's the list I got from TeaFizz, with one more tacked on by me:
If I could be a scientist...
If I could be a farmer...
If I could be a musician...
If I could be a doctor...
If I could be a painter...
If I could be a gardener...
If I could be a missionary...
If I could be a chef...
If I could be an architect...
If I could be a linguist...
If I could be a psychologist...
If I could be a librarian...
If I could be an athlete...
If I could be a lawyer...
If I could be an innkeeper...
If I could be a professor...
If I could be a writer...
If I could be a backup dancer...
If I could be a llama-rider...
If I could be a bonnie pirate...
If I could be a midget stripper...
If I could be a proctologist...
If I could be a TV-Chat Show host...
If I could be a knish-stuffer...
Now, for my answers:
If I could be a writer, I could spend time writing an online journal for no compensation other than the occasional linky ego-boost or comment. On second thought, no.
If I could be a missionary, I could, at least, have job security. A missionary is always assured of having a position.
If I could be a lawyer, I could sue myself and get rich.
If I could be a painter, I could spend my time deciding whether to paint pictures or houses.
If I could be a proctologist, I could study under the G.I. Bill. And I’d study the Big Question facing members of my profession: Is it true that a proctoscope is a silver tube with an asshole at both ends?
If I could be a chef, I could start the Extremely Slow Food movement, for those people who want their food prepared lovingly and carefully from the finest ingredients and who are willing to pay through the eyeballs for the privilege. But every so often, I would have to have a greasy Lump-o’-Crapburger from one of the Fast Food Emporia: Know thy enemy.
And a parting shot: If I could be independently wealthy, I could sit on my ass and blog all day. But I’m not, so I can’t. Shit."
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Chrenkoff Post Excellent
Chrenkoff: "Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is beating his head against the wall, or to be more precise, against the media:
'The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is encouraging newspaper editors to tell America the full story of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
' 'It�s particularly important today... because the American people need to know the full story,' Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said in addressing the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 'because it is going to be their resolve that is so critical to our ability to confront the extremist threat'.'
Which is precisely why many in the media insist on focusing on the bad news. Not all, by any means - many reporters and editors do their best to provide fair and balanced reporting; others are simply naturally biased in favor of the 'exciting' bad news at the expense of the 'boring' good news, whether they're writing from Boston or Baghdad - but a significant minority, which is personally opposed to Republican foreign policy, has been doing its best to repeat the brilliant performance of their Vietnam-era predecessors.
Wellington famously remarked that the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton; today, America's wars are being lost in the cafeteria of the Columbia School of Journalism.
'Myers told the editors he reads far more about the problems of servicemembers� equipment and the latest insurgent attack than about 'the thousands of amazing things our troops are accomplishing'...
'The chairman said that part of the problem lies with the military. He said commanders must be more responsive and give more access to reporters. 'We�re working on that,' he told the editors.
'But still, 'a bomb blast is seen as more newsworthy than the steady progress of rebuilding communities and lives, remodeling schools and running vaccination programs and water purification plants'.'
See any edition of my 'Good news from Iraq'.
'Myers challenged the newspaper editors to ensure the American people understand the hundreds of ways their sons and daughters are improving lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
' 'In your profession and mine, (we are) working hard to defend our values, our way of life and our Constitution,' Myers said. 'We risk our comfort, our safety and our lives for what we believe in.' The chairman noted that more than 40 journalists have been killed while covering operations in Iraq. The 'Fourth Estate' always has covered conflicts, Myers noted, but what is different today is the amount of news and that it travels so much faster than in the past.
' 'What questions are the news reports trying to answer?' the chairman asked. 'The theme of the coverage lately seems to be 'When are the troops coming home?' rather than 'What are we accomplishing?'''
That's a rather charitable interpretation and a brave attempt by the General to find some common ground. In fact, 'our values', 'our way of life' and 'our Constitution' quite often tend to mean totally different things to military people and journalists.
'He said the military will work with the press. 'Our task is to give you better access, more timely information and we will do that,' he said. 'In return I would ask you to keep at the task of trying to show as complete a picture as you can. I know our troops deserve that, and I think the American people deserve it as well'.'
As we all know, just because you deserve something, it doesn't mean you're going to get it. Thank God for blogs."
'The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is encouraging newspaper editors to tell America the full story of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
' 'It�s particularly important today... because the American people need to know the full story,' Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said in addressing the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 'because it is going to be their resolve that is so critical to our ability to confront the extremist threat'.'
Which is precisely why many in the media insist on focusing on the bad news. Not all, by any means - many reporters and editors do their best to provide fair and balanced reporting; others are simply naturally biased in favor of the 'exciting' bad news at the expense of the 'boring' good news, whether they're writing from Boston or Baghdad - but a significant minority, which is personally opposed to Republican foreign policy, has been doing its best to repeat the brilliant performance of their Vietnam-era predecessors.
Wellington famously remarked that the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton; today, America's wars are being lost in the cafeteria of the Columbia School of Journalism.
'Myers told the editors he reads far more about the problems of servicemembers� equipment and the latest insurgent attack than about 'the thousands of amazing things our troops are accomplishing'...
'The chairman said that part of the problem lies with the military. He said commanders must be more responsive and give more access to reporters. 'We�re working on that,' he told the editors.
'But still, 'a bomb blast is seen as more newsworthy than the steady progress of rebuilding communities and lives, remodeling schools and running vaccination programs and water purification plants'.'
See any edition of my 'Good news from Iraq'.
'Myers challenged the newspaper editors to ensure the American people understand the hundreds of ways their sons and daughters are improving lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
' 'In your profession and mine, (we are) working hard to defend our values, our way of life and our Constitution,' Myers said. 'We risk our comfort, our safety and our lives for what we believe in.' The chairman noted that more than 40 journalists have been killed while covering operations in Iraq. The 'Fourth Estate' always has covered conflicts, Myers noted, but what is different today is the amount of news and that it travels so much faster than in the past.
' 'What questions are the news reports trying to answer?' the chairman asked. 'The theme of the coverage lately seems to be 'When are the troops coming home?' rather than 'What are we accomplishing?'''
That's a rather charitable interpretation and a brave attempt by the General to find some common ground. In fact, 'our values', 'our way of life' and 'our Constitution' quite often tend to mean totally different things to military people and journalists.
'He said the military will work with the press. 'Our task is to give you better access, more timely information and we will do that,' he said. 'In return I would ask you to keep at the task of trying to show as complete a picture as you can. I know our troops deserve that, and I think the American people deserve it as well'.'
As we all know, just because you deserve something, it doesn't mean you're going to get it. Thank God for blogs."
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Praactice Ammo
Bad Example: "CHEAPEST PRACTICE AMMO EVER FOR THE CHEAPEST PRACTICE EVER
(A Guest Post by blogless Peter, for Carnival of Cordite)
Let's face it, few of us can really afford to shoot enough to really get absolutely confident in our skill. It's not just the ammunition costs, either. Range time is expensive and with gas costs it's even expensive driving to the range. Then when we get there, we find there are all kinds of restrictions on how we can shoot. Some ranges don't allow rapid fire, most will go into hysterics if we try to work on a draw, and Lord help you if you need to practice engaging a threat from behind.
There is an answer, actually more than one. Primer powered wax, rubber and plastic bullets. Someone who is already a handloader is at least partially set up to use these handy little wonders. Someone who isn't will need some tools and some supplies. Some you have around the house already - a small hammer, a drill - some you'll have to buy, and there are other things that can speed the process up.
The first thing we need is modified cartridge cases. Unless you are already set up to handload, start with new, unprimed cases. Otherwise it's hard to find something that is thin enough to go through the factory flash hole yet strong enough to knock the spent primer out. Most outfits sell cartridge cases by the hundred. A little later on I'll tell you where to buy them and the priming tool you'll need.
The first thing we must do is drill the primer flash hole a little larger with a three-sixteenth inch drill bit. You'll need to hold the cartridge case with a pair of pliers and work the drill with the other hand...it's really a job for two people unless you have three hands. Hold the case as close to the rim as possible with those pliers, the metal is thicker down there and you won't be as likely to smoosh it and make it so it won't chamber. Whatever you do, do NOT omit this step. For technical reasons, a primer - fired with no powder behind a normal-weight bullet - will back out of the case and tie up a revolver. In an autoloader it might come completely out and get stuck in the works. Just trust me on this. I have the technical information and I'm not afraid to use it, it would only take about two pages to explain it." ETC ETC
(A Guest Post by blogless Peter, for Carnival of Cordite)
Let's face it, few of us can really afford to shoot enough to really get absolutely confident in our skill. It's not just the ammunition costs, either. Range time is expensive and with gas costs it's even expensive driving to the range. Then when we get there, we find there are all kinds of restrictions on how we can shoot. Some ranges don't allow rapid fire, most will go into hysterics if we try to work on a draw, and Lord help you if you need to practice engaging a threat from behind.
There is an answer, actually more than one. Primer powered wax, rubber and plastic bullets. Someone who is already a handloader is at least partially set up to use these handy little wonders. Someone who isn't will need some tools and some supplies. Some you have around the house already - a small hammer, a drill - some you'll have to buy, and there are other things that can speed the process up.
The first thing we need is modified cartridge cases. Unless you are already set up to handload, start with new, unprimed cases. Otherwise it's hard to find something that is thin enough to go through the factory flash hole yet strong enough to knock the spent primer out. Most outfits sell cartridge cases by the hundred. A little later on I'll tell you where to buy them and the priming tool you'll need.
The first thing we must do is drill the primer flash hole a little larger with a three-sixteenth inch drill bit. You'll need to hold the cartridge case with a pair of pliers and work the drill with the other hand...it's really a job for two people unless you have three hands. Hold the case as close to the rim as possible with those pliers, the metal is thicker down there and you won't be as likely to smoosh it and make it so it won't chamber. Whatever you do, do NOT omit this step. For technical reasons, a primer - fired with no powder behind a normal-weight bullet - will back out of the case and tie up a revolver. In an autoloader it might come completely out and get stuck in the works. Just trust me on this. I have the technical information and I'm not afraid to use it, it would only take about two pages to explain it." ETC ETC
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Power Line: Oil-For-Food Investigators Resign
Power Line: Oil-For-Food Investigators Resign: "Oil-For-Food Investigators Resign
Roger Simon had this story first: two top investigators for Paul Volcker's U.N.-sponsored inquiry into the U.N.'s Oil-For-Food program have resigned because they thought the initial Volcker report was too easy on Kofi Annan. 'You follow a trail and you want to see people pick it up,' a spokesman for Volcker's team said. The committee 'told the story' that the investigators presented, he added, 'but we made different conclusions than they would have.' One of those who resigned was the Volcker committee's senior investigative counsel, Robert Parton."
Roger Simon had this story first: two top investigators for Paul Volcker's U.N.-sponsored inquiry into the U.N.'s Oil-For-Food program have resigned because they thought the initial Volcker report was too easy on Kofi Annan. 'You follow a trail and you want to see people pick it up,' a spokesman for Volcker's team said. The committee 'told the story' that the investigators presented, he added, 'but we made different conclusions than they would have.' One of those who resigned was the Volcker committee's senior investigative counsel, Robert Parton."
Monday, April 18, 2005
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Past Prognostications
Our Not-So-Wise Experts
A litany of past failure
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war. Indeed, he foresaw “a great potential for deepening the conflict.” He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door? etc
A litany of past failure
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Brent Scowcroft predicted on the eve of the Iraqi elections that voting there would increase the risk of civil war. Indeed, he foresaw “a great potential for deepening the conflict.” He also once assured us that Iraq “could become a Vietnam in a way that the Vietnam war never did.” Did he mean perhaps worse than ten years of war and over 50,000 American dead, with the Cambodian holocaust next door? etc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
