Monday, June 30, 2003
THE PARTY OF THE WORKING PEOPLE. . .
The Washington Post had this gem the other day:
As sometimes happens with Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), he let his mouth race ahead of his brain Wednesday night at a gathering of Young Democrats at the Washington nightspot Acropolis. After presidential candidate Howard Dean spoke, Kennedy delivered an impassioned peroration against President Bush's tax cut. We hear that Kennedy told the crowd: "I don't need Bush's tax cut. I have never worked a [bleeping] day in my life." With that he got the audience's attention -- the dropping-jaws kind. "He droned on and on, frequently mentioning how much better the candidates would sound the more we drank," a witness told us. "Finally, he had to be stopped by a DNC volunteer." Kennedy's spokesman, Ernesto Anguilla, told us yesterday: "He was talking to the crowd; it was a rally-the-troops kind of speech about the tax cut. He was energizing the crowd and got caught up in it and used an unfortunate word, which he regrets using. . . . And no one pulled him off the stage."
Leave it to my party to miss the point. (And they really do that so easily; they haven't hit a good point on the head since the Truman and Kennedy administrations.)
Although using bad language was inappropriate, of course, it's not his language that's the real problem. What's much worse is that he had the arrogance to stand before a crowd and yuck it up about never having worked a day in his life.
Fair is fair. Consider this: If a Republican had said THAT! . . . all heck would have broken loose in the media!
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 30, 2003
The Washington Post had this gem the other day:
As sometimes happens with Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), he let his mouth race ahead of his brain Wednesday night at a gathering of Young Democrats at the Washington nightspot Acropolis. After presidential candidate Howard Dean spoke, Kennedy delivered an impassioned peroration against President Bush's tax cut. We hear that Kennedy told the crowd: "I don't need Bush's tax cut. I have never worked a [bleeping] day in my life." With that he got the audience's attention -- the dropping-jaws kind. "He droned on and on, frequently mentioning how much better the candidates would sound the more we drank," a witness told us. "Finally, he had to be stopped by a DNC volunteer." Kennedy's spokesman, Ernesto Anguilla, told us yesterday: "He was talking to the crowd; it was a rally-the-troops kind of speech about the tax cut. He was energizing the crowd and got caught up in it and used an unfortunate word, which he regrets using. . . . And no one pulled him off the stage."
Leave it to my party to miss the point. (And they really do that so easily; they haven't hit a good point on the head since the Truman and Kennedy administrations.)
Although using bad language was inappropriate, of course, it's not his language that's the real problem. What's much worse is that he had the arrogance to stand before a crowd and yuck it up about never having worked a day in his life.
Fair is fair. Consider this: If a Republican had said THAT! . . . all heck would have broken loose in the media!
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 30, 2003
MUST BE A NEW RULE
The Sunday Times of South Africa reports:
An Iranian footballer killed a player from the opposing side who had just scored a goal by punching him in the head, it was reported. . .
But just how do you score by punching someone in the head? Aren't you supposed to kick or head the ball into the goal?
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 30, 2003
The Sunday Times of South Africa reports:
An Iranian footballer killed a player from the opposing side who had just scored a goal by punching him in the head, it was reported. . .
But just how do you score by punching someone in the head? Aren't you supposed to kick or head the ball into the goal?
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 30, 2003
WE DO HAVE ALWAYS HAVE TO BE WARY, REMEMBER
Kathleen Parker is right -- again:
. . .I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories and don't believe for a second that Bush officials sat down and said, "Let's screw the press and the American people and kill freedom as we know it. We'll call it the Patriot Act!"
However, the Patriot Act was passed hurriedly six weeks after the terrorist attacks, and government's natural impulse in times of crisis is to close records. As government's natural enemy, the media's job to make sure government fails in that endeavor. Not because we have an insatiable appetite for mongering, as some perceive, but because -- another quick reminder -- all other freedoms derive from freedom of the press. . .
Unfortunately, that connection seems to have slipped America's mind. For good reason, many view the media as a prurient pest, promiscuous and unreliable. Jayson Blair needs no introduction. Scott Peterson's trial has become the summer blockbuster, according to an Associated Press story that reported 28 TV cameras at a recent hearing. . .
. . .Today's challenge, it seems, is not only to preserve public access to information, but to restore public respect for the media. Scott Peterson's trial, we can live without, but freedom of information is something else.
Indeed.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 30, 2003
Kathleen Parker is right -- again:
. . .I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories and don't believe for a second that Bush officials sat down and said, "Let's screw the press and the American people and kill freedom as we know it. We'll call it the Patriot Act!"
However, the Patriot Act was passed hurriedly six weeks after the terrorist attacks, and government's natural impulse in times of crisis is to close records. As government's natural enemy, the media's job to make sure government fails in that endeavor. Not because we have an insatiable appetite for mongering, as some perceive, but because -- another quick reminder -- all other freedoms derive from freedom of the press. . .
Unfortunately, that connection seems to have slipped America's mind. For good reason, many view the media as a prurient pest, promiscuous and unreliable. Jayson Blair needs no introduction. Scott Peterson's trial has become the summer blockbuster, according to an Associated Press story that reported 28 TV cameras at a recent hearing. . .
. . .Today's challenge, it seems, is not only to preserve public access to information, but to restore public respect for the media. Scott Peterson's trial, we can live without, but freedom of information is something else.
Indeed.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 30, 2003
CAMPBELL V. THE BBC
Biased-BBC has the latest on the battle between Blair communications man Alastair Campbell and the BBC.
It's gotten really ugly. . .
But there may be a "truce" for a few days, until MPs come back with a report.
A truce? Is that like the so-called truce now in place in Israel and the disputed territories?
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 30, 2003
Biased-BBC has the latest on the battle between Blair communications man Alastair Campbell and the BBC.
It's gotten really ugly. . .
But there may be a "truce" for a few days, until MPs come back with a report.
A truce? Is that like the so-called truce now in place in Israel and the disputed territories?
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 30, 2003
IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM
CNN reports this morning:
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is urging Iran to open up its controversial nuclear program to international inspectors "as soon as possible."
Straw arrived the Iranian capital Sunday with a warning for the country's leaders that failure to co-operate on the nuclear issue could damage its chances of a lucrative trade deal with the European Union.
His call comes amid growing international concern that Iran's civil power program is a cover for the development of nuclear weapons. . . .
Keeping pressure on Iran to comply is fine.
However, it is also useful to remember Lincoln's response to Union hardliners, who in the autumn of 1861 were willing to go to war with Britain (which some Unionists felt had insulted the North) and the rebellious South simultaneously: Let's stay calm folks. One war at a time. . . .
And as the rash of killings of American and British troops shows, we haven't quite yet finished with Iraq's thug remnants.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 30, 2003
CNN reports this morning:
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is urging Iran to open up its controversial nuclear program to international inspectors "as soon as possible."
Straw arrived the Iranian capital Sunday with a warning for the country's leaders that failure to co-operate on the nuclear issue could damage its chances of a lucrative trade deal with the European Union.
His call comes amid growing international concern that Iran's civil power program is a cover for the development of nuclear weapons. . . .
Keeping pressure on Iran to comply is fine.
However, it is also useful to remember Lincoln's response to Union hardliners, who in the autumn of 1861 were willing to go to war with Britain (which some Unionists felt had insulted the North) and the rebellious South simultaneously: Let's stay calm folks. One war at a time. . . .
And as the rash of killings of American and British troops shows, we haven't quite yet finished with Iraq's thug remnants.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 30, 2003
Sunday, June 29, 2003
THAT DAY IS ALMOST HERE AGAIN. . .
July 4 is just around the corner. As John Adams wrote Abigail on July 2, 1776, the day he thought would go down in history (and so he was off, as we all well-know, by two days, but who cares):
"I am apt to believe it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. ... It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for ever more."
Yet he would probably be amazed that we STILL do all that -- and on a far greater scale than he could have possibly imagined, some 227 years on. . .
We are having our little U.S.A. party on July 2, mostly because my in-laws can't make it on July 4th. So, one might say we are technically doing an "Adams Day."
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 29, 2003
July 4 is just around the corner. As John Adams wrote Abigail on July 2, 1776, the day he thought would go down in history (and so he was off, as we all well-know, by two days, but who cares):
"I am apt to believe it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. ... It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for ever more."
Yet he would probably be amazed that we STILL do all that -- and on a far greater scale than he could have possibly imagined, some 227 years on. . .
We are having our little U.S.A. party on July 2, mostly because my in-laws can't make it on July 4th. So, one might say we are technically doing an "Adams Day."
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 29, 2003
Saturday, June 28, 2003
PROFILING
This was sent to me by a friend. I've seen this elsewhere, so don't know exactly whom to credit. It is all too uncomfortably true:
Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following Multiple Choice test. (The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened! Do you remember?)
1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Korbut
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
3. During the 1980s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindburgh
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. On September 11, 2001, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted to a crash by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. In 2001-2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonny and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Nope, .........I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?
So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning former Governors.
Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense feel doubly ashamed of themselves. As the writer of the award winning story Forest Gump so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does!"
Sorry if for some people, truth hurts. . .
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 28, 2003
This was sent to me by a friend. I've seen this elsewhere, so don't know exactly whom to credit. It is all too uncomfortably true:
Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following Multiple Choice test. (The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened! Do you remember?)
1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Korbut
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
3. During the 1980s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindburgh
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. On September 11, 2001, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted to a crash by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. In 2001-2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonny and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Nope, .........I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?
So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning former Governors.
Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense feel doubly ashamed of themselves. As the writer of the award winning story Forest Gump so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does!"
Sorry if for some people, truth hurts. . .
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 28, 2003
THE BBC AND ITS COVERAGE
In Saturday's Daily Mail (which is available only in print, not online; this is the Mail's only major point of contact online as of yet) here in Britain, conservative Simon Heffer points out the following major flaws in the BBC's Iraq war coverage:
. . .Fundamentally, it was blisteringly anti-American, a legacy of the apparent disbelief and distaste felt by BBC mandarins at the victory by George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential election.
It was also anti-British in that there was a barely-concealed skepticism from the moment the war started about the pronouncements of the Government and military authorities as to the conduct and aims of the war.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster. It is regulated by Acts of Parliament as to how it does its job.
Above all, it has a duty in political matters to be impartial. . .
Indeed.
And in just the last two days, LGF has two posts on the BBC. One is on its troubles with the government of Israel. And since the BBC apparently believes that there should not even be a state of Israel, such is hardly surprising of course.
Another is on its current troubles with its, urrr, own government.
But considering that the BBC doesn't think much of its very own United Kingdom, is it really surprising it has no use for the U.S. or for the state of Israel?
A good question to be asked of the Beeb is just what sort of government would satisfy it?
What a messed up organization. . . .
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 28, 2003
In Saturday's Daily Mail (which is available only in print, not online; this is the Mail's only major point of contact online as of yet) here in Britain, conservative Simon Heffer points out the following major flaws in the BBC's Iraq war coverage:
. . .Fundamentally, it was blisteringly anti-American, a legacy of the apparent disbelief and distaste felt by BBC mandarins at the victory by George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential election.
It was also anti-British in that there was a barely-concealed skepticism from the moment the war started about the pronouncements of the Government and military authorities as to the conduct and aims of the war.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster. It is regulated by Acts of Parliament as to how it does its job.
Above all, it has a duty in political matters to be impartial. . .
Indeed.
And in just the last two days, LGF has two posts on the BBC. One is on its troubles with the government of Israel. And since the BBC apparently believes that there should not even be a state of Israel, such is hardly surprising of course.
Another is on its current troubles with its, urrr, own government.
But considering that the BBC doesn't think much of its very own United Kingdom, is it really surprising it has no use for the U.S. or for the state of Israel?
A good question to be asked of the Beeb is just what sort of government would satisfy it?
What a messed up organization. . . .
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 28, 2003
Friday, June 27, 2003
LET'S BURY THE "CIVIL WAR" AT LAST
Although the absolute numbers are hazy, non-military Americans abroad seem to skew liberal Democratic, not Republican and conservative.
In contrast, polls at home on the war in Iraq indicate that Bush's support remains above 65%. Indeed, one recent poll showed that some 56% of Americans would support attacking Iran, to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons!
Whoa! Does that make it now a whole nation of, er, "neo-conservatives" then? Hmmm. . . .
Anyway, you wouldn't learn that from Democrats Abroad U.K.
That's because Americans abroad often don't seem to well-reflect the post-September 11th environment back home (or they are just afraid to tell foreigners that they do). That day has far more dramatically changed the thinking of many Americans of all political persuasions and regional backgrounds than most people abroad seem to realize.
America's divisions probably became most obvious during the 2000 election, when "the coasts" voted for Gore/Lieberman and the "heartland" voted for Bush/Cheney. I admit I was part of that split. For myself, the thought of George W. Bush winning made me ill. I wanted Al Gore, and I voted for him.
When Bush won -- and he did win the closest presidential election ever, even if some have not gotten over Gore's defeat -- people had to get on with their lives. Even in the 50/50 country we were told it had become, most Americans did so.
And for many America had a very suspect president in office on the morning of September 11, 2001.
On that day, the rules were suddenly changed. Bush was president, and for better or worse, he had to lead. And, to his credit, he led better than most people thought he could have. In "Bush At War," Bob Woodward -- no friend of Republican presidents -- showed us a man in the White House who did as well (and probably better) as anyone else who ran for that office unsuccessfully in 2000 probably would have done in the same circumstances. Bush a dimwit? Hardly.
We remember all the outpouring of support. A South Carolina small town offered NYC a new fire engine. Mississippians remarked that what was done to "us" was unacceptable. Texans jumped to the defense of New York, a place which, for Texans as well as for most of the rest of America (including New Jersey!), had always been viewed as somewhat weird, scary, distant and impossible to understand.
For myself, as for many other Americans, the 50/50 division suddenly evaporated. The petty bickerings had to be toned down, at the very least. Forced upon us was the straightforward realization that there were indeed many out there who wanted us -- whether we were Texans, Californians or New Yorkers -- dead.
Sadly, there are still too many who won't allow the "civil war" of 2000 to be brought to a close. The super-hyper-anti-Bushism that is trendy among some Americans -- especially many Americans abroad -- is absolutely ludicrous. Bush is not a new Adolf Hitler.
God Bless New York. And God Bless Texas. And God Bless America.
See, there, y'all, it isn't that hard to say, even with a New Yawk accent . . .
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 27, 2003
Although the absolute numbers are hazy, non-military Americans abroad seem to skew liberal Democratic, not Republican and conservative.
In contrast, polls at home on the war in Iraq indicate that Bush's support remains above 65%. Indeed, one recent poll showed that some 56% of Americans would support attacking Iran, to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons!
Whoa! Does that make it now a whole nation of, er, "neo-conservatives" then? Hmmm. . . .
Anyway, you wouldn't learn that from Democrats Abroad U.K.
That's because Americans abroad often don't seem to well-reflect the post-September 11th environment back home (or they are just afraid to tell foreigners that they do). That day has far more dramatically changed the thinking of many Americans of all political persuasions and regional backgrounds than most people abroad seem to realize.
America's divisions probably became most obvious during the 2000 election, when "the coasts" voted for Gore/Lieberman and the "heartland" voted for Bush/Cheney. I admit I was part of that split. For myself, the thought of George W. Bush winning made me ill. I wanted Al Gore, and I voted for him.
When Bush won -- and he did win the closest presidential election ever, even if some have not gotten over Gore's defeat -- people had to get on with their lives. Even in the 50/50 country we were told it had become, most Americans did so.
And for many America had a very suspect president in office on the morning of September 11, 2001.
On that day, the rules were suddenly changed. Bush was president, and for better or worse, he had to lead. And, to his credit, he led better than most people thought he could have. In "Bush At War," Bob Woodward -- no friend of Republican presidents -- showed us a man in the White House who did as well (and probably better) as anyone else who ran for that office unsuccessfully in 2000 probably would have done in the same circumstances. Bush a dimwit? Hardly.
We remember all the outpouring of support. A South Carolina small town offered NYC a new fire engine. Mississippians remarked that what was done to "us" was unacceptable. Texans jumped to the defense of New York, a place which, for Texans as well as for most of the rest of America (including New Jersey!), had always been viewed as somewhat weird, scary, distant and impossible to understand.
For myself, as for many other Americans, the 50/50 division suddenly evaporated. The petty bickerings had to be toned down, at the very least. Forced upon us was the straightforward realization that there were indeed many out there who wanted us -- whether we were Texans, Californians or New Yorkers -- dead.
Sadly, there are still too many who won't allow the "civil war" of 2000 to be brought to a close. The super-hyper-anti-Bushism that is trendy among some Americans -- especially many Americans abroad -- is absolutely ludicrous. Bush is not a new Adolf Hitler.
God Bless New York. And God Bless Texas. And God Bless America.
See, there, y'all, it isn't that hard to say, even with a New Yawk accent . . .
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 27, 2003
MARCH HAS RETURNED
Well, I see that March is back in the archives this morning.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 27, 2003
Well, I see that March is back in the archives this morning.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 27, 2003
STROM THURMOND
I don't have anything to add to all the talk about the now late senator from South Carolina. CNN has a long bit on his passing.
One point worth reflecting upon is a remark that was made about him several years ago: Do we realize that Thurmond was born ONLY 37 years after the Civil War ended?
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 27, 2003
I don't have anything to add to all the talk about the now late senator from South Carolina. CNN has a long bit on his passing.
One point worth reflecting upon is a remark that was made about him several years ago: Do we realize that Thurmond was born ONLY 37 years after the Civil War ended?
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 27, 2003
"NEO-CONSERVATISM"
Somehow, it is getting around that I am something called a "neo-conservative."
Defining a "neo-conservative" view of American foreign policy is a murky business. Nowadays, it seems to be used mostly by liberals and leftists as a smear, when they attempt to describe the attitudes of the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz, and journalist/writers like Brussels-based Robert Kagan.
But if one tries honestly to peer through the ideological smoke, one thing is clear. A "neo-con" on American foreign policy can probably be identified as someone who agrees with this pretty simple statement: If someone waves a gun in your face, and screams at you that he aims to kill you and slaughter your entire family, you aren't afterwards going to be so stupid as to turn your back on him -- and if and when you get a good chance to thump him, you do so.
So, if that makes me a "neo-con", well, then fine.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 27, 2003
Somehow, it is getting around that I am something called a "neo-conservative."
Defining a "neo-conservative" view of American foreign policy is a murky business. Nowadays, it seems to be used mostly by liberals and leftists as a smear, when they attempt to describe the attitudes of the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz, and journalist/writers like Brussels-based Robert Kagan.
But if one tries honestly to peer through the ideological smoke, one thing is clear. A "neo-con" on American foreign policy can probably be identified as someone who agrees with this pretty simple statement: If someone waves a gun in your face, and screams at you that he aims to kill you and slaughter your entire family, you aren't afterwards going to be so stupid as to turn your back on him -- and if and when you get a good chance to thump him, you do so.
So, if that makes me a "neo-con", well, then fine.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 27, 2003
Thursday, June 26, 2003
WHAT MARCH ARCHIVES?
I notice that all of my March postings are not currently accessible through the archive link, although if you happen to be reading a post through which you can click on some link back to March, you can do that to get back to at least some March postings.
It's just a guess, but I suspect it has a lot to do with New Blogger. Hopefully, it will sort itself out.
Until it does (if it ever does), my apologies. . .
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 26, 2003
I notice that all of my March postings are not currently accessible through the archive link, although if you happen to be reading a post through which you can click on some link back to March, you can do that to get back to at least some March postings.
It's just a guess, but I suspect it has a lot to do with New Blogger. Hopefully, it will sort itself out.
Until it does (if it ever does), my apologies. . .
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 26, 2003
"FIGHTING" JOHN AGAIN DOES THE RIGHT THING
CNN reports:
Australia is ready to send as many as 1,500 troops and police to the lawless Solomon Islands as fears grow the Pacific nation is on the verge of collapse.
Australia will likely lead a multi-national force which could include troops from New Zealand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea.
Prime Minister John Howard said late Wednesday the fear was the Solomons would soon become a failed state and a haven for drug traffickers, money launderers and terrorist groups.
He said the planned military intervention would follow a "proper legal request" from the Solomon Islands government for this assistance. . . .
I'm sure that somewhere, someone is even now babbling incoherently about Australia's growing imperial ambitions.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 26, 2003
CNN reports:
Australia is ready to send as many as 1,500 troops and police to the lawless Solomon Islands as fears grow the Pacific nation is on the verge of collapse.
Australia will likely lead a multi-national force which could include troops from New Zealand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea.
Prime Minister John Howard said late Wednesday the fear was the Solomons would soon become a failed state and a haven for drug traffickers, money launderers and terrorist groups.
He said the planned military intervention would follow a "proper legal request" from the Solomon Islands government for this assistance. . . .
I'm sure that somewhere, someone is even now babbling incoherently about Australia's growing imperial ambitions.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 26, 2003
NOW SHE'S BLOGGING TOO!
Previously, we had to take cover only about once a week.
That's about to change.
Ann has a blog!
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 26, 2003
Previously, we had to take cover only about once a week.
That's about to change.
Ann has a blog!
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 26, 2003
HELLO
I've noticed I have been linked by a couple of sites which were created by either very lazy readers or people with reading comprehension skills that levelled off at somewhere around age 9. (I won't mention which ones they are because I won't even indirectly give such sites any traffic. Usually, such sites link to yours in the hope of bringing over traffic to themselves from better sites than their own.)
That reality, coupled with the simple fact that there is lots of material on this site now, has finally moved me to create an informal "introducing myself" link list. After all, long term friends and readers know what I am about, but those who are directed from sites that link to me in the manner above probably don't -- they find themselves suddenly dropped into the middle of a conversation without having heard previous points and general background.
So, if you are new to this site, try to have a read of these pieces here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here before you do anything else.
And have a good. . . .
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 26, 2003
I've noticed I have been linked by a couple of sites which were created by either very lazy readers or people with reading comprehension skills that levelled off at somewhere around age 9. (I won't mention which ones they are because I won't even indirectly give such sites any traffic. Usually, such sites link to yours in the hope of bringing over traffic to themselves from better sites than their own.)
That reality, coupled with the simple fact that there is lots of material on this site now, has finally moved me to create an informal "introducing myself" link list. After all, long term friends and readers know what I am about, but those who are directed from sites that link to me in the manner above probably don't -- they find themselves suddenly dropped into the middle of a conversation without having heard previous points and general background.
So, if you are new to this site, try to have a read of these pieces here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here before you do anything else.
And have a good. . . .
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 26, 2003
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
THE QUESTION BEFORE THE GROUP IS: WHAT IS NOT BUSH'S FAULT?
This idiotic Matt Wells report for the BBC was apparently penned by Demento-crats Abroad U.K. (Sorry, I mean Democrats Abroad U.K.) Major points of Bush-evil noted within are roughly as follows:
Evil point 1): . . .Stealing a march over the large and muddled field of Democrat contenders, the president's campaign machine is aiming to bring in a record war chest of around $170m in contributions. . .
Response: What a load of nonsense. As if Demento-crats aren't right now raising money for their favorite guys and gals?
Evil point 2): Bush has not found jobs for every Indonesian made unemployed in NY by the attacks of September 11th.
Response: And Bush was supposed to? Where the heck is that in the presidential job description? Oochok really should complain to his co-religionists, 10 of whom were directly responsible for why his former place of employment at the top of the WTC is now gone. Actually, Oochok is lucky he's ONLY unemployed. 3,000 others would probably love to be alive, looking for work.
Interestingly, while claiming he knows many other Muslims who feel so "very insecure" in America that they "have decided to go home with their families," Oochok himself wasn't too afraid to mouth off to a reporter, while attending an anti-Bush gathering on the steps of NY City Hall.
Evil point 3): Bush is waging war on people who want only to live "the American Dream".
Response: Demento-crats think it is inappropriate for the U.S. government to enforce immigration laws and take reasonable, legal action to prevent any future foreigners from suicidally crashing passenger jets into NYC skyscrapers.
Come to think of it, Democrats really ought to hire this dimwit. Being a new and, uh, "proud" U.S. citizen, she'd be perfect for a job as a Demento-crat organizer.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 25, 2003
This idiotic Matt Wells report for the BBC was apparently penned by Demento-crats Abroad U.K. (Sorry, I mean Democrats Abroad U.K.) Major points of Bush-evil noted within are roughly as follows:
Evil point 1): . . .Stealing a march over the large and muddled field of Democrat contenders, the president's campaign machine is aiming to bring in a record war chest of around $170m in contributions. . .
Response: What a load of nonsense. As if Demento-crats aren't right now raising money for their favorite guys and gals?
Evil point 2): Bush has not found jobs for every Indonesian made unemployed in NY by the attacks of September 11th.
Response: And Bush was supposed to? Where the heck is that in the presidential job description? Oochok really should complain to his co-religionists, 10 of whom were directly responsible for why his former place of employment at the top of the WTC is now gone. Actually, Oochok is lucky he's ONLY unemployed. 3,000 others would probably love to be alive, looking for work.
Interestingly, while claiming he knows many other Muslims who feel so "very insecure" in America that they "have decided to go home with their families," Oochok himself wasn't too afraid to mouth off to a reporter, while attending an anti-Bush gathering on the steps of NY City Hall.
Evil point 3): Bush is waging war on people who want only to live "the American Dream".
Response: Demento-crats think it is inappropriate for the U.S. government to enforce immigration laws and take reasonable, legal action to prevent any future foreigners from suicidally crashing passenger jets into NYC skyscrapers.
Come to think of it, Democrats really ought to hire this dimwit. Being a new and, uh, "proud" U.S. citizen, she'd be perfect for a job as a Demento-crat organizer.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 25, 2003
ACTUALLY, THIS IS WORTH KNOWING. . .
Best of the Web pointed out that we are giving out U.S. citizenship to "ingrates" like this Indian-born woman. Her original beaut about her citizenship swearing in ceremony appeared in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle:
. . .The request that I sing for membership reinforced a growing resentment I felt toward the United States. The American government, in pursuit of an illegal war and a post-9/11 assault on civil liberties, seemed more a police state than a democracy. Was this the America to which I would swear allegiance?
I was born in India but grew up in a proud New England town where Paul Revere was still a local hero. My childhood feelings of patriotism later gave way to more skepticism about this country. Like many American citizens, I felt entitled to criticize this country, but I also couldn't shed the vulnerability that plagues those who nervously cling to green cards. In pursuit of real security, I finally applied to become an American. . .
. . .I listened incredulously as the judge ignored how the civil liberties I had studied as a fifth grader were now under assault. She delivered a trite homily on the "wonderful freedoms" Americans have "to speak" and "to move." I thought of all of the Pakistani Americans who, unable to live here even in silence, are now moving in droves to Canada. . .
. . .As this country wages war on innocent civilians in the name of terrorism, we have, in our amnesiac way, forgotten the fragile position occupied by America's foreign born. But only Americans possess the influence and the authority to reclaim the freedoms upon which this country was founded. Without them, an oath sworn to God, or George W. Bush, will make a true citizen of no one.
On this day, I had to answer in writing, for the third time, that I had not recently joined the Communist party, practiced polygamy or solicited prostitution.
At the end, our fairy godmother swung her mallet and pronounced all of us changelings "American."
Read this whole gem. It's amazing in its arrogance and presumptions. How dare this rag bag take that attitude! She was never "entitled" to anything. And I don't care where she "grew up". Indeed, she could be George Washington's illegitimate, Indian great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter, but that would not make a wit of difference. In the final analysis, she was never an American, and clearly became a legal U.S. citizen only for her own warped and indeed selfish reasons.
Interesting that she mentions "Pakistani-Americans". Clearly, Patel didn't want her piece interpreted this way, but the recent conviction of Kashmir-born, naturalized in 1999 U.S. citizen Iyman Faris demonstrates that she is inadvertently correct on one major point: quite a few people from abroad have become U.S. citizens in recent years without having the slightest intention of ever becoming Americans. Patel outright ignores this inconvenient and, for her, very uncomfortable fact: some "new Americans" are probably -- like Faris -- enemies of America.
Patel thinks Americans are "amnesiacs" about the foreign born, but the real issue is this: who's in an arrogant, fantasy world here? It isn't most Americans. It's the likes of Patel. That the country is desperately struggling to defend American rights and freedoms while under concerted assault by slugs, who come mostly from abroad -- and, since she obviously missed it, have tried to destroy lower Manhattan -- is lost on her. How long will American rights and freedoms last under an Islamist dictatorship? We all know the answer to that, one would hope. Obviously, Patel doesn't.
I never thought I would ever feel this way: This Purvi Patel should just pack up and return to India, because residing in America clearly irritates the livin' daylights out of her. She is sickening.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 25, 2003
Best of the Web pointed out that we are giving out U.S. citizenship to "ingrates" like this Indian-born woman. Her original beaut about her citizenship swearing in ceremony appeared in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle:
. . .The request that I sing for membership reinforced a growing resentment I felt toward the United States. The American government, in pursuit of an illegal war and a post-9/11 assault on civil liberties, seemed more a police state than a democracy. Was this the America to which I would swear allegiance?
I was born in India but grew up in a proud New England town where Paul Revere was still a local hero. My childhood feelings of patriotism later gave way to more skepticism about this country. Like many American citizens, I felt entitled to criticize this country, but I also couldn't shed the vulnerability that plagues those who nervously cling to green cards. In pursuit of real security, I finally applied to become an American. . .
. . .I listened incredulously as the judge ignored how the civil liberties I had studied as a fifth grader were now under assault. She delivered a trite homily on the "wonderful freedoms" Americans have "to speak" and "to move." I thought of all of the Pakistani Americans who, unable to live here even in silence, are now moving in droves to Canada. . .
. . .As this country wages war on innocent civilians in the name of terrorism, we have, in our amnesiac way, forgotten the fragile position occupied by America's foreign born. But only Americans possess the influence and the authority to reclaim the freedoms upon which this country was founded. Without them, an oath sworn to God, or George W. Bush, will make a true citizen of no one.
On this day, I had to answer in writing, for the third time, that I had not recently joined the Communist party, practiced polygamy or solicited prostitution.
At the end, our fairy godmother swung her mallet and pronounced all of us changelings "American."
Read this whole gem. It's amazing in its arrogance and presumptions. How dare this rag bag take that attitude! She was never "entitled" to anything. And I don't care where she "grew up". Indeed, she could be George Washington's illegitimate, Indian great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter, but that would not make a wit of difference. In the final analysis, she was never an American, and clearly became a legal U.S. citizen only for her own warped and indeed selfish reasons.
Interesting that she mentions "Pakistani-Americans". Clearly, Patel didn't want her piece interpreted this way, but the recent conviction of Kashmir-born, naturalized in 1999 U.S. citizen Iyman Faris demonstrates that she is inadvertently correct on one major point: quite a few people from abroad have become U.S. citizens in recent years without having the slightest intention of ever becoming Americans. Patel outright ignores this inconvenient and, for her, very uncomfortable fact: some "new Americans" are probably -- like Faris -- enemies of America.
Patel thinks Americans are "amnesiacs" about the foreign born, but the real issue is this: who's in an arrogant, fantasy world here? It isn't most Americans. It's the likes of Patel. That the country is desperately struggling to defend American rights and freedoms while under concerted assault by slugs, who come mostly from abroad -- and, since she obviously missed it, have tried to destroy lower Manhattan -- is lost on her. How long will American rights and freedoms last under an Islamist dictatorship? We all know the answer to that, one would hope. Obviously, Patel doesn't.
I never thought I would ever feel this way: This Purvi Patel should just pack up and return to India, because residing in America clearly irritates the livin' daylights out of her. She is sickening.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 25, 2003
BRITISH DEAD IN IRAQ
By now, you probably know that 6 British military police were killed and 8 members of the Parachute Regiment injured in a recent attack.
Damn it.
British tactics in dealing with Iraqis have become well-known -- they get in close, try to make friends, attempt to alleviate mistrust, and so wear berets, and even sometimes go around without flak jackets. In contrast, most American troops still are armed to the teeth, many wearing sunglasses, flak jackets and helmets. The latter method has for some weeks come under criticism as heavy handed. Earl Attlee (grandson of the prime minister) told the BBC this, which it published on June 20:
. . .while their US counterparts may have been better kitted out, the Tory peer said they had a long way to go to achieve the success of the British in winning over the "hearts and minds" of Iraqi people.
"The Americans are very, very good at providing over-whelming military force, and now post 9/11, they are prepared to use it - but they are not so good at peace support operations," he told BBC News Online.
"At a time when I was walking around with a floppy hat on, no body armour and just a Browning 9mm pistol, the Americans were running around with full body armour, helmets - a very aggressive posture.
"They seem to find it very hard to establish a relationship with the local population.
"If you have that relationship and the confidence of the locals, they will help you finger the bad guys.
"If you are trying to chase the bad guys and they run into a house and you have their confidence, the locals will point and say: 'He's in there'.
"In principle we carry our body armour, but when you have established a safe and secure environment, you don't have to wear it all the time, because it intimidates the locals.
"It's our experience of Northern Ireland that makes us so good". . .
Hmm. Well, Northern Ireland might not be the best of examples. Anyway, his points are definitely valid. Still, I always winced whenever I saw British soldiers looking "too relaxed" in a country in which they had so recently been engaged in battle.
Attempts to make friends and gain confidence are of course fine, but consider this: in what is supposedly a very safe and friendly country, where they know the culture inside and out and speak the language fluently, police officers routinely wear head gear thicker than berets and light flak jackets when patrolling the streets of Britain.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 25, 2003
By now, you probably know that 6 British military police were killed and 8 members of the Parachute Regiment injured in a recent attack.
Damn it.
British tactics in dealing with Iraqis have become well-known -- they get in close, try to make friends, attempt to alleviate mistrust, and so wear berets, and even sometimes go around without flak jackets. In contrast, most American troops still are armed to the teeth, many wearing sunglasses, flak jackets and helmets. The latter method has for some weeks come under criticism as heavy handed. Earl Attlee (grandson of the prime minister) told the BBC this, which it published on June 20:
. . .while their US counterparts may have been better kitted out, the Tory peer said they had a long way to go to achieve the success of the British in winning over the "hearts and minds" of Iraqi people.
"The Americans are very, very good at providing over-whelming military force, and now post 9/11, they are prepared to use it - but they are not so good at peace support operations," he told BBC News Online.
"At a time when I was walking around with a floppy hat on, no body armour and just a Browning 9mm pistol, the Americans were running around with full body armour, helmets - a very aggressive posture.
"They seem to find it very hard to establish a relationship with the local population.
"If you have that relationship and the confidence of the locals, they will help you finger the bad guys.
"If you are trying to chase the bad guys and they run into a house and you have their confidence, the locals will point and say: 'He's in there'.
"In principle we carry our body armour, but when you have established a safe and secure environment, you don't have to wear it all the time, because it intimidates the locals.
"It's our experience of Northern Ireland that makes us so good". . .
Hmm. Well, Northern Ireland might not be the best of examples. Anyway, his points are definitely valid. Still, I always winced whenever I saw British soldiers looking "too relaxed" in a country in which they had so recently been engaged in battle.
Attempts to make friends and gain confidence are of course fine, but consider this: in what is supposedly a very safe and friendly country, where they know the culture inside and out and speak the language fluently, police officers routinely wear head gear thicker than berets and light flak jackets when patrolling the streets of Britain.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 25, 2003
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
THIS AIN'T EVEN IN TEXAS, BY THE WAY
LGF has this photo of yet another, err, Palestinian funeral.
I don't know about you, but of all the funerals I've ever attended, none ever looked quite like that . . . .
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 24, 2003
LGF has this photo of yet another, err, Palestinian funeral.
I don't know about you, but of all the funerals I've ever attended, none ever looked quite like that . . . .
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 24, 2003
HE COULDN'T HAVE REALLY MEANT THIS?
Tell me Richard Gephardt is not this stupid -- please! CNN reports:
. . ."When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day". . .
Someone get the man an Introduction to American National Government text. In any good one, he will find that as president he cannot do any such thing.
. . .Well, not legally at least.
Should we be worried about some sort of, um, coup d'etat?
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 24, 2003
Tell me Richard Gephardt is not this stupid -- please! CNN reports:
. . ."When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day". . .
Someone get the man an Introduction to American National Government text. In any good one, he will find that as president he cannot do any such thing.
. . .Well, not legally at least.
Should we be worried about some sort of, um, coup d'etat?
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 24, 2003
INVENTED AL QAEDA?
I noted the other day that the ostensibly conservative Peter Hitchens wrote that al Qaeda is an invention of the West. The piece is now online, if you're interested.
He calls al Qaeda:
. . .a James Bond fantasy monster. . .
Curiously, the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon are just the sorts of things that "James Bond" baddies might have concocted, although Hitchens clearly doesn't mean for his words to be interpreted that way.
Well, then, if al Qaeda is a fantasy, that must mean that the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon weren't actually organized by anyone, and in fact they didn't even really happen. Indeed, maybe they were just part of the shooting of a new Bond film?
And Hitchens -- who is forever complaining of the dumbing down of society -- tells us also that he thinks Bush is an, uh, "booby". . .
My response: nah, nah, naaah, nah, nah, naaaah. . . .
Notice as well, Hitchens finishes with a reference to Northern Ireland. And the I.R.A. is indeed VERY real. And no one else out here would deny that fact. But Hitchens's semi-obsession with Northern Ireland (he always manages to squeeze Northern Ireland into most columns, and even in discussing al Qaeda here note how he still manages to jam an Ulster reference in) caused me to remember this "joke" of a few years ago, with the last bit altered:
Representatives of powerful aliens told world leaders that they planned to destroy earth, that humanity could not prevent it happening, and so it would be best to get humanity prepared for its end. Bill Clinton went on TV and told Americans to "pray, for the end is near." Similar sentiments were expressed by Chirac, Blair and others. . .
Unable to tell readers directly, Peter Hitchens gets this scoop into his column: "Wonderful news: there will never be a united Ireland."
Today, CNN reports:
A Qatari man President Bush designated an "enemy combatant" Monday was an al Qaeda sleeper operative tasked with helping other militants get in position for future attacks, Justice Department officials said.
The officials said an al Qaeda detainee provided that information on Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, 37, who has been in U.S. custody since December 2001 and was under an indictment charging him with making false statements to the FBI and credit card fraud. . .
Another member of a not real organization, I guess.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 24, 2003
I noted the other day that the ostensibly conservative Peter Hitchens wrote that al Qaeda is an invention of the West. The piece is now online, if you're interested.
He calls al Qaeda:
. . .a James Bond fantasy monster. . .
Curiously, the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon are just the sorts of things that "James Bond" baddies might have concocted, although Hitchens clearly doesn't mean for his words to be interpreted that way.
Well, then, if al Qaeda is a fantasy, that must mean that the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon weren't actually organized by anyone, and in fact they didn't even really happen. Indeed, maybe they were just part of the shooting of a new Bond film?
And Hitchens -- who is forever complaining of the dumbing down of society -- tells us also that he thinks Bush is an, uh, "booby". . .
My response: nah, nah, naaah, nah, nah, naaaah. . . .
Notice as well, Hitchens finishes with a reference to Northern Ireland. And the I.R.A. is indeed VERY real. And no one else out here would deny that fact. But Hitchens's semi-obsession with Northern Ireland (he always manages to squeeze Northern Ireland into most columns, and even in discussing al Qaeda here note how he still manages to jam an Ulster reference in) caused me to remember this "joke" of a few years ago, with the last bit altered:
Representatives of powerful aliens told world leaders that they planned to destroy earth, that humanity could not prevent it happening, and so it would be best to get humanity prepared for its end. Bill Clinton went on TV and told Americans to "pray, for the end is near." Similar sentiments were expressed by Chirac, Blair and others. . .
Unable to tell readers directly, Peter Hitchens gets this scoop into his column: "Wonderful news: there will never be a united Ireland."
Today, CNN reports:
A Qatari man President Bush designated an "enemy combatant" Monday was an al Qaeda sleeper operative tasked with helping other militants get in position for future attacks, Justice Department officials said.
The officials said an al Qaeda detainee provided that information on Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, 37, who has been in U.S. custody since December 2001 and was under an indictment charging him with making false statements to the FBI and credit card fraud. . .
Another member of a not real organization, I guess.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 24, 2003
Monday, June 23, 2003
AND SUCH MULTILINGUAL STUPIDITY. . . .
LGF tells us about an "American Apology" shirt:
Here’s a T-shirt for US travellers abroad who are ashamed of their own country, with a charming slogan translated into several languages: “I’m sorry my president’s an idiot. I didn’t vote for him.” American Apology Shirt. (Hat tip: Douglas.)
To really complete the message, though, it should also read: “Please don’t say anything mean to me, or hit me.” And it should have a broad yellow stripe running down the back.
On Saturday night, we got together with my brother-in-law and sister-in-law and two people they knew -- but whom I knew only passingly. We sat around for a while talking politely, but of course within an hour or so the conversation turned to America's "Supreme Leader." Those two I barely knew thought it okay to tell me they were very "anti-war" and that they basically thought Bush was a jerk.
Talk about waving a red flag in front of a capitalist!
My wife immediately jumped in -- she knows me all too well! -- to warn them that most Americans get on their hind legs when someone criticizes their president. That made it easy for me to let it be known at the outset that I backed the war in Iraq, that I backed the war in Afghanistan, and that I backed Bush -- and that I might very well build a statue of him in our backyard.
(That last bit was over the top, and I knew it -- because my wife would never stand for it. A statue of George would look a little out of place among the flowerbeds she's working so hard on!)
The room got quiet, and I responded to every "anti-war" point appropriately. All things considered, I was on my best behavior. However, my singularly apolitical brother-in-law finally cleared his throat long enough to say that he didn't know he was going to have world leaders around the table. And the conversation drifted to other things. (I guess I wasn't playing the game properly.) It was all fair-minded and never nasty.
That brings me back to this silly T-shirt. Americans who wear junk like it are people for whom it is hard to have much respect. In the final analysis, there is no need to wander about screaming that you think Bush is an idiot, or to walk around proclaiming you think he should be added to Mt. Rushmore. You can simply take each situation as it comes. It's called being civilized and rational.
Oh, and by the way, I DIDN'T vote for him 2000 either!
To be honest, "International" Americans who would wear a shirt like that when aboard should really consider staying home -- until they get an injection of some freakin' guts.
And there's another reason it should be left in the drawer, or confined to Democrats Abroad U.K. meetings: wearing a shirt like that will make one an easy target for anyone who just wants to take a shot at an American.
Remember, al Qaeda doesn't give a damn if you voted for Bush, Gore, or for Ralph flippin' Nader. Simply, al Qaeda and several hundred million people who support them just want to see you -- as an American, period -- dead.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 23, 2003
LGF tells us about an "American Apology" shirt:
Here’s a T-shirt for US travellers abroad who are ashamed of their own country, with a charming slogan translated into several languages: “I’m sorry my president’s an idiot. I didn’t vote for him.” American Apology Shirt. (Hat tip: Douglas.)
To really complete the message, though, it should also read: “Please don’t say anything mean to me, or hit me.” And it should have a broad yellow stripe running down the back.
On Saturday night, we got together with my brother-in-law and sister-in-law and two people they knew -- but whom I knew only passingly. We sat around for a while talking politely, but of course within an hour or so the conversation turned to America's "Supreme Leader." Those two I barely knew thought it okay to tell me they were very "anti-war" and that they basically thought Bush was a jerk.
Talk about waving a red flag in front of a capitalist!
My wife immediately jumped in -- she knows me all too well! -- to warn them that most Americans get on their hind legs when someone criticizes their president. That made it easy for me to let it be known at the outset that I backed the war in Iraq, that I backed the war in Afghanistan, and that I backed Bush -- and that I might very well build a statue of him in our backyard.
(That last bit was over the top, and I knew it -- because my wife would never stand for it. A statue of George would look a little out of place among the flowerbeds she's working so hard on!)
The room got quiet, and I responded to every "anti-war" point appropriately. All things considered, I was on my best behavior. However, my singularly apolitical brother-in-law finally cleared his throat long enough to say that he didn't know he was going to have world leaders around the table. And the conversation drifted to other things. (I guess I wasn't playing the game properly.) It was all fair-minded and never nasty.
That brings me back to this silly T-shirt. Americans who wear junk like it are people for whom it is hard to have much respect. In the final analysis, there is no need to wander about screaming that you think Bush is an idiot, or to walk around proclaiming you think he should be added to Mt. Rushmore. You can simply take each situation as it comes. It's called being civilized and rational.
Oh, and by the way, I DIDN'T vote for him 2000 either!
To be honest, "International" Americans who would wear a shirt like that when aboard should really consider staying home -- until they get an injection of some freakin' guts.
And there's another reason it should be left in the drawer, or confined to Democrats Abroad U.K. meetings: wearing a shirt like that will make one an easy target for anyone who just wants to take a shot at an American.
Remember, al Qaeda doesn't give a damn if you voted for Bush, Gore, or for Ralph flippin' Nader. Simply, al Qaeda and several hundred million people who support them just want to see you -- as an American, period -- dead.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 23, 2003
DAVE ON NEWSPAPERS
Need a smile on a Monday morning? (I sure do this morning!) Read Dave Barry on what has happened to newspapers:
We are worried, here in the newspaper business (motto: ``What, YOU never make misstakes?''). We're hearing that you readers have lost your faith in us. Polls show that, in terms of public trust, the news media now rank lower than used-car salespeople, kidnappers, tapeworms, Hitler and airline flight announcements. (We are still slightly ahead of lawyers.)
Of course, these poll results were reported by the news media, so they could be wrong. In fact, there might not actually have been any polls; it's possible that some reporter made the whole ''media credibility'' story up.
But I don't think so. I think the public is genuinely unhappy with us. Lately, when I tell people I work for a newspaper, I've detected the subtle signs of disapproval -- the dirty looks; the snide remarks; the severed animal heads in my bed.
How did we get into this situation? Without pointing the finger of blame at any one institution, I would say it is entirely the fault of The New York Times. . .
Go read the rest, and have a good laugh.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 23, 2003
Need a smile on a Monday morning? (I sure do this morning!) Read Dave Barry on what has happened to newspapers:
We are worried, here in the newspaper business (motto: ``What, YOU never make misstakes?''). We're hearing that you readers have lost your faith in us. Polls show that, in terms of public trust, the news media now rank lower than used-car salespeople, kidnappers, tapeworms, Hitler and airline flight announcements. (We are still slightly ahead of lawyers.)
Of course, these poll results were reported by the news media, so they could be wrong. In fact, there might not actually have been any polls; it's possible that some reporter made the whole ''media credibility'' story up.
But I don't think so. I think the public is genuinely unhappy with us. Lately, when I tell people I work for a newspaper, I've detected the subtle signs of disapproval -- the dirty looks; the snide remarks; the severed animal heads in my bed.
How did we get into this situation? Without pointing the finger of blame at any one institution, I would say it is entirely the fault of The New York Times. . .
Go read the rest, and have a good laugh.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 23, 2003
THERE ARE STILL THOSE WHO THINK THERE WAS NO DEBATE
Biased BBC's Natalie Solent body slams the BBC's John Willis, and rightfully so. (See June 20 entry):
The Guardian today has an article by the BBC's "director of factual and learning", John Willis. (The lack of initial capitals and a noun to go with the adjective 'factual' is no doing of mine; thus it appears in the Guardian.) Despite being a director of factual and learning he seems to have spent a year in America ignoring the plainest facts and learning nothing. Please don't think that that is merely an over-dramatic way for me to say that he has different political opinions from mine. He does, but that wasn't what made me go and bang my head against the television for a bit to see if any of my surplus braincells might thus be transmitted into his skull to make up the shortage there. Nope, what got me a-banging was the way he quite confidently and calmly and in the evident expectation of being believed said this:
"There was little or no debate. Any lack of patriotism was punished with McCarthyite vigour, even in the television industry, where CBS's Ed Vernon was summarily dismissed for a mild case of expressing his opinion."
Big Sad Sigh. That, Mr Willis, is not true. It is not even interestingly untrue. There was lots and lots of debate about the war in America. Millions of people went on demonstrations opposing it, as the anti-war movement would be the first to tell you. The demonstrators didn't go to jail. Articles opposing the war appeared regularly in every major US newspaper, and the authors were not blacklisted. Petitions and public statements opposing it were made by half of Hollywood. The famous people suffered nothing more than a percentage of their audiences exercising their right to stop buying the anti-war celebrities' music or watching their films - and in most cases, not even that. NBC, ABC and CBS are all nearly as "liberal" in their institutional culture as the BBC, and were nearly as convinced that America was sure to be bogged down by Saddam's army and that the war would kill hundreds of thousands and displace millions more. CNN has admitted that it soft-pedalled Saddam's atrocities to get access. . .
. . .How did this guy Willis spend his time in the US - in cryogenic storage? Didn't he notice that practically all his American TV exec colleagues did not vote for Bush, in fact mock and despise him, and yet keep their jobs?* Did he ever listen to NPR? Didn't he observe that the New York Times and the LA Times had article after article opposing the war? Here's one from the LA Times denouncing the sacking of Ed Gernow, which Willis mentions. For all that the author is as cavalier with the use of the word "McCarthyite" as Willis himself, does anyone seriously believe that he is going to be up before the Un-American Activities Committee next week? Soon, I predict, the truth of what a bad thing McCarthyism really was will be forgotten. This process will be sped along by idiots misusing the word to mean "someone said something nasty about me." Equally, the real dangers to civil liberties represented by the Patriot Act will be ignored because of people like Willis too often cried wolf. . . .
Indeed.
This is beyond tiring. But what it boils down to really, is this: if you lose a debate big time, you then proceed to insist that the debate wasn't allowed, or wasn't fair.
The BBC continues to impress with the "quality" of its reporting on the U.S. . . .
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 23, 2003
Biased BBC's Natalie Solent body slams the BBC's John Willis, and rightfully so. (See June 20 entry):
The Guardian today has an article by the BBC's "director of factual and learning", John Willis. (The lack of initial capitals and a noun to go with the adjective 'factual' is no doing of mine; thus it appears in the Guardian.) Despite being a director of factual and learning he seems to have spent a year in America ignoring the plainest facts and learning nothing. Please don't think that that is merely an over-dramatic way for me to say that he has different political opinions from mine. He does, but that wasn't what made me go and bang my head against the television for a bit to see if any of my surplus braincells might thus be transmitted into his skull to make up the shortage there. Nope, what got me a-banging was the way he quite confidently and calmly and in the evident expectation of being believed said this:
"There was little or no debate. Any lack of patriotism was punished with McCarthyite vigour, even in the television industry, where CBS's Ed Vernon was summarily dismissed for a mild case of expressing his opinion."
Big Sad Sigh. That, Mr Willis, is not true. It is not even interestingly untrue. There was lots and lots of debate about the war in America. Millions of people went on demonstrations opposing it, as the anti-war movement would be the first to tell you. The demonstrators didn't go to jail. Articles opposing the war appeared regularly in every major US newspaper, and the authors were not blacklisted. Petitions and public statements opposing it were made by half of Hollywood. The famous people suffered nothing more than a percentage of their audiences exercising their right to stop buying the anti-war celebrities' music or watching their films - and in most cases, not even that. NBC, ABC and CBS are all nearly as "liberal" in their institutional culture as the BBC, and were nearly as convinced that America was sure to be bogged down by Saddam's army and that the war would kill hundreds of thousands and displace millions more. CNN has admitted that it soft-pedalled Saddam's atrocities to get access. . .
. . .How did this guy Willis spend his time in the US - in cryogenic storage? Didn't he notice that practically all his American TV exec colleagues did not vote for Bush, in fact mock and despise him, and yet keep their jobs?* Did he ever listen to NPR? Didn't he observe that the New York Times and the LA Times had article after article opposing the war? Here's one from the LA Times denouncing the sacking of Ed Gernow, which Willis mentions. For all that the author is as cavalier with the use of the word "McCarthyite" as Willis himself, does anyone seriously believe that he is going to be up before the Un-American Activities Committee next week? Soon, I predict, the truth of what a bad thing McCarthyism really was will be forgotten. This process will be sped along by idiots misusing the word to mean "someone said something nasty about me." Equally, the real dangers to civil liberties represented by the Patriot Act will be ignored because of people like Willis too often cried wolf. . . .
Indeed.
This is beyond tiring. But what it boils down to really, is this: if you lose a debate big time, you then proceed to insist that the debate wasn't allowed, or wasn't fair.
The BBC continues to impress with the "quality" of its reporting on the U.S. . . .
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 23, 2003
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT IRAQ
The Globe and Mail attempts to cut through the nonsense, and does simple "Q" & "A" on the current situation in Iraq.
Very useful, and worth a read. ¶ by Robert, Monday, June 23, 2003
The Globe and Mail attempts to cut through the nonsense, and does simple "Q" & "A" on the current situation in Iraq.
Very useful, and worth a read. ¶ by Robert, Monday, June 23, 2003
WIMBLEDON
Wimbledon's getting underway this week.
Oh, and after about two weeks of incredible, sunny, warm weather, it's raining here in London this morning.
What a surprise! ¶ by Robert, Monday, June 23, 2003
Wimbledon's getting underway this week.
Oh, and after about two weeks of incredible, sunny, warm weather, it's raining here in London this morning.
What a surprise! ¶ by Robert, Monday, June 23, 2003
WE DO HAVE A TELEPHONE
. . .It is unfortunate that most people think the occurrences passing daily under their eyes, are either known to all the world, or not worth being known. They therefore do not give them a place in their letters. I hope you will be so good as to continue your friendly information. The proceedings of our public bodies, the progress of the public mind on interesting questions, the casualties which happen among our private friends, and whatever is interesting to yourself and family will always be anxiously received by me. . .
- Thomas Jefferson in Paris to John Page in Virginia, May 4, 1786.
We had a death in our family in New York on Friday. However, we managed to find out purely by accident only on Sunday evening, when I happened to ring my parents for a casual chat, and they then told me. We were left with barely enough time to get flowers delivered before the funeral.
Of course, we couldn't be there for the funeral -- although, had we had enough lead time (48 hours, say) we quite possibly could have, had we really needed to be there.
But the simple notion of picking up a phone or dropping us an email, on the presumably wild assumption that we'd have liked to have been told in the same manner as most everyone else (and there is at least one relative flying in for the funeral from as far away as Oregon) had apparently never entered anyone's head.
And this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. I have told them of our feelings on this subject time and again, but I seem to make no impression.
Families. . . .
. . . they say they don't want to disturb you!
Disturb?
Sometimes, you damn well WANT to be disturbed!
What Jefferson and millions of others would have given to possess the simplicity and immediacy of telephone and email.
And yet we often take them for granted.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 23, 2003
. . .It is unfortunate that most people think the occurrences passing daily under their eyes, are either known to all the world, or not worth being known. They therefore do not give them a place in their letters. I hope you will be so good as to continue your friendly information. The proceedings of our public bodies, the progress of the public mind on interesting questions, the casualties which happen among our private friends, and whatever is interesting to yourself and family will always be anxiously received by me. . .
- Thomas Jefferson in Paris to John Page in Virginia, May 4, 1786.
We had a death in our family in New York on Friday. However, we managed to find out purely by accident only on Sunday evening, when I happened to ring my parents for a casual chat, and they then told me. We were left with barely enough time to get flowers delivered before the funeral.
Of course, we couldn't be there for the funeral -- although, had we had enough lead time (48 hours, say) we quite possibly could have, had we really needed to be there.
But the simple notion of picking up a phone or dropping us an email, on the presumably wild assumption that we'd have liked to have been told in the same manner as most everyone else (and there is at least one relative flying in for the funeral from as far away as Oregon) had apparently never entered anyone's head.
And this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. I have told them of our feelings on this subject time and again, but I seem to make no impression.
Families. . . .
. . . they say they don't want to disturb you!
Disturb?
Sometimes, you damn well WANT to be disturbed!
What Jefferson and millions of others would have given to possess the simplicity and immediacy of telephone and email.
And yet we often take them for granted.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 23, 2003
Sunday, June 22, 2003
GOOD THING THEY ARE INTERESTED IN PROTECTING RIGHTS
The Sunday Times reports this lunacy:
The joint committee on human rights, made up of peers and MPs, will report that the government risks falling foul of European human rights legislation by allowing parents to strike a child.
Parents are permitted by law to use physical force to discipline a child if they can demonstrate that the motive is “reasonable chastisement”. This has been the case for 140 years.
However, the committee is understood to believe it is contrary to European laws banning “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. It therefore intends to recommend that parents should no longer be exempted from the law of assault, even if they cite discipline as the reason for their action. This will, in effect, mean the end of smacking.
A source close to the committee, which will publish its report on Tuesday, said: “This matter has been closely considered and the reasonable chastisement defence must simply be removed. It should be up to the courts to decide if a child is a victim of assault when hit by a parent”. . .
There are clear laws on the books outlawing abusive behavior. And parents who are abusers are under the law punished. So what gives with the above nonsense?
Well, they are about to claim reasonably chastising a child who does not understand verbal signals to behave differently is tantamount to assault.
Oh, what brilliant legal minds. So, this is what that will likely mean in real life.
If you have an 18 month old (who is not yet of an age when he can be reasoned with about human rights), and he decides to run out of your front door like a bolt of lightning into traffic, you as a parent must stand back, unable to grab him and give him a little loving smack on the rear end to inform him that you disapprove of his doing so, thus causing him in the future to associate running into traffic with "Hey, my rear hurts a little, so I won't do that again."
Instead, you will presumably have to shout after him (although he understands nothing of what you say yet) that you are actually protecting his human rights by not giving him a little smack on the backside.
However, by the time you are done informing your child of this latest Euro-brilliance, he is bloody mush, having just been hit by a bus.
But you as a parent will have the satisfaction of knowing that your dead child's human rights were being fully protected.
And so we see yet another example of how Europe's insanity increases daily . . .
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 22, 2003
The Sunday Times reports this lunacy:
The joint committee on human rights, made up of peers and MPs, will report that the government risks falling foul of European human rights legislation by allowing parents to strike a child.
Parents are permitted by law to use physical force to discipline a child if they can demonstrate that the motive is “reasonable chastisement”. This has been the case for 140 years.
However, the committee is understood to believe it is contrary to European laws banning “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. It therefore intends to recommend that parents should no longer be exempted from the law of assault, even if they cite discipline as the reason for their action. This will, in effect, mean the end of smacking.
A source close to the committee, which will publish its report on Tuesday, said: “This matter has been closely considered and the reasonable chastisement defence must simply be removed. It should be up to the courts to decide if a child is a victim of assault when hit by a parent”. . .
There are clear laws on the books outlawing abusive behavior. And parents who are abusers are under the law punished. So what gives with the above nonsense?
Well, they are about to claim reasonably chastising a child who does not understand verbal signals to behave differently is tantamount to assault.
Oh, what brilliant legal minds. So, this is what that will likely mean in real life.
If you have an 18 month old (who is not yet of an age when he can be reasoned with about human rights), and he decides to run out of your front door like a bolt of lightning into traffic, you as a parent must stand back, unable to grab him and give him a little loving smack on the rear end to inform him that you disapprove of his doing so, thus causing him in the future to associate running into traffic with "Hey, my rear hurts a little, so I won't do that again."
Instead, you will presumably have to shout after him (although he understands nothing of what you say yet) that you are actually protecting his human rights by not giving him a little smack on the backside.
However, by the time you are done informing your child of this latest Euro-brilliance, he is bloody mush, having just been hit by a bus.
But you as a parent will have the satisfaction of knowing that your dead child's human rights were being fully protected.
And so we see yet another example of how Europe's insanity increases daily . . .
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 22, 2003
SHARON KEEPS UP THE PRESSURE
The BBC reports this morning:
International mediators are meeting in Jordan to try to save the Middle East peace plan, known as the roadmap.
Their talks are taking place just hours after Israeli forces killed a senior leader of the Islamic militant group Hamas in the West Bank.
Abdullah Qawasmeh was shot dead by an elite army unit in Hebron on Saturday night in disputed circumstances. . .
. . .Israel has accepted the roadmap, but it says it reserves the right to continue its hunt for militants who it says are "ticking bombs".
Israel demands that the Palestinian Authority dismantle Hamas.
The army says its forces were trying to arrest Qawasmeh, while Palestinian sources say he was shot without warning. . .
What difference should that make to the holy, Hamas fighters? He wanted to die gloriously, after all.
Hamas considers itself "at war" with Israel, and that Palestinian "resistance" to "the occupation" justifies shooting Israeli 7 year olds INSIDE Israel.
It is a truism that war means killin'.
Sharon is giving them a good dose of the war they so crave.
So what's their problem?
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 22, 2003
The BBC reports this morning:
International mediators are meeting in Jordan to try to save the Middle East peace plan, known as the roadmap.
Their talks are taking place just hours after Israeli forces killed a senior leader of the Islamic militant group Hamas in the West Bank.
Abdullah Qawasmeh was shot dead by an elite army unit in Hebron on Saturday night in disputed circumstances. . .
. . .Israel has accepted the roadmap, but it says it reserves the right to continue its hunt for militants who it says are "ticking bombs".
Israel demands that the Palestinian Authority dismantle Hamas.
The army says its forces were trying to arrest Qawasmeh, while Palestinian sources say he was shot without warning. . .
What difference should that make to the holy, Hamas fighters? He wanted to die gloriously, after all.
Hamas considers itself "at war" with Israel, and that Palestinian "resistance" to "the occupation" justifies shooting Israeli 7 year olds INSIDE Israel.
It is a truism that war means killin'.
Sharon is giving them a good dose of the war they so crave.
So what's their problem?
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 22, 2003
Saturday, June 21, 2003
NOW, ANOTHER WORD FROM THE "MINISTER FOR EVERYTHING". . .
. . .Robin Cook warned us that he will continue to speak out, rather than do us all a favor and just vanish. So, now that he holds no post with any real responsibility -- thank goodness -- as long as the media think he is worth interviewing (probably, they'll grow tired of him by the end of this year), his views may pop up regularly. The BBC reports:
Former cabinet minister Robin Cook has defended Commons leader Peter Hain for voicing his ideas on changing the tax system.
Mr Hain had intended to call for top earners to pay more income tax during a speech to a left-wing think-tank, but was forced to drop his suggestion after criticism from the government.
Both Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Treasury made it clear there would be no change in tax policy. . .
Nothing like having Robin Cook in your corner. Yep.
Peter must really be nervous now . . .
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 21, 2003
. . .Robin Cook warned us that he will continue to speak out, rather than do us all a favor and just vanish. So, now that he holds no post with any real responsibility -- thank goodness -- as long as the media think he is worth interviewing (probably, they'll grow tired of him by the end of this year), his views may pop up regularly. The BBC reports:
Former cabinet minister Robin Cook has defended Commons leader Peter Hain for voicing his ideas on changing the tax system.
Mr Hain had intended to call for top earners to pay more income tax during a speech to a left-wing think-tank, but was forced to drop his suggestion after criticism from the government.
Both Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Treasury made it clear there would be no change in tax policy. . .
Nothing like having Robin Cook in your corner. Yep.
Peter must really be nervous now . . .
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 21, 2003
FORWARD TO AUSTRALIA
Yesterday evening, we went to a "see you again someday" get together at "The King's Head" pub in Crouch End -- those are real names, yes -- given by friends who are relocating to Australia at the end of July.
They are also singers and performers, and good ones -- and they brought down the house last night. Our hearing is only now coming back completely. Scruff they may label themselves, but Roisin sings with the trill of Sarah McLachlan and Gavin plays guitar with a skill that is worth writing home about.
Above all, they are first-class people. They will be missed -- big time.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 21, 2003
Yesterday evening, we went to a "see you again someday" get together at "The King's Head" pub in Crouch End -- those are real names, yes -- given by friends who are relocating to Australia at the end of July.
They are also singers and performers, and good ones -- and they brought down the house last night. Our hearing is only now coming back completely. Scruff they may label themselves, but Roisin sings with the trill of Sarah McLachlan and Gavin plays guitar with a skill that is worth writing home about.
Above all, they are first-class people. They will be missed -- big time.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 21, 2003
Friday, June 20, 2003
ANOTHER FIFTH COLUMNIST
CNN reports:
1) The Buffalo, NY Islamists who were visiting bin Laden were part of that area's "Yemeni-American community." Yet those men obviously considered themselves more Yemenis than Americans. They were born in the U.S., and by birth U.S. citizens.
2) The Louisiana-born (of Saudi parents) al Qaeda fighter captured in Afghanistan suddenly remembered upon being tossed into captivity in Guantanamo that he had been born in the U.S., and so is a U.S. citizen. Yet until capture, he clearly considered himself a Saudi and an Islamist, not an American.
If those are just examples of the few who've been caught, how many have not yet been uncovered?
We are in uncharted territory.
Under the 14th Amendment's opening lines, U.S. citizenship is conferred through birth in the U.S. So, regardless of whether or not the mother is a citizen, a legal resident, or even an enemy alien, if her offspring enters the world on U.S. soil, that child is a U.S. citizen.
In contrast, Europeans have usually taken the view that citizenship is not parcelled out lightly. It is rooted in nationality, as slippery as that may be, and to them nationality usually has more to do with family and longstanding tradition than with a simple legalism like geographical birth location.
Children born (since 1983) in Britain to non-citizens are NOT automatically British citizens.
So, if a British couple residing in the U.S. gives birth to a child in New York, the child is automatically both a British citizen and, in the eyes of the U.S., a U.S. citizen. In the opposite case, if an U.S. citizen couple residing in Britain gives birth to a child, that child would similarly be a U.S. citizen, but -- here is the important difference --- that child would NOT automatically be a British citizen.
In my personal case, as a U.S. citizen (and an American) living in Britain, if a child of mine is born here, that child would be either a U.S. citizen or a British citizen. But that child could claim British citizenship only because my wife is a British citizen, not because the child might have been born in geographical Britain.
Similarly, the "Swede" (on his way to an "Islamic conference" in Birmingham, England) who tried to smuggle a firearm aboard a Ryanair flight from Stockholm to London's Stansted Airport, is the son of a Tunisian man and a Swedish woman. He is a Swedish citizen because of his mother's citizenship, not because of his birth location. He could have opted to be Tunisian, but with the material and social benefits of living in Sweden far outweighing those of living in Tunisia, it is hardly surprising he is "Swedish."
Americans' concerns about the wartime allegiances of resident aliens and their American-born children is not new. What is new is that in this war Islamist U.S. citizens usually show none of the passionate determination of WWII-era Japanese-Americans, German-Americans and Italian-Americans about proving that they are as good Americans as their neighbors.
The reverse is actually the case. Islamist U.S. citizens loudly proclaim that they do not consider themselves to be Americans. In fact, they are usually disparaging of the very idea of the United States. For Islamists, it is anathema to show any allegiance to a non-Islamic, religiously diverse entity like the U.S. And their contempt for Americans as people is profound. So it is hardly worth even trying to persuade such people that, owing to their U.S. citizenship, they are Americans when they so clearly feel themselves not to be.
Where does that leave the 14th Amendment idea of birth conferring citizenship? Well, unless things are changed, birth in the U.S. will continue to automatically grant U.S. citizenship, even to unwilling people. But in the last 18 months, as hard as this is to admit, it has also become clear that birth in the U.S. does not automatically create an American. ¶ by Robert, Friday, June 20, 2003
CNN reports:
An Ohio trucker has admitted to helping plan al Qaeda attacks in the United States after meeting terror chief Osama bin Laden at an Afghanistan terror training camp.He was an immigrant and a naturalized U.S. citizen of nearly 4 years, and was working with al Qaeda. That is bad enough. But consider also these other people and happenings:
Iyman Faris, 34, checked out the chances of destroying a New York bridge and tried to buy equipment for proposed al Qaeda attacks while appearing to be a law-abiding trucker, according to documents unsealed Thursday in the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia.
Faris pleaded guilty May 1 to providing material support to al Qaeda and to conspiring to do so, according to the documents. The charges together carry as much as 20 years in prison and up to $500,000 in fines.
Sources told CNN that al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is in U.S. custody, told his interrogators the target was the 116-year-old Brooklyn Bridge.
New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told reporters that Faris is believed to have received instructions directly from senior al Qaeda leaders, including Shaikh Mohammed.
Born in Kashmir in June 1969, Faris entered the United States in May 1994 and became a U.S. citizen in December 1999, working as a truck driver from his home in Columbus, Ohio. . .
1) The Buffalo, NY Islamists who were visiting bin Laden were part of that area's "Yemeni-American community." Yet those men obviously considered themselves more Yemenis than Americans. They were born in the U.S., and by birth U.S. citizens.
2) The Louisiana-born (of Saudi parents) al Qaeda fighter captured in Afghanistan suddenly remembered upon being tossed into captivity in Guantanamo that he had been born in the U.S., and so is a U.S. citizen. Yet until capture, he clearly considered himself a Saudi and an Islamist, not an American.
If those are just examples of the few who've been caught, how many have not yet been uncovered?
We are in uncharted territory.
Under the 14th Amendment's opening lines, U.S. citizenship is conferred through birth in the U.S. So, regardless of whether or not the mother is a citizen, a legal resident, or even an enemy alien, if her offspring enters the world on U.S. soil, that child is a U.S. citizen.
In contrast, Europeans have usually taken the view that citizenship is not parcelled out lightly. It is rooted in nationality, as slippery as that may be, and to them nationality usually has more to do with family and longstanding tradition than with a simple legalism like geographical birth location.
Children born (since 1983) in Britain to non-citizens are NOT automatically British citizens.
So, if a British couple residing in the U.S. gives birth to a child in New York, the child is automatically both a British citizen and, in the eyes of the U.S., a U.S. citizen. In the opposite case, if an U.S. citizen couple residing in Britain gives birth to a child, that child would similarly be a U.S. citizen, but -- here is the important difference --- that child would NOT automatically be a British citizen.
In my personal case, as a U.S. citizen (and an American) living in Britain, if a child of mine is born here, that child would be either a U.S. citizen or a British citizen. But that child could claim British citizenship only because my wife is a British citizen, not because the child might have been born in geographical Britain.
Similarly, the "Swede" (on his way to an "Islamic conference" in Birmingham, England) who tried to smuggle a firearm aboard a Ryanair flight from Stockholm to London's Stansted Airport, is the son of a Tunisian man and a Swedish woman. He is a Swedish citizen because of his mother's citizenship, not because of his birth location. He could have opted to be Tunisian, but with the material and social benefits of living in Sweden far outweighing those of living in Tunisia, it is hardly surprising he is "Swedish."
Americans' concerns about the wartime allegiances of resident aliens and their American-born children is not new. What is new is that in this war Islamist U.S. citizens usually show none of the passionate determination of WWII-era Japanese-Americans, German-Americans and Italian-Americans about proving that they are as good Americans as their neighbors.
The reverse is actually the case. Islamist U.S. citizens loudly proclaim that they do not consider themselves to be Americans. In fact, they are usually disparaging of the very idea of the United States. For Islamists, it is anathema to show any allegiance to a non-Islamic, religiously diverse entity like the U.S. And their contempt for Americans as people is profound. So it is hardly worth even trying to persuade such people that, owing to their U.S. citizenship, they are Americans when they so clearly feel themselves not to be.
Where does that leave the 14th Amendment idea of birth conferring citizenship? Well, unless things are changed, birth in the U.S. will continue to automatically grant U.S. citizenship, even to unwilling people. But in the last 18 months, as hard as this is to admit, it has also become clear that birth in the U.S. does not automatically create an American. ¶ by Robert, Friday, June 20, 2003
OH, THIS IS ORIGINAL: TAX "THE RICH"
Socialist Peter Hain was a South African activist passionately opposed to apartheid. Very commendable that. Now that apartheid is gone Peter lives in Britain, and is a high ranking minister in Tony Blair's cabinet. And Peter now spends his time demanding that British people pay ever higher taxes. The BBC reports:
. . .In a speech on Friday, Commons Leader Peter Hain is expected to say that too many people on average incomes - including teachers and police officers - now fall into the 40% band.
He will become the first New Labour minister to propose the redistribution of money through the introduction of a higher top rate of tax. . .
. . .The Treasury has already angrily dismissed the tax suggestion, saying it is Chancellor Gordon Brown who makes decisions on taxation.
A spokesman said on Friday: "At no stage has Peter Hain raised these issues with the Treasury". . .
The BBC goes on to point out:
. . .At present, the basic rate of tax is 22% on earnings up to £35,115.
Above this level the 40% rate of tax comes in.
One option could be to introduce a 50% rate on earnings over £50,000, and 60% for income over £100,000.
The 22% basic rate ceiling could then be lifted to £50,000.
For somebody on £50,000 a year the change would mean an extra £2,860 a year, or £51 a week.
Ah, the old reliable, "redistribution of wealth".
Those who want to increase taxes always position the tax increase as a way to reduce the tax burden on struggling teachers, police, etc., blah, blah.
Before one falls for that line remember that when firefighters struck over the last year several times attempting to get their base salary raised to £30,000, this same government called them every name under the sun, whining that such an increase was impossible to afford.
So, how about this radical suggestion? If one won't raise civil servants' salaries ostensibly because it will break the bank, how about LOWERING taxes in general, so civil servants' lower salaries go farther in the real world? Oh, my, god, what, a, suggestion!!!!
In this country, one pays for practically the very air one breathes. Indeed, £35,115 does not go far at all. But the reason that money doesn't go far is because the government takes a whopping 22% of it. And that's just for starters. One can't even begin to list all the other schemes -- oh, I mean various levies, fees, pay and display car parks, stamp duty, alcohol taxes, cigarette taxes, fuel taxes, etc. -- through which the British people are also parted from their hard-earned money.
Consider this: Hain thinks those earning £50,000 are well off. Hmm. Interesting how that will be the exact gross income of a married, firefighter couple, when their base pay is £25,000 each. In Hain's world, that's rich.
Not content with hoping to see taxes increased on such "high earners", Hain is in favor of this gem:
. . .He is also expected to float ideas for compulsory voting in elections. . .
Oh, yeh, now that's freedom for you.
If people don't vote, presumably Peter feels that they should be fined?
Ah, yes, yet another way to steal money . . .
By the way, how much did that government-run Millennium Dome fiasco cost British taxpayers again?
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 20, 2003
Socialist Peter Hain was a South African activist passionately opposed to apartheid. Very commendable that. Now that apartheid is gone Peter lives in Britain, and is a high ranking minister in Tony Blair's cabinet. And Peter now spends his time demanding that British people pay ever higher taxes. The BBC reports:
. . .In a speech on Friday, Commons Leader Peter Hain is expected to say that too many people on average incomes - including teachers and police officers - now fall into the 40% band.
He will become the first New Labour minister to propose the redistribution of money through the introduction of a higher top rate of tax. . .
. . .The Treasury has already angrily dismissed the tax suggestion, saying it is Chancellor Gordon Brown who makes decisions on taxation.
A spokesman said on Friday: "At no stage has Peter Hain raised these issues with the Treasury". . .
The BBC goes on to point out:
. . .At present, the basic rate of tax is 22% on earnings up to £35,115.
Above this level the 40% rate of tax comes in.
One option could be to introduce a 50% rate on earnings over £50,000, and 60% for income over £100,000.
The 22% basic rate ceiling could then be lifted to £50,000.
For somebody on £50,000 a year the change would mean an extra £2,860 a year, or £51 a week.
Ah, the old reliable, "redistribution of wealth".
Those who want to increase taxes always position the tax increase as a way to reduce the tax burden on struggling teachers, police, etc., blah, blah.
Before one falls for that line remember that when firefighters struck over the last year several times attempting to get their base salary raised to £30,000, this same government called them every name under the sun, whining that such an increase was impossible to afford.
So, how about this radical suggestion? If one won't raise civil servants' salaries ostensibly because it will break the bank, how about LOWERING taxes in general, so civil servants' lower salaries go farther in the real world? Oh, my, god, what, a, suggestion!!!!
In this country, one pays for practically the very air one breathes. Indeed, £35,115 does not go far at all. But the reason that money doesn't go far is because the government takes a whopping 22% of it. And that's just for starters. One can't even begin to list all the other schemes -- oh, I mean various levies, fees, pay and display car parks, stamp duty, alcohol taxes, cigarette taxes, fuel taxes, etc. -- through which the British people are also parted from their hard-earned money.
Consider this: Hain thinks those earning £50,000 are well off. Hmm. Interesting how that will be the exact gross income of a married, firefighter couple, when their base pay is £25,000 each. In Hain's world, that's rich.
Not content with hoping to see taxes increased on such "high earners", Hain is in favor of this gem:
. . .He is also expected to float ideas for compulsory voting in elections. . .
Oh, yeh, now that's freedom for you.
If people don't vote, presumably Peter feels that they should be fined?
Ah, yes, yet another way to steal money . . .
By the way, how much did that government-run Millennium Dome fiasco cost British taxpayers again?
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 20, 2003
Thursday, June 19, 2003
DEMOCRATS' BRILLIANT SOLUTION?: QUESTION TERRORISTS ONLY
Ann Coulter's fuming again. But she is right -- again:
If you are one of the millions of Americans who recently canceled your subscription to the New York Times, you may not know that we are in the middle of a civil-liberties emergency. Apparently, in the weeks following the terrorist attack of 9-11, the FBI rounded up a lot of Muslim men who were in this country illegally. Not only that, but some were actually questioned. . .
. . .The detainees are in this country illegally, their co-religionists had just slaughtered thousands of Americans, and the Times is dismayed, perplexed, angry and shocked that some of them may have been subjected to the sort of manhandling that occurs in the hallways of middle schools throughout the nation. Why, I'm subjected to physical and verbal abuse every time I go through an airport security check, and I'm a citizen.
After a bit of overheated fulminating, the Times editorial unleashed this whopper: "The inspector general's findings are particularly powerful because they come not from politicians or advocacy groups, but from a unit of the Bush administration itself." This is how the New York Times always prefaces its outrageous statements: "it is widely understood that ..."; "all learned men agree ..."; "all people of good will believe ..."
Not so fast. The report came from Inspector General Glenn Fine – a lingering, festering Clinton appointee. . .
. . .In a remark worthy of Inspector Clouseau, Fine's report says: "Department officials acknowledged to the inspector general's office that they realized soon after the roundups began 'that many in the group of Sept. 11 detainees were not connected to the attacks or terrorism.'" Indeed, the Clinton appointee's report repeatedly takes the FBI to task for failing to "distinguish" between illegal immigrants and terrorists. Wow. What a great idea. If the FBI would simply "distinguish" between the terrorists and everyone else, then they could just arrest all the terrorists! Why didn't anyone else think of that?
Remember this report by Clinton-appointee Glenn Fine the next time a liberal tells you a Democrat president would have done as good a job as Bush in fighting the war on terrorism.
I'm a Democrat, and from what I have seen, the trashing of Bush -- which the nincompoops at Democrats Abroad U.K. consider their highest calling, apparently -- has become for Democrats a poor substitute for REAL thinking, offering REAL alternatives and REAL solutions.
Instead, blow away the smoke, eliminate the "Dubya is a moron" name calling, and the Democrats have got nothing. The party of Jefferson, of Wilson, of F.D.R., of Truman, of J.F.K. has got nothing.
It's pathetic.
I say that because in the 18 months since September 11, 2001, I have seen ZERO to indicate that there is any way on God's green earth that a President Albert Gore, Jr. -- whom I voted for -- and a Gore administration would be handling the Islamist war against the U.S. even one wit better than is the Republican Bush administration.
Actually, they are much worse for this reason: Democrats seem to believe that if they close their eyes as the enemy takes pot shots at us, the evil enemy will just disappear.
"Just ignore that building about to crash down on top of you please," Democrats say, "and please don't profile that Islamist thug about to slash that flight attendant five feet away, as he hijacks your flight to Sioux City, so he can crash your plane into the Sears Tower, ladies and gentlemen," Democrats chant, "because prescription drugs are the real key to America's future security." (Although it seems that even Bush now has that issue!)
Democrats' views of the war Islamists are waging against us are just too similar to the von Trapps early in"The Sound of Music": If we sing about the good things, the bad things will go away . . .
However, Julie Andrews, the Captain and the clan eventually had to stop with the singing and make a firm, irrevocable decision to stay or to flee.
Democrats are actually far more clueless than were the von Trapps. Democrats just want to sing -- and sing and sing, all while Nazis are knocking buildings down. America may be buried under rubble, our people slaughtered in the thousands . . . but we will not have profiled, and we will have prescription drugs.
Oh, good.
To be blunt, whenever I see a Democrat who once again has some freakin' F.D.R.-like guts, I may vote for him or her. But not before.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 19, 2003
Ann Coulter's fuming again. But she is right -- again:
If you are one of the millions of Americans who recently canceled your subscription to the New York Times, you may not know that we are in the middle of a civil-liberties emergency. Apparently, in the weeks following the terrorist attack of 9-11, the FBI rounded up a lot of Muslim men who were in this country illegally. Not only that, but some were actually questioned. . .
. . .The detainees are in this country illegally, their co-religionists had just slaughtered thousands of Americans, and the Times is dismayed, perplexed, angry and shocked that some of them may have been subjected to the sort of manhandling that occurs in the hallways of middle schools throughout the nation. Why, I'm subjected to physical and verbal abuse every time I go through an airport security check, and I'm a citizen.
After a bit of overheated fulminating, the Times editorial unleashed this whopper: "The inspector general's findings are particularly powerful because they come not from politicians or advocacy groups, but from a unit of the Bush administration itself." This is how the New York Times always prefaces its outrageous statements: "it is widely understood that ..."; "all learned men agree ..."; "all people of good will believe ..."
Not so fast. The report came from Inspector General Glenn Fine – a lingering, festering Clinton appointee. . .
. . .In a remark worthy of Inspector Clouseau, Fine's report says: "Department officials acknowledged to the inspector general's office that they realized soon after the roundups began 'that many in the group of Sept. 11 detainees were not connected to the attacks or terrorism.'" Indeed, the Clinton appointee's report repeatedly takes the FBI to task for failing to "distinguish" between illegal immigrants and terrorists. Wow. What a great idea. If the FBI would simply "distinguish" between the terrorists and everyone else, then they could just arrest all the terrorists! Why didn't anyone else think of that?
Remember this report by Clinton-appointee Glenn Fine the next time a liberal tells you a Democrat president would have done as good a job as Bush in fighting the war on terrorism.
I'm a Democrat, and from what I have seen, the trashing of Bush -- which the nincompoops at Democrats Abroad U.K. consider their highest calling, apparently -- has become for Democrats a poor substitute for REAL thinking, offering REAL alternatives and REAL solutions.
Instead, blow away the smoke, eliminate the "Dubya is a moron" name calling, and the Democrats have got nothing. The party of Jefferson, of Wilson, of F.D.R., of Truman, of J.F.K. has got nothing.
It's pathetic.
I say that because in the 18 months since September 11, 2001, I have seen ZERO to indicate that there is any way on God's green earth that a President Albert Gore, Jr. -- whom I voted for -- and a Gore administration would be handling the Islamist war against the U.S. even one wit better than is the Republican Bush administration.
Actually, they are much worse for this reason: Democrats seem to believe that if they close their eyes as the enemy takes pot shots at us, the evil enemy will just disappear.
"Just ignore that building about to crash down on top of you please," Democrats say, "and please don't profile that Islamist thug about to slash that flight attendant five feet away, as he hijacks your flight to Sioux City, so he can crash your plane into the Sears Tower, ladies and gentlemen," Democrats chant, "because prescription drugs are the real key to America's future security." (Although it seems that even Bush now has that issue!)
Democrats' views of the war Islamists are waging against us are just too similar to the von Trapps early in"The Sound of Music": If we sing about the good things, the bad things will go away . . .
However, Julie Andrews, the Captain and the clan eventually had to stop with the singing and make a firm, irrevocable decision to stay or to flee.
Democrats are actually far more clueless than were the von Trapps. Democrats just want to sing -- and sing and sing, all while Nazis are knocking buildings down. America may be buried under rubble, our people slaughtered in the thousands . . . but we will not have profiled, and we will have prescription drugs.
Oh, good.
To be blunt, whenever I see a Democrat who once again has some freakin' F.D.R.-like guts, I may vote for him or her. But not before.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 19, 2003
LET'S REMEMBER THESE PEOPLE
CNN reports:
A new cease-fire began to take hold Wednesday in Liberia, and Washington and West Africa pressed President Charles Taylor and rebels to carry out in full their pledge to end years of vicious civil war.
The deal called for an end to fighting at one minute after midnight Tuesday in the 3-year-old war, which has seen rebels push to Liberia's capital in their drive to force out Taylor. . .
. . .U.S. authorities confirm that some U.S. role was being considered in the force for Liberia, a nation founded by freed American slaves in the 19th century. . .
Question: Which world capital other than Washington D.C. is named after an American president?
Answer: Monrovia, named after President James Monroe, is the capital of terribly troubled Liberia, which was founded in west Africa by freed enslaved Americans in the 1820s.
If we claim that we want to help everyone on this planet find some measure of freedom and democracy, let's not forget these people simply because they don't suicidally crash planes into buildings, blow themselves up outside of restaurants, or threaten us with WMD.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 19, 2003
CNN reports:
A new cease-fire began to take hold Wednesday in Liberia, and Washington and West Africa pressed President Charles Taylor and rebels to carry out in full their pledge to end years of vicious civil war.
The deal called for an end to fighting at one minute after midnight Tuesday in the 3-year-old war, which has seen rebels push to Liberia's capital in their drive to force out Taylor. . .
. . .U.S. authorities confirm that some U.S. role was being considered in the force for Liberia, a nation founded by freed American slaves in the 19th century. . .
Question: Which world capital other than Washington D.C. is named after an American president?
Answer: Monrovia, named after President James Monroe, is the capital of terribly troubled Liberia, which was founded in west Africa by freed enslaved Americans in the 1820s.
If we claim that we want to help everyone on this planet find some measure of freedom and democracy, let's not forget these people simply because they don't suicidally crash planes into buildings, blow themselves up outside of restaurants, or threaten us with WMD.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 19, 2003
GAY AND MARRIED IN CANADA
The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
The Canadian Cabinet approved a new national policy Tuesday allowing gay couples to marry, which opens the way to making Canada the third country to legalize same-sex unions.
The decision to redefine marriage in Canada to include unions between men and between women will immediately take effect in Ontario, Canada's most populous province and one that borders the United States.
It comes after the province's highest court ruled last week that current federal marriage laws are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. . .
. . .Gay activists in the United States are already declaring that Canada will serve as a vivid example to Americans that same-sex marriage is workable and offers no challenge to traditional, heterosexual family life.
"What this presents for American couples is an opportunity to easily enter into a legal marriage and come back to the United States with a powerful tool to break down the remaining discrimination here," said Lavi Soloway, a Canadian-born lawyer and founder of the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force in New York. . .
However, it is worth bearing in mind that once Islamists take over in Canada, the issue will be dead and buried -- and probably literally, after all the required stonings and beheadings have been carried out.
But seriously. . .
Of course this issue gets some people all worked up. Many of you probably know that uber-blogger Andrew Sullivan and many others in the media and elsewhere are four-square in favor of same sex marriage. However, having made my own life marriage choice, I am not all that concerned about who else out there marries who else. Same sex, or not. Whatever turns one on.
So I have no strong views (can you believe that?!) on whether gay marriage should be allowed or not. Personally, I much prefer beating up on the idiots in my party (Democrats), Islamists and those generally opposed to western democracy, and discussing misperceptions of America, and leaving this sort of social argument to others.
However, the above did get me thinking about gay marriage in the political, governmental context.
The argument that says government's preventing two men or two women from marrying is "discriminatory" seems a little thin, for at its root all that is being legislated is that the state will sanction matrimony only in cases of one man and one woman marrying. (And even then, there are limitations.)
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of "discriminatory" and "discriminating", etc. means -- "to distinguish between" and "to use good judgment" and "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit". Essentially, it means to make choices. Governments do that on a daily basis. We know that and have to live with it.
The issue governments always face is what sort of choices are "reasonable". For a variety of reasons -- religion, culture, property inheritance, children, etc. -- it has long been decided that two men or two women marrying is "not reasonable." And that certainly seems at least as "reasonable" as these laws we all generally accept as being "reasonable":
1) It has been decided in the U.S. that it is "reasonable" to prevent a 20 year old from consuming alcohol at his or her own wedding reception. Is that discriminatory? Well, in the context of it having to do with government's making a choice, the answer is yes. You may not like it, but it is "reasonable," and may be changed if people wish it to be.
2) It is "reasonable" to keep students out of state funded universities because students can't read. Again, in the context of it having to do with government's making a choice, the answer to that is also yes. Having illiterates in universities hardly seems "reasonable".
3) It is "reasonable" for government to decide to hand out Social Security checks at age 65 or 66 or 67. Why not age 48? Isn't 65 arbitrary? Aren't 48 year olds being discriminated against? Well, again, yes, they are. Social Security is meant for old age retirement. 48 is the prime of life nowadays. (Even 65 might be considered by many to be "prime" as well. Look at Donald Rumsfeld, at 70 plus!) But in general, a retirement age is considered "reasonable". We just may argue over what that age should be, but don't seem to think much about if there should be one.
4) It is "reasonable" that we are forced to drive on the same side of the road. Is that discriminatory against those who have an inclination to want to drive on the opposite side? Yes, it is. One hopes that the "reasonableness" of those sort of laws are obvious.
5) It is "reasonable" that corporations are considered just like individuals under the law. Again, we may argue about that, but it is long been enshrined in our legal tradition. Maybe it will be changed? But up to the present, it remains something that has been considered "reasonable" by most people who worry about such things.
So governments CAN make choices. If government couldn't make choices, chaos would often ensue.
All men (gay or straight) who wish to marry may marry women. Okay, gay men claim they are not inclined to want to marry women. But that is their personal inclination and choice. Straight men don't want to marry other men either. And that's also their choice and their inclination. But being prevented from doing something which everyone else is also prevented from doing is not discrimination. Government allows everyone to marry anyone of the opposite sex, in general.
Indeed, we often forget that even in opposite sex marriage, there are "reasonable" limitations that may very well infringe on many people's personal choices and inclinations:
1) One is not -- yet -- permitted to have 4 wives (or 4 husbands, for that matter).
2) One is not -- yet -- permitted to marry a 6 year old.
3) One is not -- yet -- permitted to marry a sister, brother, or other very close relative of the opposite sex. Would a gay man be allowed to marry his gay brother, for instance? If they did so, would they be practicing incest? But it seems fundamentally the same thing if we are talking marriage discrimination. To legislate that a gay man should not be able to marry his brother seems just as assuredly "discriminatory" as asserting that a straight man should not be allowed to marry his sister.
Maybe, as a civilization, we have come to believe that continuing to prevent two men or two women from marrying is no longer being "reasonable." Okay, then, fine. But if we don't, it hardly seems that we are being what the Ontario court said: we don't seem to be acting nastily or overtly discriminatory any more than we are when we make it illegal for a sister and brother, or grandmother and grandson, to marry.
Actually, I'm tired of thinking about this now. . .
I will now go back to beating up on my party (Democrats) and all those other people who making blogging so much fun.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 19, 2003
The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
The Canadian Cabinet approved a new national policy Tuesday allowing gay couples to marry, which opens the way to making Canada the third country to legalize same-sex unions.
The decision to redefine marriage in Canada to include unions between men and between women will immediately take effect in Ontario, Canada's most populous province and one that borders the United States.
It comes after the province's highest court ruled last week that current federal marriage laws are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. . .
. . .Gay activists in the United States are already declaring that Canada will serve as a vivid example to Americans that same-sex marriage is workable and offers no challenge to traditional, heterosexual family life.
"What this presents for American couples is an opportunity to easily enter into a legal marriage and come back to the United States with a powerful tool to break down the remaining discrimination here," said Lavi Soloway, a Canadian-born lawyer and founder of the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force in New York. . .
However, it is worth bearing in mind that once Islamists take over in Canada, the issue will be dead and buried -- and probably literally, after all the required stonings and beheadings have been carried out.
But seriously. . .
Of course this issue gets some people all worked up. Many of you probably know that uber-blogger Andrew Sullivan and many others in the media and elsewhere are four-square in favor of same sex marriage. However, having made my own life marriage choice, I am not all that concerned about who else out there marries who else. Same sex, or not. Whatever turns one on.
So I have no strong views (can you believe that?!) on whether gay marriage should be allowed or not. Personally, I much prefer beating up on the idiots in my party (Democrats), Islamists and those generally opposed to western democracy, and discussing misperceptions of America, and leaving this sort of social argument to others.
However, the above did get me thinking about gay marriage in the political, governmental context.
The argument that says government's preventing two men or two women from marrying is "discriminatory" seems a little thin, for at its root all that is being legislated is that the state will sanction matrimony only in cases of one man and one woman marrying. (And even then, there are limitations.)
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of "discriminatory" and "discriminating", etc. means -- "to distinguish between" and "to use good judgment" and "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit". Essentially, it means to make choices. Governments do that on a daily basis. We know that and have to live with it.
The issue governments always face is what sort of choices are "reasonable". For a variety of reasons -- religion, culture, property inheritance, children, etc. -- it has long been decided that two men or two women marrying is "not reasonable." And that certainly seems at least as "reasonable" as these laws we all generally accept as being "reasonable":
1) It has been decided in the U.S. that it is "reasonable" to prevent a 20 year old from consuming alcohol at his or her own wedding reception. Is that discriminatory? Well, in the context of it having to do with government's making a choice, the answer is yes. You may not like it, but it is "reasonable," and may be changed if people wish it to be.
2) It is "reasonable" to keep students out of state funded universities because students can't read. Again, in the context of it having to do with government's making a choice, the answer to that is also yes. Having illiterates in universities hardly seems "reasonable".
3) It is "reasonable" for government to decide to hand out Social Security checks at age 65 or 66 or 67. Why not age 48? Isn't 65 arbitrary? Aren't 48 year olds being discriminated against? Well, again, yes, they are. Social Security is meant for old age retirement. 48 is the prime of life nowadays. (Even 65 might be considered by many to be "prime" as well. Look at Donald Rumsfeld, at 70 plus!) But in general, a retirement age is considered "reasonable". We just may argue over what that age should be, but don't seem to think much about if there should be one.
4) It is "reasonable" that we are forced to drive on the same side of the road. Is that discriminatory against those who have an inclination to want to drive on the opposite side? Yes, it is. One hopes that the "reasonableness" of those sort of laws are obvious.
5) It is "reasonable" that corporations are considered just like individuals under the law. Again, we may argue about that, but it is long been enshrined in our legal tradition. Maybe it will be changed? But up to the present, it remains something that has been considered "reasonable" by most people who worry about such things.
So governments CAN make choices. If government couldn't make choices, chaos would often ensue.
All men (gay or straight) who wish to marry may marry women. Okay, gay men claim they are not inclined to want to marry women. But that is their personal inclination and choice. Straight men don't want to marry other men either. And that's also their choice and their inclination. But being prevented from doing something which everyone else is also prevented from doing is not discrimination. Government allows everyone to marry anyone of the opposite sex, in general.
Indeed, we often forget that even in opposite sex marriage, there are "reasonable" limitations that may very well infringe on many people's personal choices and inclinations:
1) One is not -- yet -- permitted to have 4 wives (or 4 husbands, for that matter).
2) One is not -- yet -- permitted to marry a 6 year old.
3) One is not -- yet -- permitted to marry a sister, brother, or other very close relative of the opposite sex. Would a gay man be allowed to marry his gay brother, for instance? If they did so, would they be practicing incest? But it seems fundamentally the same thing if we are talking marriage discrimination. To legislate that a gay man should not be able to marry his brother seems just as assuredly "discriminatory" as asserting that a straight man should not be allowed to marry his sister.
Maybe, as a civilization, we have come to believe that continuing to prevent two men or two women from marrying is no longer being "reasonable." Okay, then, fine. But if we don't, it hardly seems that we are being what the Ontario court said: we don't seem to be acting nastily or overtly discriminatory any more than we are when we make it illegal for a sister and brother, or grandmother and grandson, to marry.
Actually, I'm tired of thinking about this now. . .
I will now go back to beating up on my party (Democrats) and all those other people who making blogging so much fun.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 19, 2003
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
GERMAN TOURISTS PREFER FRANCE
Reuters tells us:
Germans have been put off visiting the United States due to the U.S.-led war against Iraq and are more likely to visit France because of its anti-war stance, a poll showed on Tuesday. . .
. . .Meanwhile, 20 percent of Germans said they would be more likely to visit France due to its anti-war position.
And LGF helpfully puts this in better context, showing that German tourists preferring Paris over Peoria is nothing new, really.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 18, 2003
Reuters tells us:
Germans have been put off visiting the United States due to the U.S.-led war against Iraq and are more likely to visit France because of its anti-war stance, a poll showed on Tuesday. . .
. . .Meanwhile, 20 percent of Germans said they would be more likely to visit France due to its anti-war position.
And LGF helpfully puts this in better context, showing that German tourists preferring Paris over Peoria is nothing new, really.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 18, 2003
THIS JUST IN: BBC TELLS AMERICA WORLD THINKS AMERICA STINKS
My wife joked with me that if I didn't have the BBC, I'd have much less to rant about. She's probably right. The Beeb never surprises. Keep those expectations low -- and they are sure somehow to manage to come in even lower than you had expected.
Of course, I'm referring here especially to last night's latest BBC effort, "What The World Thinks of America." If this BBC program is accurate, the world don't think too much of it -- or of Americans as people. I can't go over it in every detail of course. These are just my general impressions.
I had been worrying which "American journalist" would choose to take on the wolves of BBC-interpreted "world opinion". But there -- I had to rub my eyes to make sure I wasn't seeing things! -- speaking forcefully and eloquently, was Robert Kagan, whom host Andrew Marr introduced as a "neo-con" and the man who coined the expression "Americans are from Mars. Europeans are from Venus."
That got me to thinking. The rest of the panel, naturally, wasn't introduced by their political leanings in the same manner as Kagan. These might have been some appropriate points to make:
Clare Short, "Her Resignationness", and a socialist.
Jack Lang, member of French President Mitterrand's government, and a socialist.
Was there a trend developing?
The former Palestinian "Chief Negotiator" Saeb Erekat is probably not a traditional, watery western-like socialist only because he comes from a bunch for whom Marxism is just too civilized and freakin' middle of the road.
I guess the Beeb just forgot to invite a representative (or former member for that matter) of the democratic government of Israel. Hmm. . .
Of the remainder, there was some sanity.
South African President Thabo Mbeki's brother, Moeletsi Mbeki, although no lap dog -- he has condemned the Zimbabwe land invasions and has definite opinions on "black empowerment" that most others in South Africa's leadership don't apparently share -- displayed ambivalence regarding Israel, as well as trite views of the U.S. as international cultural behemoth, which South Africa is desperately resisting.
Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto, who would be a western socialist if she were living in, say, Britain, gave the best non-American impression of reasonableness.
And Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria, whom Marr embarrassingly introduced as someone tipped to be the next secretary of state (and Zakaria rolled his eyes at that), kept trying to keep the discussion at a high level.
But, invariably, given the breadth of the topic and all the anti-American polling the BBC had to fit into the program, a high level of discussion was impossible.
And the BBC is excellent at messing around with poll numbers. Did you know that 37% is one-third? And what do you think "a majority of 16%" means? Well, if you are the BBC you present it as if things seem cloudy and divided. Actually, in a yes or no question, it would seem to indicate that a large majority of 66% agree on something.
Oh, never mind.
In interesting exchanges, Short said that America was uncaring and that Europeans want caring states with good public services. Kagan then contradicted her, and said that he had lived in both Europe and America and actually preferred America, and didn't think Americans were uncaring. At another point, Short glanced over at Kagan like she wanted to strangle him with her scarf of the day, when he pointed out that Europeans dislike American power . . . until Europeans feel they must ask for American military help, as in the Balkans in the mid-1990s.
At one point, Bhutto stated that the wider world often sees as "America" what is actually just a series of branded goods. Fair comment that. (As Andrew Thomson, a former minister in the Australian government of "Fighting" John Howard pointed out in March, many around the world don't seem to consider Americans human beings who go about their daily lives just like everyone else on the planet.)
Mbeki was pleased that American shows like "Dallas" and "Loving" are off the air, with locally made programs now in their place. (But, if truth be told, those American shows were not killed so much as committed suicide. Oh, well, he mustn't watch much TV anyway.) However, on closer inspection it seems that in South Africa today American shows in their relative prime, like "Friends" and "E.R.", haven't vanished from TV so much as been moved to cable/satellite, in the same way those in Britain that were on "free to air" Channel 4 suddenly were moved to E4. On cable/satellite, they make loads more money than on "free TV", of course
Later, when asked by the BBC's Marr what he would tell Bush if he could, Mbeki said he would (I'm paraphrasing) tell the president that Ariel Sharon is the greatest threat to peace.
Toward the end of the the program, Erekat spent several minutes decrying the "occupation" and the Israelis, etc., and so on. Wasn't this about America? I thought. Oh, never mind. Gotta make good use of every chance one gets to bash the Jews in front of a large TV audience.
After they had finished this Americans as insensitive idiots fest, the Beeb graciously offered viewers "America Answers Back." It included, of all people, Jamey Dumas, chair of Democrats Abroad U.K., and someone whose expressed views demonstrate thus far that he is far more at home intellectually with Clare Short than he is with most other Americans. (I've already made my views about that bunch clear.) Oh, and the Beeb stretched to include Colleen Graffy, chair of Republicans Abroad U.K. (Notice that Graffy is listed on the "America Answers Back" info page second, even though Republicans control both houses of the U.S. Congress and the White House.) But I didn't bother to watch this one. I have a life. It was getting late. And by then, Britain had begun to go to bed. And so had I.
Oh, and the lead story this morning on the BBC is that David Beckham has left Manchester United, and will now be playing in Spain for Real Madrid. I can't help wondering if years from now Manchester United fans will look back on this as Boston does regarding Babe Ruth's being sold to the NY Yankees?
And one also wonders if Man U fans will be experiencing what it is like NOT to win a major championship for the next 80 years plus, and counting. . .
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 18, 2003
My wife joked with me that if I didn't have the BBC, I'd have much less to rant about. She's probably right. The Beeb never surprises. Keep those expectations low -- and they are sure somehow to manage to come in even lower than you had expected.
Of course, I'm referring here especially to last night's latest BBC effort, "What The World Thinks of America." If this BBC program is accurate, the world don't think too much of it -- or of Americans as people. I can't go over it in every detail of course. These are just my general impressions.
I had been worrying which "American journalist" would choose to take on the wolves of BBC-interpreted "world opinion". But there -- I had to rub my eyes to make sure I wasn't seeing things! -- speaking forcefully and eloquently, was Robert Kagan, whom host Andrew Marr introduced as a "neo-con" and the man who coined the expression "Americans are from Mars. Europeans are from Venus."
That got me to thinking. The rest of the panel, naturally, wasn't introduced by their political leanings in the same manner as Kagan. These might have been some appropriate points to make:
Clare Short, "Her Resignationness", and a socialist.
Jack Lang, member of French President Mitterrand's government, and a socialist.
Was there a trend developing?
The former Palestinian "Chief Negotiator" Saeb Erekat is probably not a traditional, watery western-like socialist only because he comes from a bunch for whom Marxism is just too civilized and freakin' middle of the road.
I guess the Beeb just forgot to invite a representative (or former member for that matter) of the democratic government of Israel. Hmm. . .
Of the remainder, there was some sanity.
South African President Thabo Mbeki's brother, Moeletsi Mbeki, although no lap dog -- he has condemned the Zimbabwe land invasions and has definite opinions on "black empowerment" that most others in South Africa's leadership don't apparently share -- displayed ambivalence regarding Israel, as well as trite views of the U.S. as international cultural behemoth, which South Africa is desperately resisting.
Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto, who would be a western socialist if she were living in, say, Britain, gave the best non-American impression of reasonableness.
And Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria, whom Marr embarrassingly introduced as someone tipped to be the next secretary of state (and Zakaria rolled his eyes at that), kept trying to keep the discussion at a high level.
But, invariably, given the breadth of the topic and all the anti-American polling the BBC had to fit into the program, a high level of discussion was impossible.
And the BBC is excellent at messing around with poll numbers. Did you know that 37% is one-third? And what do you think "a majority of 16%" means? Well, if you are the BBC you present it as if things seem cloudy and divided. Actually, in a yes or no question, it would seem to indicate that a large majority of 66% agree on something.
Oh, never mind.
In interesting exchanges, Short said that America was uncaring and that Europeans want caring states with good public services. Kagan then contradicted her, and said that he had lived in both Europe and America and actually preferred America, and didn't think Americans were uncaring. At another point, Short glanced over at Kagan like she wanted to strangle him with her scarf of the day, when he pointed out that Europeans dislike American power . . . until Europeans feel they must ask for American military help, as in the Balkans in the mid-1990s.
At one point, Bhutto stated that the wider world often sees as "America" what is actually just a series of branded goods. Fair comment that. (As Andrew Thomson, a former minister in the Australian government of "Fighting" John Howard pointed out in March, many around the world don't seem to consider Americans human beings who go about their daily lives just like everyone else on the planet.)
Mbeki was pleased that American shows like "Dallas" and "Loving" are off the air, with locally made programs now in their place. (But, if truth be told, those American shows were not killed so much as committed suicide. Oh, well, he mustn't watch much TV anyway.) However, on closer inspection it seems that in South Africa today American shows in their relative prime, like "Friends" and "E.R.", haven't vanished from TV so much as been moved to cable/satellite, in the same way those in Britain that were on "free to air" Channel 4 suddenly were moved to E4. On cable/satellite, they make loads more money than on "free TV", of course
Later, when asked by the BBC's Marr what he would tell Bush if he could, Mbeki said he would (I'm paraphrasing) tell the president that Ariel Sharon is the greatest threat to peace.
Toward the end of the the program, Erekat spent several minutes decrying the "occupation" and the Israelis, etc., and so on. Wasn't this about America? I thought. Oh, never mind. Gotta make good use of every chance one gets to bash the Jews in front of a large TV audience.
After they had finished this Americans as insensitive idiots fest, the Beeb graciously offered viewers "America Answers Back." It included, of all people, Jamey Dumas, chair of Democrats Abroad U.K., and someone whose expressed views demonstrate thus far that he is far more at home intellectually with Clare Short than he is with most other Americans. (I've already made my views about that bunch clear.) Oh, and the Beeb stretched to include Colleen Graffy, chair of Republicans Abroad U.K. (Notice that Graffy is listed on the "America Answers Back" info page second, even though Republicans control both houses of the U.S. Congress and the White House.) But I didn't bother to watch this one. I have a life. It was getting late. And by then, Britain had begun to go to bed. And so had I.
Oh, and the lead story this morning on the BBC is that David Beckham has left Manchester United, and will now be playing in Spain for Real Madrid. I can't help wondering if years from now Manchester United fans will look back on this as Boston does regarding Babe Ruth's being sold to the NY Yankees?
And one also wonders if Man U fans will be experiencing what it is like NOT to win a major championship for the next 80 years plus, and counting. . .
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 18, 2003
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
RUMSFELD WINS EITHER WAY
Donald Rumsfeld wants Belgium's genocide law stricken from its statute books, or he wants NATO headquarters moved out of Brussels.
One or the other.
Either way -- and Rumsfeld will get one or the other -- he can't lose. USS Clueless -- linked through Instapundit -- explains why:
. . .A lot of people in Europe misunderstand Rumsfeld, not to mention underestimating him. There's a power in frankness and straight talk; it's a way of cutting through bulls--t and getting straight to the issues. It may be viewed by some as being unsophisticated or uncouth but it also tends to work really well, when it's needed. And Rumsfeld is really, really good at it.
In this case, however, I think they have completely misunderstood what Rumsfeld wants. He isn't attempting to get the law repealed. He's attempting to get NATO HQ moved out of Belgium. If his blunt talk makes it politically impossible for Belgian politicians to rescind the law, Rumsfeld wins.
Of course, if the Belgians back down and rescind the law, Rumsfeld also wins. It makes the point, forcefully, that we're not going to put up with international busybodies second-guessing our politicians and military people by filing charges against them in kangaroo courts, and indirectly would help in our efforts to make clear that we won't tolerate having the ICC used maliciously against our people.
Seems to me that someone who arranges things so he wins no matter what is pretty sophisticated. (I guess it's an American version of "sophistication".)
You see, the evil Rumsfeld never loses.
Heh, heh, heh. . .
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Donald Rumsfeld wants Belgium's genocide law stricken from its statute books, or he wants NATO headquarters moved out of Brussels.
One or the other.
Either way -- and Rumsfeld will get one or the other -- he can't lose. USS Clueless -- linked through Instapundit -- explains why:
. . .A lot of people in Europe misunderstand Rumsfeld, not to mention underestimating him. There's a power in frankness and straight talk; it's a way of cutting through bulls--t and getting straight to the issues. It may be viewed by some as being unsophisticated or uncouth but it also tends to work really well, when it's needed. And Rumsfeld is really, really good at it.
In this case, however, I think they have completely misunderstood what Rumsfeld wants. He isn't attempting to get the law repealed. He's attempting to get NATO HQ moved out of Belgium. If his blunt talk makes it politically impossible for Belgian politicians to rescind the law, Rumsfeld wins.
Of course, if the Belgians back down and rescind the law, Rumsfeld also wins. It makes the point, forcefully, that we're not going to put up with international busybodies second-guessing our politicians and military people by filing charges against them in kangaroo courts, and indirectly would help in our efforts to make clear that we won't tolerate having the ICC used maliciously against our people.
Seems to me that someone who arranges things so he wins no matter what is pretty sophisticated. (I guess it's an American version of "sophistication".)
You see, the evil Rumsfeld never loses.
Heh, heh, heh. . .
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 17, 2003
IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT AMERICANS BELIEVE. . .
. . .trust me, I am sure you won't learn much of anything that is actually useful if you watch tonight's BBC 2 program, "What The World Thinks of America" -- other than that America's enemies can't stand America. (Wow, now there's a flippin' shock! I'm stunned.)
But if one really wants to glean what Americans believe and how they view their own "place in the world," just take a few moments to read the exerpt below. It is from the First Inaugural Address of President Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1801:
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti republican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people--a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.
There. You now know more than most other people on the planet.
And you can still catch "Legally Blond" over on Sky Premier 1 tonight at 8 (and have a relaxed laugh at America's most pleasant, young actor/comedienne), and spare yourself the misinformation you will get if you sit and watch "Her Resignationness" and the BBC's other "quality thinkers, movers and shakers" ramble on about things that aren't freakin' true!
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 17, 2003
. . .trust me, I am sure you won't learn much of anything that is actually useful if you watch tonight's BBC 2 program, "What The World Thinks of America" -- other than that America's enemies can't stand America. (Wow, now there's a flippin' shock! I'm stunned.)
But if one really wants to glean what Americans believe and how they view their own "place in the world," just take a few moments to read the exerpt below. It is from the First Inaugural Address of President Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1801:
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti republican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people--a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.
There. You now know more than most other people on the planet.
And you can still catch "Legally Blond" over on Sky Premier 1 tonight at 8 (and have a relaxed laugh at America's most pleasant, young actor/comedienne), and spare yourself the misinformation you will get if you sit and watch "Her Resignationness" and the BBC's other "quality thinkers, movers and shakers" ramble on about things that aren't freakin' true!
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 17, 2003
BUSH RESPONDS
FOX News reports:
. . ."This nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq. Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history — 'revisionist historians' is what I like to call them," Bush said.
According to Bush, the revisionists are those who have called into question whether the war was justified inasmuch as the United States has not yet found weapons of mass destruction the president and others cited as one of the key reasons for going to war.
A senior advisor said Bush decided it was "time to go on the offensive" to head off the "growing movement over 'Where are the weapons?'"
"Congress has been a full partner [on the issue] going back a decade and has received information both in open and closed session," the aide said. "Go back to the speeches of 1998. Look at ... how many lawmakers said Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Do they think since the [United Nations] inspectors left, Saddam got rid of that?". . .
The "Where are the WMD?" crowd -- often the very same tiresome people who told us that the snows would be neck deep and the mountains unbreachable in Afghanistan, that the sandstorms would create another "Battle of Moscow," that the battle of Baghdad would be another "Battle of Stalingrad," that the desert heat would wear out coalition troops used to air conditioned luxury (apparently, Iraqis are the only humans who don't get hot) -- are grasping desperately to the issue, as if it at last finally forms the basis for a winning argument of some sort.
A "winning argument" for what? Returning Saddam to power?
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 17, 2003
FOX News reports:
. . ."This nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq. Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history — 'revisionist historians' is what I like to call them," Bush said.
According to Bush, the revisionists are those who have called into question whether the war was justified inasmuch as the United States has not yet found weapons of mass destruction the president and others cited as one of the key reasons for going to war.
A senior advisor said Bush decided it was "time to go on the offensive" to head off the "growing movement over 'Where are the weapons?'"
"Congress has been a full partner [on the issue] going back a decade and has received information both in open and closed session," the aide said. "Go back to the speeches of 1998. Look at ... how many lawmakers said Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Do they think since the [United Nations] inspectors left, Saddam got rid of that?". . .
The "Where are the WMD?" crowd -- often the very same tiresome people who told us that the snows would be neck deep and the mountains unbreachable in Afghanistan, that the sandstorms would create another "Battle of Moscow," that the battle of Baghdad would be another "Battle of Stalingrad," that the desert heat would wear out coalition troops used to air conditioned luxury (apparently, Iraqis are the only humans who don't get hot) -- are grasping desperately to the issue, as if it at last finally forms the basis for a winning argument of some sort.
A "winning argument" for what? Returning Saddam to power?
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 17, 2003
IT'S BEEN TOO QUIET FOR TOO LONG
The Belfast Telegraph reports that it is time to challenge David Trimble's leadership -- again. When I saw that, for some reason it made me recall this:
I remember watching Trimble and the assembly's then deputy leader Seamus Mallon being interviewed together on the BBC several years ago. It was pretty much a non-descript discussion about "the process" etc. And they spoke almost reflexively, as if they knew the required script too well by half.
I have never forgotten how the two men brightened up and relaxed, when the interviewer changed gears and started asking mundane questions about education policy (or something like that) in the province. Suddenly, Trimble and Mallon were being presented with a chance, if only for a moment, to expound on SOMETHING ELSE for a change.
It was refreshing, even if it was for only a minute or two.
And it was, perhaps, a glimpse of the way things will hopefully be someday.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 17, 2003
The Belfast Telegraph reports that it is time to challenge David Trimble's leadership -- again. When I saw that, for some reason it made me recall this:
I remember watching Trimble and the assembly's then deputy leader Seamus Mallon being interviewed together on the BBC several years ago. It was pretty much a non-descript discussion about "the process" etc. And they spoke almost reflexively, as if they knew the required script too well by half.
I have never forgotten how the two men brightened up and relaxed, when the interviewer changed gears and started asking mundane questions about education policy (or something like that) in the province. Suddenly, Trimble and Mallon were being presented with a chance, if only for a moment, to expound on SOMETHING ELSE for a change.
It was refreshing, even if it was for only a minute or two.
And it was, perhaps, a glimpse of the way things will hopefully be someday.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 17, 2003
ASCOT
Along with thousands of others, my in-laws are at Ascot today.
My wife and I aren't.
Sounds fair. We don't like horse racing. But I hear that the only one there interested in the racing, really, is Her Majesty. Everyone else spends their time worrying about whether or not their hat is on correctly.
And as you all know, I'm a serious person, and would never go in for anything like that. (Wink, wink.)
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Along with thousands of others, my in-laws are at Ascot today.
My wife and I aren't.
Sounds fair. We don't like horse racing. But I hear that the only one there interested in the racing, really, is Her Majesty. Everyone else spends their time worrying about whether or not their hat is on correctly.
And as you all know, I'm a serious person, and would never go in for anything like that. (Wink, wink.)
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Monday, June 16, 2003
NO CONGO "COALITION OF THE WILLING."
I went on about the Congo the other day.
Axis of Weasels today explains why the U.S. will not and even cannot get involved there. Simply put:
1) The French would be in charge.
2) If the French weren't in charge, they wouldn't want the U.S. to be in charge either.
3) If 1 and 2 were somehow resolved, considering that Rumsfeld is blasted for inhumanity because there are 9 year old Iraqi children who find it a tad too warm to sleep at night because their mothers have to keep the windows closed, there is still no way the U.S. is going into the Congo, where U.S. forces would probably HAVE to SHOOT at CHILDREN (who are armed with AK-47s, of course).
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
I went on about the Congo the other day.
Axis of Weasels today explains why the U.S. will not and even cannot get involved there. Simply put:
1) The French would be in charge.
2) If the French weren't in charge, they wouldn't want the U.S. to be in charge either.
3) If 1 and 2 were somehow resolved, considering that Rumsfeld is blasted for inhumanity because there are 9 year old Iraqi children who find it a tad too warm to sleep at night because their mothers have to keep the windows closed, there is still no way the U.S. is going into the Congo, where U.S. forces would probably HAVE to SHOOT at CHILDREN (who are armed with AK-47s, of course).
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
CORRECTION. (BUT THIS IS EVEN WORSE.)
My wife just told me -- and she is always right! -- that my earlier post, "Voting For 'Your Greatest American' Ended", noted that "Her Resignationness" will be appearing on that program.
That's incorrect. I was unclear.
D'oh!
Technically, she will be appearing on the oh, Americans really are stupid morons, BBC program on BBC 2 at 9 PM on Tuesday, "What The World Thinks of America." As the Beeb explains:
. . .What The World Thinks of America, a special 90-minute debate, brings together 10 national broadcasters and a range of diverse voices from around the globe to give a multi-national verdict on the United States.
Hosted from the Cabinet War Rooms in London, the programme will boast a panel of quality thinkers, movers and shakers, including former cabinet minister Clare Short, US journalist Joe Klein and former Pakistani premier Benazir Bhutto - a seldom convened brains trust of world views on America's pre-eminence.
Satellite links will create a sense of global conversation, with input from leading broadcasters around the world.
The debate will also reveal the results of a ground-breaking, international survey of attitudes that will capture popular prejudices and convictions about America.
There will be a separate poll in the United States testing Americans' grasp on their public image abroad.
These findings will give a truly global perspective on American values, politics, leadership and popular culture.
My god, it's gonna be much worse than I thought possible.
Not another freakin' BBC "global conversation"!
Belgian courts have indicted General Tommy Franks for war crimes. Now, the BBC boasts that it is serving as judge for a "multi-national" jury that will pronounce a "verdict" on America as a whole.
And the BBC has included Joe Klein, presumably as a representative American journalist. Well, they are getting ever so slightly better. There was a time they wouldn't have included an American at all. Yet I can't help but feel that it would have been better to have left Americans out completely, if Joe Klein is the best one they can find to include. By the way, just curious, will the mediocrity be there as himself, or as Anonymous?
The BBC always knows whom to ask to be on panel programs, don't they?
Why don't far more influential and higher profile American op-ed writers/journalists like Fred Barnes and Ann Coulter get invited on these ridiculous BBC panel programs?
Because they and their likes would take no prisoners -- and the last thing the Beeb's head honchos want is live, on air, Americans with intellect, debating skill and backbones, exposing the stupidities and absurdities of the BBC's usual array of "quality thinkers, movers and shakers".
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
My wife just told me -- and she is always right! -- that my earlier post, "Voting For 'Your Greatest American' Ended", noted that "Her Resignationness" will be appearing on that program.
That's incorrect. I was unclear.
D'oh!
Technically, she will be appearing on the oh, Americans really are stupid morons, BBC program on BBC 2 at 9 PM on Tuesday, "What The World Thinks of America." As the Beeb explains:
. . .What The World Thinks of America, a special 90-minute debate, brings together 10 national broadcasters and a range of diverse voices from around the globe to give a multi-national verdict on the United States.
Hosted from the Cabinet War Rooms in London, the programme will boast a panel of quality thinkers, movers and shakers, including former cabinet minister Clare Short, US journalist Joe Klein and former Pakistani premier Benazir Bhutto - a seldom convened brains trust of world views on America's pre-eminence.
Satellite links will create a sense of global conversation, with input from leading broadcasters around the world.
The debate will also reveal the results of a ground-breaking, international survey of attitudes that will capture popular prejudices and convictions about America.
There will be a separate poll in the United States testing Americans' grasp on their public image abroad.
These findings will give a truly global perspective on American values, politics, leadership and popular culture.
My god, it's gonna be much worse than I thought possible.
Not another freakin' BBC "global conversation"!
Belgian courts have indicted General Tommy Franks for war crimes. Now, the BBC boasts that it is serving as judge for a "multi-national" jury that will pronounce a "verdict" on America as a whole.
And the BBC has included Joe Klein, presumably as a representative American journalist. Well, they are getting ever so slightly better. There was a time they wouldn't have included an American at all. Yet I can't help but feel that it would have been better to have left Americans out completely, if Joe Klein is the best one they can find to include. By the way, just curious, will the mediocrity be there as himself, or as Anonymous?
The BBC always knows whom to ask to be on panel programs, don't they?
Why don't far more influential and higher profile American op-ed writers/journalists like Fred Barnes and Ann Coulter get invited on these ridiculous BBC panel programs?
Because they and their likes would take no prisoners -- and the last thing the Beeb's head honchos want is live, on air, Americans with intellect, debating skill and backbones, exposing the stupidities and absurdities of the BBC's usual array of "quality thinkers, movers and shakers".
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
NOW, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF "HUH?"
In a particularly weird -- and that's saying a lot nowadays -- column in yesterday's "Mail on Sunday" (the piece is not yet available online), conservative (and evidently, increasingly bizarre) Peter Hitchens, wrote that al Qaeda is not real, but has actually been invented by western intelligence services, etc.
And it gets better.
One question popped to mind as I read it: has anyone at "the Mail" bothered to tell Peter what happened to the WTC? (His brother Christopher seems to know all about it, and about the existence of al Qaeda as well.)
Just askin'.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
In a particularly weird -- and that's saying a lot nowadays -- column in yesterday's "Mail on Sunday" (the piece is not yet available online), conservative (and evidently, increasingly bizarre) Peter Hitchens, wrote that al Qaeda is not real, but has actually been invented by western intelligence services, etc.
And it gets better.
One question popped to mind as I read it: has anyone at "the Mail" bothered to tell Peter what happened to the WTC? (His brother Christopher seems to know all about it, and about the existence of al Qaeda as well.)
Just askin'.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
OKAY, WHERE WERE COALITION GUARDS?
Remember all the carryings on about U.S. forces laughingly, brazenly and uncaringly standing around doing nothing while thousands of years of history were supposedly smashed, scattered, lost and stolen from Baghdad's National Museum?
Stupid, heartless, historyless Yanks who wished the building were actually a McDonald's, the, urr, "enlightened" and "sophisticated" cried out.
Well, Mark Steyn tells us that another museum, which was not in a war zone, has, um, misplaced quite a few timeless items. And we know exactly which items. Why did it happen? Because some people are simply rank stupid:
. . .The one guy to get the Iraqi Museum story right from the get-go turns out to be not a professional journalist, but our old friend, the philistine warmonger Donald Rumsfeld. Rummy observed at the time that the networks kept showing "the same picture of some person walking out of some building with a vase". But it was the same vase "over and over and over". The same vase, 170,000 times. Rummy was right.
You want a heritage catastrophe? At the very moment the Baghdad Museum was being non-sacked, workers at the University of Toronto threw out 280 boxes of colonial and Indian artefacts dating back to the 15th century. What's left of them is now deep in a landfill in Michigan. I'm a Torontonian, so that's my heritage in there. Any takers? I thought not. Harder to pin on Bush and Blair. . .
Yeh, but I'm sure that someone will try to pin it on Bush.
After all, I'm sure there are many out there who would try to assert that America's "Supreme Leader" has, um, helped to "foster" a "climate" in which "museums feel threatened."
Read the whole article -- there's lots more good stuff in there worth thinking about.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
Remember all the carryings on about U.S. forces laughingly, brazenly and uncaringly standing around doing nothing while thousands of years of history were supposedly smashed, scattered, lost and stolen from Baghdad's National Museum?
Stupid, heartless, historyless Yanks who wished the building were actually a McDonald's, the, urr, "enlightened" and "sophisticated" cried out.
Well, Mark Steyn tells us that another museum, which was not in a war zone, has, um, misplaced quite a few timeless items. And we know exactly which items. Why did it happen? Because some people are simply rank stupid:
. . .The one guy to get the Iraqi Museum story right from the get-go turns out to be not a professional journalist, but our old friend, the philistine warmonger Donald Rumsfeld. Rummy observed at the time that the networks kept showing "the same picture of some person walking out of some building with a vase". But it was the same vase "over and over and over". The same vase, 170,000 times. Rummy was right.
You want a heritage catastrophe? At the very moment the Baghdad Museum was being non-sacked, workers at the University of Toronto threw out 280 boxes of colonial and Indian artefacts dating back to the 15th century. What's left of them is now deep in a landfill in Michigan. I'm a Torontonian, so that's my heritage in there. Any takers? I thought not. Harder to pin on Bush and Blair. . .
Yeh, but I'm sure that someone will try to pin it on Bush.
After all, I'm sure there are many out there who would try to assert that America's "Supreme Leader" has, um, helped to "foster" a "climate" in which "museums feel threatened."
Read the whole article -- there's lots more good stuff in there worth thinking about.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
SPURS BEAT NETS
I have to admit, I haven't watched it. But the Spurs beat the Nets for the NBA championship this year.
We couldn't have two Jersey teams take titles in the same year!
Enough already! I'm open minded, but not THAT open minded!
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
I have to admit, I haven't watched it. But the Spurs beat the Nets for the NBA championship this year.
We couldn't have two Jersey teams take titles in the same year!
Enough already! I'm open minded, but not THAT open minded!
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
HEY GUYS AND GALS
I've recently been getting visitors from Texas, Israel and Northern Ireland. I suspect that I have mostly The Broom of Anger to thank for the last one.
New York, Texas, Israel and Northern Ireland.
There's no better combination anywhere, methinks.
Take care. ¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
I've recently been getting visitors from Texas, Israel and Northern Ireland. I suspect that I have mostly The Broom of Anger to thank for the last one.
New York, Texas, Israel and Northern Ireland.
There's no better combination anywhere, methinks.
Take care. ¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
VOTING FOR "YOUR GREATEST AMERICAN" ENDED
The BBC online voting for the choosing of "Your Greatest American" is now closed. The program will be shown on June 17th on BBC 2. The last time I checked, on Sunday afternoon, Homer Simpson had run away with it. He had nearly 50% of the total vote in a field of 10!
So, it seems pretty clear that Homer is "Your Greatest American."
I can take a joke. And tongue in cheek is something that's usually fun. Homer has so many variations, and is one of the most interesting characters ever invented.
However, that is the major problem. Sorry, folks, but unlike -- good grief -- Bob Dylan, as well as all the others (even including Mr T, who was in the top ten also), who were and are real people, Homer is a character, and a cartoon one no less.
Yeh, yeh, I know one can joke about not being able to cite with certainty if Bill Clinton were actually for real or not. But let's get real, honestly, for just a second.
Having set up a poll which led to Homer being voted as "Your Greatest American" is like Harry Potter being voted "Your Greatest Briton." It's fun. But in the end, it's silly.
A more relevant question: Is the BBC actually real? Well, probably. Although much of the Beeb's reporting indicates that it is in a distinctly different zone of reality from the rest of us mortals.
Hmm, my wife saw in the Times yesterday that "Her Resignationness" will be appearing on the program, commenting on America's place in the world. Oh, goody, goody.
But since she's already told us FAR too much about what SHE THINKS is the role and place of America in the world than any of us really care to hear, her inclusion in this is, frankly, asinine.
And that is another good reason to skip this junk.
But I will probably watch, just so I can make fun of it afterwards.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
The BBC online voting for the choosing of "Your Greatest American" is now closed. The program will be shown on June 17th on BBC 2. The last time I checked, on Sunday afternoon, Homer Simpson had run away with it. He had nearly 50% of the total vote in a field of 10!
So, it seems pretty clear that Homer is "Your Greatest American."
I can take a joke. And tongue in cheek is something that's usually fun. Homer has so many variations, and is one of the most interesting characters ever invented.
However, that is the major problem. Sorry, folks, but unlike -- good grief -- Bob Dylan, as well as all the others (even including Mr T, who was in the top ten also), who were and are real people, Homer is a character, and a cartoon one no less.
Yeh, yeh, I know one can joke about not being able to cite with certainty if Bill Clinton were actually for real or not. But let's get real, honestly, for just a second.
Having set up a poll which led to Homer being voted as "Your Greatest American" is like Harry Potter being voted "Your Greatest Briton." It's fun. But in the end, it's silly.
A more relevant question: Is the BBC actually real? Well, probably. Although much of the Beeb's reporting indicates that it is in a distinctly different zone of reality from the rest of us mortals.
Hmm, my wife saw in the Times yesterday that "Her Resignationness" will be appearing on the program, commenting on America's place in the world. Oh, goody, goody.
But since she's already told us FAR too much about what SHE THINKS is the role and place of America in the world than any of us really care to hear, her inclusion in this is, frankly, asinine.
And that is another good reason to skip this junk.
But I will probably watch, just so I can make fun of it afterwards.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 16, 2003
Sunday, June 15, 2003
BIRTHDAY HONORS LIST
I didn't make this year's Queen's Birthday Honors list. (I'm not a British citizen so couldn't accept one even if it were offered.)
But lots of other people did make it, including David Beckham, Jamie Oliver and Roger Moore.
And gosh are they happy!
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 15, 2003
I didn't make this year's Queen's Birthday Honors list. (I'm not a British citizen so couldn't accept one even if it were offered.)
But lots of other people did make it, including David Beckham, Jamie Oliver and Roger Moore.
And gosh are they happy!
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 15, 2003
IT'S YOUR DAY!
Happy Father's Day!
Best of everything Dad.
Love, Your Son and Daughter in law. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 15, 2003
Happy Father's Day!
Best of everything Dad.
Love, Your Son and Daughter in law. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 15, 2003
A LITTLE SHAKESPEARE. . .
This blog always aims to attain the highest standards. However, let's raise the tone even further this Father's Day morning:
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands, --
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
from "King Richard II," Act II, scene 1.
Have a nice Sunday everyone.
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 15, 2003
This blog always aims to attain the highest standards. However, let's raise the tone even further this Father's Day morning:
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands, --
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
from "King Richard II," Act II, scene 1.
Have a nice Sunday everyone.
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 15, 2003
TIRANA IS LOOKING MORE ATTRACTIVE EACH DAY
It is becoming -- hopefully -- common knowledge in the U.S. that under Belgium's ridiculous genocide law the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney and General Tommy Franks are under indictment for having committed war crimes.
FOX News reports that a Belgian lawyer has even gone so far as to helpfully point out:
. . ."Some of the war crimes committed were very clearly the responsibility not of the men on the ground, but of the superior commander of the troops, for example, the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets," said Belgian lawyer Jan Fremont. . .
Note that Mr Lawyer states they are war crimes. Period. Decided already.
As a result, FOX continues:
. . .Language in this year's defense bill orders the Defense Department to investigate "the costs and benefits of relocating the headquarters to a suitable location in another NATO member country."
The United States pays for one-quarter of all NATO operating costs. Last year, that equaled $169 million. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, apparently feeling the heat, sounded a sympathetic note on Friday.
"American individuals have found themselves placed in a very difficult situation," he said. . .
Actually, the only reason they are in a "difficult situation", My Lord, is because the Belgian authorities are, um, apparently morons.
And if Belgium (which I'm told is supposedly a NATO ally of the U.S.) keeps this nonsense up, Brussels may very shortly find itself with an overabundance of vacant office space.
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 15, 2003
It is becoming -- hopefully -- common knowledge in the U.S. that under Belgium's ridiculous genocide law the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney and General Tommy Franks are under indictment for having committed war crimes.
FOX News reports that a Belgian lawyer has even gone so far as to helpfully point out:
. . ."Some of the war crimes committed were very clearly the responsibility not of the men on the ground, but of the superior commander of the troops, for example, the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets," said Belgian lawyer Jan Fremont. . .
Note that Mr Lawyer states they are war crimes. Period. Decided already.
As a result, FOX continues:
. . .Language in this year's defense bill orders the Defense Department to investigate "the costs and benefits of relocating the headquarters to a suitable location in another NATO member country."
The United States pays for one-quarter of all NATO operating costs. Last year, that equaled $169 million. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, apparently feeling the heat, sounded a sympathetic note on Friday.
"American individuals have found themselves placed in a very difficult situation," he said. . .
Actually, the only reason they are in a "difficult situation", My Lord, is because the Belgian authorities are, um, apparently morons.
And if Belgium (which I'm told is supposedly a NATO ally of the U.S.) keeps this nonsense up, Brussels may very shortly find itself with an overabundance of vacant office space.
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 15, 2003
Saturday, June 14, 2003
IT JUST FELL
The Germans marched into Paris unopposed on this date in 1940.
Just a fact, that's all.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 14, 2003
The Germans marched into Paris unopposed on this date in 1940.
Just a fact, that's all.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 14, 2003
ASTRID NEEDS HELP!
"Rambling in Roehampton's" Astrid Osborn needs to find work soon.
If anyone can do anything to help her out -- please do! ¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 14, 2003
"Rambling in Roehampton's" Astrid Osborn needs to find work soon.
If anyone can do anything to help her out -- please do! ¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 14, 2003
CHARLES HYNES ISN'T ADVISING THE BRITISH JUDICIARY, IS HE?
Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer (considered by some to be an odd fellow -- although being odd is still legal, the last time I checked), who went to jail for shooting two burglars, killing one, is now about to be sued by the surviving burglar. The Telegraph reports:
The burglar Brendon Fearon, who was shot and injured by Tony Martin, won the right yesterday to sue the jailed farmer for damages.
A judge at Nottingham County Court overturned an earlier decision that had thrown out his claim.
Fearon, 33, hopes to sue Martin for a reported £15,000 after he was wounded during a break-in at the farmer's home in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999. He has received legal aid to pursue his claim, but is currently in jail for dealing drugs.
Martin shot dead Fearon's accomplice, 16-year-old Fred Barras, of Newark, Nottinghamshire. He was convicted of manslaughter in 2001, and is due to be released on July 28. Fearon served 18 months of a three-year sentence for conspiracy to burgle.
The claim for damages has been sent to be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice after both men have been released from prison terms.
Fearon was jailed for 18 months in February for drug dealing.
The judge said that to deny Fearon, who has more than 30 convictions, the right to his claim could contravene his rights under Section 6 of the Human Rights Convention. . .
So regardless of the fact that he did time for his part in the crime, he can now sue the homeowner, who also did time.
Tony should respond by suing the burglar for everything any lawyer might be able to reasonably conjure up.
This has gone from being a questionable case of whether a homeowner used excessive force to being an outright farce.
With court decisions like this -- which too often make Brooklyn D.A. Charles Hynes look like he is on the side of crime victims -- is it any wonder that burglary is now viewed by many as a rational career choice in today's Britain?
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 14, 2003
Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer (considered by some to be an odd fellow -- although being odd is still legal, the last time I checked), who went to jail for shooting two burglars, killing one, is now about to be sued by the surviving burglar. The Telegraph reports:
The burglar Brendon Fearon, who was shot and injured by Tony Martin, won the right yesterday to sue the jailed farmer for damages.
A judge at Nottingham County Court overturned an earlier decision that had thrown out his claim.
Fearon, 33, hopes to sue Martin for a reported £15,000 after he was wounded during a break-in at the farmer's home in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999. He has received legal aid to pursue his claim, but is currently in jail for dealing drugs.
Martin shot dead Fearon's accomplice, 16-year-old Fred Barras, of Newark, Nottinghamshire. He was convicted of manslaughter in 2001, and is due to be released on July 28. Fearon served 18 months of a three-year sentence for conspiracy to burgle.
The claim for damages has been sent to be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice after both men have been released from prison terms.
Fearon was jailed for 18 months in February for drug dealing.
The judge said that to deny Fearon, who has more than 30 convictions, the right to his claim could contravene his rights under Section 6 of the Human Rights Convention. . .
So regardless of the fact that he did time for his part in the crime, he can now sue the homeowner, who also did time.
Tony should respond by suing the burglar for everything any lawyer might be able to reasonably conjure up.
This has gone from being a questionable case of whether a homeowner used excessive force to being an outright farce.
With court decisions like this -- which too often make Brooklyn D.A. Charles Hynes look like he is on the side of crime victims -- is it any wonder that burglary is now viewed by many as a rational career choice in today's Britain?
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 14, 2003
SHARON FINALLY TAKES 'EM ON
Always a hard-headed realist as well as a passionate nationalist, Israel's own version of Charles de Gaulle, General Sharon, has been avoiding an outright confrontation with Hamas. Well, the General has now had enough, it seems. He's gonna get 'em -- at last. The BBC reports:
Israeli helicopter gunships have fired missiles at a car in Gaza City, killing one Palestinian and wounding at least 22.
First reports said four people were travelling in the vehicle, including Fuad al-Lidawi - a member of the militant wing of the Islamic group Hamas - who was killed.
Israeli military sources said the car contained a Hamas cell that had been preparing a rocket attack on Israel.
It was the sixth Israeli missile attack on Hamas militants this week.
The Israeli Government has vowed to destroy the group following Wednesday's suicide bombing that killed 16 people in an attack on a bus in Jerusalem. . .
Of course, now that the Israelis look like they are going to aim to smash Hamas, the well-spoken diplomatic voice from the New York's East Side suddenly chimes in. Again, the BBC reports:
UN peacekeepers should be sent to the Middle East to try to break the accelerating cycle of violence there, the UN secretary general has said.
Kofi Annan said a force of 51 American monitors due to arrive next week "was a beginning", but only an armed "buffer" force would be able to halt the escalation of violence. . .
In an interview with Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Kofi Annan also urged Israel to limit its response to Palestinian attacks to "proportionate measures" - although he acknowleged that "this is very difficult". . .
Proportionate! Arrgh! Not that word again! It has become an all too convenient covering euphemism for this: do nothing in response that could actually solve a problem!
Actually, asking for "proportionate" responses would seem to indicate that Annan is asserting that Israelis should indiscriminately attack Arab civilians. Clearly, Annan did not mean that. Besides, Israel prefers to leave the indiscriminate attacking of civilians to their opponents.
Funny, Annan never once made a suggestion of UN peacekeepers when Israelis were being blown up right and left on buses, in restaurants, at weddings, in university dining halls, and at Passover dinners.
Overall, this is predictable U.N. blathering. As soon as General Sharon has democratic Israel's citizen soldiers shove well-placed missiles up Hamas's collective freakin' rear end, suddenly the U.N. wants to see -- all together now! -- "the cycle of violence" halted.
Actually, this Annan statement is probably a good sign. Why? Well, like a bribed boxing referee, the U.N. must be thinking that Hamas is in trouble, and is trying to delay the landing of knock out blows, so as to give "their man" (Hamas) a bit of breathing space, possibly preventing the opponent (Sharon) from knocking "their man" into the fourth row.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 14, 2003
Always a hard-headed realist as well as a passionate nationalist, Israel's own version of Charles de Gaulle, General Sharon, has been avoiding an outright confrontation with Hamas. Well, the General has now had enough, it seems. He's gonna get 'em -- at last. The BBC reports:
Israeli helicopter gunships have fired missiles at a car in Gaza City, killing one Palestinian and wounding at least 22.
First reports said four people were travelling in the vehicle, including Fuad al-Lidawi - a member of the militant wing of the Islamic group Hamas - who was killed.
Israeli military sources said the car contained a Hamas cell that had been preparing a rocket attack on Israel.
It was the sixth Israeli missile attack on Hamas militants this week.
The Israeli Government has vowed to destroy the group following Wednesday's suicide bombing that killed 16 people in an attack on a bus in Jerusalem. . .
Of course, now that the Israelis look like they are going to aim to smash Hamas, the well-spoken diplomatic voice from the New York's East Side suddenly chimes in. Again, the BBC reports:
UN peacekeepers should be sent to the Middle East to try to break the accelerating cycle of violence there, the UN secretary general has said.
Kofi Annan said a force of 51 American monitors due to arrive next week "was a beginning", but only an armed "buffer" force would be able to halt the escalation of violence. . .
In an interview with Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Kofi Annan also urged Israel to limit its response to Palestinian attacks to "proportionate measures" - although he acknowleged that "this is very difficult". . .
Proportionate! Arrgh! Not that word again! It has become an all too convenient covering euphemism for this: do nothing in response that could actually solve a problem!
Actually, asking for "proportionate" responses would seem to indicate that Annan is asserting that Israelis should indiscriminately attack Arab civilians. Clearly, Annan did not mean that. Besides, Israel prefers to leave the indiscriminate attacking of civilians to their opponents.
Funny, Annan never once made a suggestion of UN peacekeepers when Israelis were being blown up right and left on buses, in restaurants, at weddings, in university dining halls, and at Passover dinners.
Overall, this is predictable U.N. blathering. As soon as General Sharon has democratic Israel's citizen soldiers shove well-placed missiles up Hamas's collective freakin' rear end, suddenly the U.N. wants to see -- all together now! -- "the cycle of violence" halted.
Actually, this Annan statement is probably a good sign. Why? Well, like a bribed boxing referee, the U.N. must be thinking that Hamas is in trouble, and is trying to delay the landing of knock out blows, so as to give "their man" (Hamas) a bit of breathing space, possibly preventing the opponent (Sharon) from knocking "their man" into the fourth row.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 14, 2003
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY AVOIDING U.S. PARTISAN POLITICS
In the current environment, in which far too many people out here ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Bush has presided over the creation of a CONCENTRATION CAMP (with all the baggage that expression implies) in Guantanamo, nonsense like this is just what Americans abroad should NOT be engaging in! Democrats Abroad U.K proudly tells us that:
"George Dubya" Theatre Benefit Hits the National News
by Elizabeth Block
Last month sleepy people across the United States woke to news of Democrats Abroad UK as our 6 February theatre trip to "The Madness of George Dubya" was reported on NPR's popular "Morning Edition".
NPR London correspondent Guy Raz reported that more than 40 Democrats Abroad UK attended the anti-war play. He included a brief interview with a group from Cambridge and our chairman, Jamey Dumas, was immediately deluged with phone calls and e-mails from home. After a brief intro, the NPR clip ran:
"On a recent evening 40 Americans turned up, members of a group called Democrats Abroad. Michael Carmichael said he didn't find any of the characterizations offensive. 'We thoroughly enjoyed it, but it was frightening. It was arresting -- it was something that we wish other people in America had more opportunity to see.'"
Jamey said: "This was a nice cap on a very successful event which had dozens of Democrats Abroad UK attending, many bringing friends. The event was actually over-subscribed, despite a very short time frame for people to claim tickets."
The play is based on "Dr. Strangelove" and features a fictional George Dubya who declares a war on "tourism" from his bunk bed. It uses old - but timely - Tom Lehrer songs such as "By Mom, I'm Off to Drop the Bomb" and "We'll All Go Together As We Go."
As the rollicking production delivers a very strong anti-war message, Jamey added: "Those members present represented us well, letting the NPR reporter know about our activities and organization. They answered his questions eloquently, and shared their personal opinions with him as Americans while being careful not to be portrayed as speaking officially for the Democratic Party or Democrats Abroad."
Democrats Abroad UK netted £220 from the evening at the fringe Theatro Technis in Camden. As a further perk, at the request of organiser Elizabeth Block, playwright Justin Butcher acknowledged our group with a few extra words in Dubya's opening speech: "I hear there are Democrats here tonight - but don't worry, we're gonna smoke you out!"
True, they may indeed have been there just as Americans who are Democrats abroad -- meaning outside the U.S.; abroad with a small "a." But their being interviewed in such a manner damn well implies they are "close" to Democrats Abroad. And indeed, it should be borne in mind also that the NPR report quoted above labelled those in attendance as being members of "Democrats Abroad" -- as in Abroad spelled with a capital "A", and as if the group came in an official capacity.
I won't even address the issue of the, er, joke about the war on "tourism". Considering that Islamist bastards knocked down the WTC, killing 3,000, how any American sees any humor in poking fun at the war on Islamist terrorism is beyond me. I presume that such jerks don't disapprove of nitwits someday dancing and laughing on their own graves, or those of their relatives. But don't forget, this was covered by NPR. That explains a great deal.
(The old joke that Democrats have gone so far to the left that they have left the country seems really to apply to Democrats Abroad -- have indeed gone loony left, and have indeed left the country! Remember the idiot jamboree Democrats Abroad in Russia organized in Moscow, shortly after the war began?)
Their track record is such that apparently Democrats Abroad U.K. believes that if Gore had won in 2000, he would have responded "proportionally" to the attacks. President Gore would have invited bin Laden to the White House (presuming it were still standing of course, and indeed, presuming that President Gore had survived the attacks) to give that "Muslim leader", whom we would have been told "has certain issues with American policies," autographed copies of "Earth In The Balance." ( [Sarcasm turned on.] Yep, that would've fixed things. Gosh, why the didn't Bush think of doing something like that? Because he is an evil, imperialist slug from Texas, of course. [Sarcasm turned off.] )
The central issue here is (aside from the fact that Democrats Abroad U.K. doesn't seem to have a problem with someone both helping to organize an event and then afterwards writing about herself in the third person as being involved in it), as I wrote the other day, that there seem to be just too many mouthing off Americans (who are usually Democrats) abroad.
Heaven save us from those who aim to save us.
Look, if Democrats want to take it to Republicans, well go get 'em. But it might be more helpful if Democrats did so where there are some, urrr, registered Republicans. Attendees at plays and events held in Camden (north London) "fringe theaters" are not usually, um, Bush voters -- or mainstream Democratic voters for that matter.
Democrats Abroad U.K. has members who feel that Americans should see plays like the above? Okay, fair enough.
In return, Americans at home should be told what Democrats Abroad U.K. is up to, and whom it counts among its "friends". Consider this: the America-hating, pro-Saddam Stop The War coalition counts among its leading lights the slug British Labour MP George Galloway. The local Camden Stop the War group is planning to hold a meeting at the very same Theatro Technis on June 24.
It is not too much of a stretch to assert that there will be the same sort of people at the June 24 event that there were in the audience at that "anti-war" play at that same venue, which was so, um, arrestingly attended by members of Democrats Abroad U.K.
Disgusting.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 14, 2003
In the current environment, in which far too many people out here ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Bush has presided over the creation of a CONCENTRATION CAMP (with all the baggage that expression implies) in Guantanamo, nonsense like this is just what Americans abroad should NOT be engaging in! Democrats Abroad U.K proudly tells us that:
"George Dubya" Theatre Benefit Hits the National News
by Elizabeth Block
Last month sleepy people across the United States woke to news of Democrats Abroad UK as our 6 February theatre trip to "The Madness of George Dubya" was reported on NPR's popular "Morning Edition".
NPR London correspondent Guy Raz reported that more than 40 Democrats Abroad UK attended the anti-war play. He included a brief interview with a group from Cambridge and our chairman, Jamey Dumas, was immediately deluged with phone calls and e-mails from home. After a brief intro, the NPR clip ran:
"On a recent evening 40 Americans turned up, members of a group called Democrats Abroad. Michael Carmichael said he didn't find any of the characterizations offensive. 'We thoroughly enjoyed it, but it was frightening. It was arresting -- it was something that we wish other people in America had more opportunity to see.'"
Jamey said: "This was a nice cap on a very successful event which had dozens of Democrats Abroad UK attending, many bringing friends. The event was actually over-subscribed, despite a very short time frame for people to claim tickets."
The play is based on "Dr. Strangelove" and features a fictional George Dubya who declares a war on "tourism" from his bunk bed. It uses old - but timely - Tom Lehrer songs such as "By Mom, I'm Off to Drop the Bomb" and "We'll All Go Together As We Go."
As the rollicking production delivers a very strong anti-war message, Jamey added: "Those members present represented us well, letting the NPR reporter know about our activities and organization. They answered his questions eloquently, and shared their personal opinions with him as Americans while being careful not to be portrayed as speaking officially for the Democratic Party or Democrats Abroad."
Democrats Abroad UK netted £220 from the evening at the fringe Theatro Technis in Camden. As a further perk, at the request of organiser Elizabeth Block, playwright Justin Butcher acknowledged our group with a few extra words in Dubya's opening speech: "I hear there are Democrats here tonight - but don't worry, we're gonna smoke you out!"
True, they may indeed have been there just as Americans who are Democrats abroad -- meaning outside the U.S.; abroad with a small "a." But their being interviewed in such a manner damn well implies they are "close" to Democrats Abroad. And indeed, it should be borne in mind also that the NPR report quoted above labelled those in attendance as being members of "Democrats Abroad" -- as in Abroad spelled with a capital "A", and as if the group came in an official capacity.
I won't even address the issue of the, er, joke about the war on "tourism". Considering that Islamist bastards knocked down the WTC, killing 3,000, how any American sees any humor in poking fun at the war on Islamist terrorism is beyond me. I presume that such jerks don't disapprove of nitwits someday dancing and laughing on their own graves, or those of their relatives. But don't forget, this was covered by NPR. That explains a great deal.
(The old joke that Democrats have gone so far to the left that they have left the country seems really to apply to Democrats Abroad -- have indeed gone loony left, and have indeed left the country! Remember the idiot jamboree Democrats Abroad in Russia organized in Moscow, shortly after the war began?)
Their track record is such that apparently Democrats Abroad U.K. believes that if Gore had won in 2000, he would have responded "proportionally" to the attacks. President Gore would have invited bin Laden to the White House (presuming it were still standing of course, and indeed, presuming that President Gore had survived the attacks) to give that "Muslim leader", whom we would have been told "has certain issues with American policies," autographed copies of "Earth In The Balance." ( [Sarcasm turned on.] Yep, that would've fixed things. Gosh, why the didn't Bush think of doing something like that? Because he is an evil, imperialist slug from Texas, of course. [Sarcasm turned off.] )
The central issue here is (aside from the fact that Democrats Abroad U.K. doesn't seem to have a problem with someone both helping to organize an event and then afterwards writing about herself in the third person as being involved in it), as I wrote the other day, that there seem to be just too many mouthing off Americans (who are usually Democrats) abroad.
Heaven save us from those who aim to save us.
Look, if Democrats want to take it to Republicans, well go get 'em. But it might be more helpful if Democrats did so where there are some, urrr, registered Republicans. Attendees at plays and events held in Camden (north London) "fringe theaters" are not usually, um, Bush voters -- or mainstream Democratic voters for that matter.
Democrats Abroad U.K. has members who feel that Americans should see plays like the above? Okay, fair enough.
In return, Americans at home should be told what Democrats Abroad U.K. is up to, and whom it counts among its "friends". Consider this: the America-hating, pro-Saddam Stop The War coalition counts among its leading lights the slug British Labour MP George Galloway. The local Camden Stop the War group is planning to hold a meeting at the very same Theatro Technis on June 24.
It is not too much of a stretch to assert that there will be the same sort of people at the June 24 event that there were in the audience at that "anti-war" play at that same venue, which was so, um, arrestingly attended by members of Democrats Abroad U.K.
Disgusting.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 14, 2003
Friday, June 13, 2003
BRITISH CONSERVATIVES DEMAND SADDAM BE REINSTATED
On his way back to North America, Mark Steyn writes that:
. . .I briefly touched down in the strange area known as "Europe", where possibly due to a freak electrical storm or some other phenomenon the people of Britain appeared to be in the fevered grip of some mass psychosis, perhaps a variant of Sars (Sudden Alternative Reality Syndrome). Peter Worthington, the Canadian columnist and veteran of the Second World War and Korea, likes to say that there is no such thing as an unpopular won war. Tell it to Downing Street. If I understand correctly, the British, having won the war, are now demanding a recount. Across the length and breadth of the realm, the people are as one: now that the war's out of the way we can go back to bitching and whining that Blair hasn't made the case for it.
This is all very odd. In Kirkuk the other day, they found another mass grave, this time with the bodies of 200 children who had been buried alive. Yawn. Doesn't count. Wake me if they find a toxic warhead among the teeny skulls. The naysayers were wrong on so much - millions of refugees, Vietnam quagmire, Stalingrad, etc - you can't blame them for clinging to the one little straw that hasn't shrivelled up and slipped between their fingers: Come on, Tony, where's the WMD?
Or as Iain Duncan Smith put it in the House of Commons: "The truth is nobody believes a word you say now." Well, I do. Because what Mr Blair said is not only in line with what American officials told me, it is in line with what Continental officials told me - as recently as two weeks ago, when a big-time Euro paused midway through his harangue about the illegality of the war to assure me that "of course" Saddam had been up to WMD monkey business. . .
. . .In America, Mr Blair is still Churchill. In Britain, Mr Blair has fast-forwarded to the Churchill of 1945: his own party never liked him, his wartime coalition with Clement Duncan Attlee has broken up, and the ingrate voters have had enough of wartime austerity - the wretched hospitals, the broken trains - and would like a domestic panderer rather than a global colossus. . .
Make sure you read it all. It's great.
This seems to support what I was ranting about the other day -- that Iain Duncan Smith and the Conservatives have indeed come unglued.
Where the hell is Margaret Thatcher?!!! Well, she's out of power. Which is where the current crop of spineless and silly Conservatives seem destined to be for at least the next half-generation.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
On his way back to North America, Mark Steyn writes that:
. . .I briefly touched down in the strange area known as "Europe", where possibly due to a freak electrical storm or some other phenomenon the people of Britain appeared to be in the fevered grip of some mass psychosis, perhaps a variant of Sars (Sudden Alternative Reality Syndrome). Peter Worthington, the Canadian columnist and veteran of the Second World War and Korea, likes to say that there is no such thing as an unpopular won war. Tell it to Downing Street. If I understand correctly, the British, having won the war, are now demanding a recount. Across the length and breadth of the realm, the people are as one: now that the war's out of the way we can go back to bitching and whining that Blair hasn't made the case for it.
This is all very odd. In Kirkuk the other day, they found another mass grave, this time with the bodies of 200 children who had been buried alive. Yawn. Doesn't count. Wake me if they find a toxic warhead among the teeny skulls. The naysayers were wrong on so much - millions of refugees, Vietnam quagmire, Stalingrad, etc - you can't blame them for clinging to the one little straw that hasn't shrivelled up and slipped between their fingers: Come on, Tony, where's the WMD?
Or as Iain Duncan Smith put it in the House of Commons: "The truth is nobody believes a word you say now." Well, I do. Because what Mr Blair said is not only in line with what American officials told me, it is in line with what Continental officials told me - as recently as two weeks ago, when a big-time Euro paused midway through his harangue about the illegality of the war to assure me that "of course" Saddam had been up to WMD monkey business. . .
. . .In America, Mr Blair is still Churchill. In Britain, Mr Blair has fast-forwarded to the Churchill of 1945: his own party never liked him, his wartime coalition with Clement Duncan Attlee has broken up, and the ingrate voters have had enough of wartime austerity - the wretched hospitals, the broken trains - and would like a domestic panderer rather than a global colossus. . .
Make sure you read it all. It's great.
This seems to support what I was ranting about the other day -- that Iain Duncan Smith and the Conservatives have indeed come unglued.
Where the hell is Margaret Thatcher?!!! Well, she's out of power. Which is where the current crop of spineless and silly Conservatives seem destined to be for at least the next half-generation.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
THE BITTER ENDERS
One's gotta give 'em this much: unlike the chickens in al Qaeda, these Saddam diehards at least are aiming at armed to the teeth, U.S. soldiers. But they aren't exactly making Saladin proud, that's for sure, in losing 27 of their own for not a single "crusader". FOX News reports:
An Iraqi guerrilla ambush on a U.S. tank column north of Baghdad backfired on the attackers Friday, as the Americans quickly turned the tide and hunted down and killed 27 of the assailants.
The skirmish was part of the continuing, four-day-old "Operation Peninsula Strike," intended to root out and destroy Saddam loyalists and Baath Party fighters who have been harrassing coalition forces.
U.S. Central Command said an "organized group" ambushed the tanks with rocket propelled grenades in Balad, on the main north-south highway about 35 miles from the capital. The statement made no mention of U.S. casualties.
The patrol returned fire and killed four of the assailants in the initial gunbattle, the military said.
As the rest of the attackers fled, Apache helicopters joined the chase along with tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, killing 23 more assailants. The statement did not say whether any escaped.
The tank patrol was from the Army's 4th Infantry Division, based in Fort Hood, Texas. . .
Thus do surviving "SS" and "Hitler Youth" keep at it.
But, in the end, they too will succumb.
It is only a matter of time.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
One's gotta give 'em this much: unlike the chickens in al Qaeda, these Saddam diehards at least are aiming at armed to the teeth, U.S. soldiers. But they aren't exactly making Saladin proud, that's for sure, in losing 27 of their own for not a single "crusader". FOX News reports:
An Iraqi guerrilla ambush on a U.S. tank column north of Baghdad backfired on the attackers Friday, as the Americans quickly turned the tide and hunted down and killed 27 of the assailants.
The skirmish was part of the continuing, four-day-old "Operation Peninsula Strike," intended to root out and destroy Saddam loyalists and Baath Party fighters who have been harrassing coalition forces.
U.S. Central Command said an "organized group" ambushed the tanks with rocket propelled grenades in Balad, on the main north-south highway about 35 miles from the capital. The statement made no mention of U.S. casualties.
The patrol returned fire and killed four of the assailants in the initial gunbattle, the military said.
As the rest of the attackers fled, Apache helicopters joined the chase along with tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, killing 23 more assailants. The statement did not say whether any escaped.
The tank patrol was from the Army's 4th Infantry Division, based in Fort Hood, Texas. . .
Thus do surviving "SS" and "Hitler Youth" keep at it.
But, in the end, they too will succumb.
It is only a matter of time.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
BYE HANS
"Da Blog's" Matt Howell provides one of the most compelling explanations I've seen on just why most Americans (and interestingly, most New Yorkers) slag off, mistrust and now often actively dislike the U.N.
Clare Short and other Europeans who think Americans have it in for the U.N. just because Americans are unsophisticated, bullying wanks should freakin' read this.
And now!
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
"Da Blog's" Matt Howell provides one of the most compelling explanations I've seen on just why most Americans (and interestingly, most New Yorkers) slag off, mistrust and now often actively dislike the U.N.
Clare Short and other Europeans who think Americans have it in for the U.N. just because Americans are unsophisticated, bullying wanks should freakin' read this.
And now!
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
RUMSFELD CALLS IT STRAIGHT -- OF COURSE
I've beaten up on Belgium's "genocide law" already. (See here and here especially.) CNN reports that Washington is starting to take the "law" very seriously:
Washington will oppose building a new NATO headquarters in Brussels because Belgian law allows "absurd" war crimes lawsuits against U.S. officials, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. . .
. . ."This law calls into serious question whether NATO can continue to hold meetings in Belgium and whether senior U.S. officials, military and civilian, will be able to visit international organizations in Belgium". . .
. . .Rumsfeld said he was not threatening Belgium with the loss of NATO headquarters, but he added, "It's perfectly possible to meet elsewhere". . .
. . .A lawsuit filed in Brussels in April accused Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, of war crimes in the Iraq war.
Another case accuses former U.S. President George Bush, his top commanders and senior officials of war crimes in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
The defendants in the latter case include Vice President Dick Cheney, who was then defense secretary; Secretary of State Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and retired Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf, then head of the U.S. Central Command.
"The suits are absurd," Rumsfeld said. "There is no general in history who has gone to greater lengths than General Franks and his superb team to avoid civilian casualties". . .
If Belgium's idiots keep it up, NATO headquarters will find itself moved to Warsaw or Tirana, Albania.
That's right, THAT Albania.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
I've beaten up on Belgium's "genocide law" already. (See here and here especially.) CNN reports that Washington is starting to take the "law" very seriously:
Washington will oppose building a new NATO headquarters in Brussels because Belgian law allows "absurd" war crimes lawsuits against U.S. officials, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. . .
. . ."This law calls into serious question whether NATO can continue to hold meetings in Belgium and whether senior U.S. officials, military and civilian, will be able to visit international organizations in Belgium". . .
. . .Rumsfeld said he was not threatening Belgium with the loss of NATO headquarters, but he added, "It's perfectly possible to meet elsewhere". . .
. . .A lawsuit filed in Brussels in April accused Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, of war crimes in the Iraq war.
Another case accuses former U.S. President George Bush, his top commanders and senior officials of war crimes in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
The defendants in the latter case include Vice President Dick Cheney, who was then defense secretary; Secretary of State Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and retired Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf, then head of the U.S. Central Command.
"The suits are absurd," Rumsfeld said. "There is no general in history who has gone to greater lengths than General Franks and his superb team to avoid civilian casualties". . .
If Belgium's idiots keep it up, NATO headquarters will find itself moved to Warsaw or Tirana, Albania.
That's right, THAT Albania.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
D'OH!
His lead is, er, growing. Homer Simpson now has 40% of the vote in a field of ten (second is Lincoln with 10%) in the BBC'S "Your Greatest American" poll.
I just knew this would be hilarious!
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
His lead is, er, growing. Homer Simpson now has 40% of the vote in a field of ten (second is Lincoln with 10%) in the BBC'S "Your Greatest American" poll.
I just knew this would be hilarious!
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
INVESTING IMPERIALISTS ARE WE
America, in Harold Pinter's reveries, is the most dangerous power ever. What was it that the Master Playwright called the US government?: ". . .the most dangerous power that had ever existed." (See post of June 12, "Master Harold".)
Thus is the U.S. government worse than the Nazis -- who levelled Warsaw in late summer and early autumn 1944, street by street, crushing the undergunned Polish Home Army uprising, often displaying dead Polish resisters upside down from balconies as examples of what would happen to those Poles who still fought on.
Sounds like the U.S. in Baghdad, doesn't it? Remember, Master Playwright claims Americans -- being the "most dangerous" -- are worse than the Germans in Warsaw.
Worse.
Well, then, America must be also the stupidest, most dangerous power ever. CNN reports:
The U.S. civil administrator for Iraq announced Tuesday the creation of a $100 million investment fund aimed at providing jobs and rebuilding communities throughout the country.
The administrator, L. Paul Bremer, said he met Friday night with about 18 Iraqis representing "all strands of Iraqi society" and discussed ways to restore the economy.
The group estimated that unemployment before the U.S.-led war was more than 50 percent, Bremer told reporters Tuesday at a briefing in the Iraqi capital. The unemployment rate has clearly gone up since the war because many state-owned enterprises have not been operating, he said. . .
. . .Under the economic plan, each region of the country will get $15 million "to employ local workers in construction projects identified by local communities," Bremer said. The fund also will allocate $20 million to rebuild government buildings, he said. The money will come entirely from Iraqi funds, Bremer said.
The U.S.-led coalition has other big-budget projects going as well, including a $150 million program involving the sale of wheat and barley through the Ministry of Trade and a $70 million community action program, he said.
"In the end, those are short-term projects because they don't, in and of themselves, create substantial economic activity," Bremer said. "To do that, we've got to get the private sector going. And that, of course, will be an area we'll pay a lot of attention to."
Bremer said he still believes an interim administration will be established within five weeks. Coalition officials said the administration initially will have representatives from various Iraqi factions acting as advisers to the coalition. . .
Here we are, pouring money in, trying to help get Iraqis jobs and a representative government, when, according to Pinter, the U.S. is supposed to be wantonly stealing everything in sight and slaughtering Iraqis horribly and without mercy.
The Germans main investment in Warsaw was in rubble and corpse creation.
But America is the "most dangerous power that ever existed", according to the Master Playwright.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
America, in Harold Pinter's reveries, is the most dangerous power ever. What was it that the Master Playwright called the US government?: ". . .the most dangerous power that had ever existed." (See post of June 12, "Master Harold".)
Thus is the U.S. government worse than the Nazis -- who levelled Warsaw in late summer and early autumn 1944, street by street, crushing the undergunned Polish Home Army uprising, often displaying dead Polish resisters upside down from balconies as examples of what would happen to those Poles who still fought on.
Sounds like the U.S. in Baghdad, doesn't it? Remember, Master Playwright claims Americans -- being the "most dangerous" -- are worse than the Germans in Warsaw.
Worse.
Well, then, America must be also the stupidest, most dangerous power ever. CNN reports:
The U.S. civil administrator for Iraq announced Tuesday the creation of a $100 million investment fund aimed at providing jobs and rebuilding communities throughout the country.
The administrator, L. Paul Bremer, said he met Friday night with about 18 Iraqis representing "all strands of Iraqi society" and discussed ways to restore the economy.
The group estimated that unemployment before the U.S.-led war was more than 50 percent, Bremer told reporters Tuesday at a briefing in the Iraqi capital. The unemployment rate has clearly gone up since the war because many state-owned enterprises have not been operating, he said. . .
. . .Under the economic plan, each region of the country will get $15 million "to employ local workers in construction projects identified by local communities," Bremer said. The fund also will allocate $20 million to rebuild government buildings, he said. The money will come entirely from Iraqi funds, Bremer said.
The U.S.-led coalition has other big-budget projects going as well, including a $150 million program involving the sale of wheat and barley through the Ministry of Trade and a $70 million community action program, he said.
"In the end, those are short-term projects because they don't, in and of themselves, create substantial economic activity," Bremer said. "To do that, we've got to get the private sector going. And that, of course, will be an area we'll pay a lot of attention to."
Bremer said he still believes an interim administration will be established within five weeks. Coalition officials said the administration initially will have representatives from various Iraqi factions acting as advisers to the coalition. . .
Here we are, pouring money in, trying to help get Iraqis jobs and a representative government, when, according to Pinter, the U.S. is supposed to be wantonly stealing everything in sight and slaughtering Iraqis horribly and without mercy.
The Germans main investment in Warsaw was in rubble and corpse creation.
But America is the "most dangerous power that ever existed", according to the Master Playwright.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
ONCE AGAIN, NO TIES TO TERRORISTS, EH?
What's this, foreign fighters? Training camps?
Do we see a pattern emerging here?
Where have we seen this nonsense before?
Uh, how about Osama's playground, Taliban Afghanistan?
The Washington Times reports:
Allied jet fighters bombed a terrorist camp in Iraq yesterday, and Army soldiers battled die-hard supporters of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein, as the top U.S. military officer said that operations in Iraq to eliminate resisters will go on "for some time to come."
"There were a number killed — large number," Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, said of enemy dead in the third day of a major U.S. sweep to kill or capture Ba'ath Party loyalists resisting the U.S. occupation.
The Army's 4th Infantry and 101st Airborne divisions are targeting a mix of paramilitaries, non-Iraqi Arabs and former Iraqi military personnel in a triangle north of Baghdad along the Tigris River, between the towns Balad, Duluiyah and Tikrit.
"It was a tough fight," Gen. Myers told reporters at the Pentagon. "They were well-trained or well-equipped, and clearly well-prepared for this, for the fight they had. And of course our folks were likewise". . .
Of course.
And our folks thumped 'em.
Damn good.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
What's this, foreign fighters? Training camps?
Do we see a pattern emerging here?
Where have we seen this nonsense before?
Uh, how about Osama's playground, Taliban Afghanistan?
The Washington Times reports:
Allied jet fighters bombed a terrorist camp in Iraq yesterday, and Army soldiers battled die-hard supporters of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein, as the top U.S. military officer said that operations in Iraq to eliminate resisters will go on "for some time to come."
"There were a number killed — large number," Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, said of enemy dead in the third day of a major U.S. sweep to kill or capture Ba'ath Party loyalists resisting the U.S. occupation.
The Army's 4th Infantry and 101st Airborne divisions are targeting a mix of paramilitaries, non-Iraqi Arabs and former Iraqi military personnel in a triangle north of Baghdad along the Tigris River, between the towns Balad, Duluiyah and Tikrit.
"It was a tough fight," Gen. Myers told reporters at the Pentagon. "They were well-trained or well-equipped, and clearly well-prepared for this, for the fight they had. And of course our folks were likewise". . .
Of course.
And our folks thumped 'em.
Damn good.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
ANN REALLY HATES HILLARY
I have never despised Hillary Clinton. She is essentially a grasping politician through and through. There are many out there just like her. She's just much higher profile than the rest of them.
But Ann Coulter utterly loathes her!
Makes for fun reading, really.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
I have never despised Hillary Clinton. She is essentially a grasping politician through and through. There are many out there just like her. She's just much higher profile than the rest of them.
But Ann Coulter utterly loathes her!
Makes for fun reading, really.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
PALESTINIAN, URRR, "FUNERALS"
This BBC story from May might have been written yesterday, or a week ago.
Tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza have taken part in a mass funeral for 12 people killed in an Israeli raid on Thursday.
Militants fired into the air and mourners shouted slogans . . .
. . .Friday's funeral procession - which stretched about three kilometres (2 miles) through Gaza City - was described by the Associated Press news agency as the biggest show of force by militants in nearly a year. . .
If General Sharon wants to whack these people but good, here's a suggestion: let it be known that this being for all intents and purposes a war, and that since these people have no problem getting on civilian Israeli buses and blowing themselves up, Israel might hit this enemy in just about all situations, including during "funerals" like those.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that they aren't funerals. They are political/military parades/rallies like those held by the Third Reich.
I'm in one of those moods today. . .
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
This BBC story from May might have been written yesterday, or a week ago.
Tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza have taken part in a mass funeral for 12 people killed in an Israeli raid on Thursday.
Militants fired into the air and mourners shouted slogans . . .
. . .Friday's funeral procession - which stretched about three kilometres (2 miles) through Gaza City - was described by the Associated Press news agency as the biggest show of force by militants in nearly a year. . .
If General Sharon wants to whack these people but good, here's a suggestion: let it be known that this being for all intents and purposes a war, and that since these people have no problem getting on civilian Israeli buses and blowing themselves up, Israel might hit this enemy in just about all situations, including during "funerals" like those.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that they aren't funerals. They are political/military parades/rallies like those held by the Third Reich.
I'm in one of those moods today. . .
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
GREGORY PECK AND DAVID BRINKLEY
Gregory Peck is gone.
And so is David Brinkley.
Good night David.
Good night Gregory.
It may be Friday, but if I might be allowed to regress for a moment back to age 17 (if I can remember that far back), today just s--ks.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
Gregory Peck is gone.
And so is David Brinkley.
Good night David.
Good night Gregory.
It may be Friday, but if I might be allowed to regress for a moment back to age 17 (if I can remember that far back), today just s--ks.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 13, 2003
Thursday, June 12, 2003
THE AMERICAN GULAG/CONCENTRATION CAMP
It continues to astonish me that there are people in Britain who think of themselves as at least semi-intelligent and semi-rational and yet actually believe that Guantanamo is "a concentration camp". Anne Applebaum, writing in the Washington Post, has uncovered several reasons, and one is particularly relevant to this blog:
The party affiliations of the roughly 4 million (non-military) Americans residing abroad are unclear. However, an educated guess is with a good many of them likely to be Democrats when at home, one is not going too far out on a limb to assert that at least 2 million Americans civilians living abroad are probably Democrats, or Democratic leaning.
Considering that the partisan politics of the Bush election in 2000 and the war on terror have become so nasty, Democrats and Democratic leaning Americans abroad have rather naturally become as strident in their anti-Bushism as Democrats at home. Indeed, it seems that many (perhaps most) Democrats abroad just can't contain themselves when it comes to expounding to foreigners what are essentially Democratic partisan political views.
Democrats Abroad U.K. is perhaps the epitome of that. Some of their characterizations could make one gag. Geez, you'd think that Democrats abroad had fled from the clutches of a regime like the puppet government installed by the Soviets in Czechoslovakia, after the Warsaw Pact crushed the "Prague Spring" in August 1968! I mean, please, calm down folks!
The tendency to share American partisan politics with foreigners irks me no end. In front of foreigners, I do my level best NEVER to condemn Bush or ANY U.S. policies SOLELY from a partisan perspective. Why? Because foreigners are apt to misunderstand, perhaps seriously.
Remember a foreigner, regardless of level of education or the number of times he or she has visited Disney World, lacks your frames of reference, and will likely pass on what you say to everyone else he or she knows as if it were the Holy Grail. "An American told me George Bush is the anti-Christ!" Pause and think before you spout such. Indeed, you may very well also be the first and only flesh and blood American that foreigner has ever met up close and for real. And think about all the other foreigners to whom that view of yours might be spread. Think, for cryin' out loud. Think.
I will never forget being amongst a group of French college students at a party in France about 15 years ago, and finding myself suddenly defending Ronald Reagan. At the time, I could NOT STAND Ronald Reagan! But I would have been damned if I was going to feed any French, anti-Reagan lust, which to me was just cover for anti-Americanism. They were going to meet at least one American who was unwilling to tell them what they wanted to hear -- that America was led by an elderly, warmongering fool. I might not have liked Reagan, but I was not about to pile on. Reagan was America's elected president. I was out of America. Whether I loved him or loathed him was immaterial. The bottom line was that I would never have even considered slagging off the American president to a bunch of French college students!
An argument among Americans over politics is, to me, like a family argument. Americans may scream holy hell at each other, but it seems best to do so only at home. Spreading our family's personal dirt around in public -- meaning internationally -- seems less than bright, especially in the current environment in which America's motives are misconstrued and America's morality is assaulted.
When in doubt, among foreigners, the best thing to do is probably just SHUT UP! ¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 12, 2003
It continues to astonish me that there are people in Britain who think of themselves as at least semi-intelligent and semi-rational and yet actually believe that Guantanamo is "a concentration camp". Anne Applebaum, writing in the Washington Post, has uncovered several reasons, and one is particularly relevant to this blog:
"Do you see any parallels between the security state that George Bush has created in America since 9/11 and the Gulag?" For a moment, the question struck me dumb. It had been put by a BBC radio interviewer, and we were on the air. It seemed impolitic to say, "What a ridiculous question," and I was too surprised to laugh. Finally I mumbled something about not having noticed that great a difference between daily life in George Bush's America and daily life in Bill Clinton's America, and left it at that. What I should have done was point out, tartly, that access to information is still far freer in America than it is in Britain, that immigrants are far better treated in America than in Britain, and that democracy remains a more open affair in America than in Britain. One always thinks of these things too late.You've probably guessed by now -- if this is your first visit, the banner at the top will tell you -- that I support generally the Republican administration's policies on the war on terror. (And, yes, I am a registered Democrat -- who voted for Clinton twice and Gore in 2000, by the way.)
Yet in the days that followed, I did, rather surprisingly, have the opportunity to try out a few more answers. I was in London because a book I wrote about Soviet concentration camps had just been published there. For some, it seemed, the combination of that subject and my nationality offered the perfect opportunity to discuss the viciousness of contemporary American society. Several times I was asked if Guantanamo Bay should be considered a concentration camp. One reviewer, after saying a few neutral words about my book, complained that "the author has missed an opportunity to condemn human rights violations in her own country." Another interviewer asked whether people in America are often arrested for insulting the president on the Internet.
Partly, I suspect that this extraordinary new perception of America as a vile source of human rights abuse and repression comes from London-based Americans, one of whom told me she had moved to Britain to escape George Bush's abuses. . .
The party affiliations of the roughly 4 million (non-military) Americans residing abroad are unclear. However, an educated guess is with a good many of them likely to be Democrats when at home, one is not going too far out on a limb to assert that at least 2 million Americans civilians living abroad are probably Democrats, or Democratic leaning.
Considering that the partisan politics of the Bush election in 2000 and the war on terror have become so nasty, Democrats and Democratic leaning Americans abroad have rather naturally become as strident in their anti-Bushism as Democrats at home. Indeed, it seems that many (perhaps most) Democrats abroad just can't contain themselves when it comes to expounding to foreigners what are essentially Democratic partisan political views.
Democrats Abroad U.K. is perhaps the epitome of that. Some of their characterizations could make one gag. Geez, you'd think that Democrats abroad had fled from the clutches of a regime like the puppet government installed by the Soviets in Czechoslovakia, after the Warsaw Pact crushed the "Prague Spring" in August 1968! I mean, please, calm down folks!
The tendency to share American partisan politics with foreigners irks me no end. In front of foreigners, I do my level best NEVER to condemn Bush or ANY U.S. policies SOLELY from a partisan perspective. Why? Because foreigners are apt to misunderstand, perhaps seriously.
Remember a foreigner, regardless of level of education or the number of times he or she has visited Disney World, lacks your frames of reference, and will likely pass on what you say to everyone else he or she knows as if it were the Holy Grail. "An American told me George Bush is the anti-Christ!" Pause and think before you spout such. Indeed, you may very well also be the first and only flesh and blood American that foreigner has ever met up close and for real. And think about all the other foreigners to whom that view of yours might be spread. Think, for cryin' out loud. Think.
I will never forget being amongst a group of French college students at a party in France about 15 years ago, and finding myself suddenly defending Ronald Reagan. At the time, I could NOT STAND Ronald Reagan! But I would have been damned if I was going to feed any French, anti-Reagan lust, which to me was just cover for anti-Americanism. They were going to meet at least one American who was unwilling to tell them what they wanted to hear -- that America was led by an elderly, warmongering fool. I might not have liked Reagan, but I was not about to pile on. Reagan was America's elected president. I was out of America. Whether I loved him or loathed him was immaterial. The bottom line was that I would never have even considered slagging off the American president to a bunch of French college students!
An argument among Americans over politics is, to me, like a family argument. Americans may scream holy hell at each other, but it seems best to do so only at home. Spreading our family's personal dirt around in public -- meaning internationally -- seems less than bright, especially in the current environment in which America's motives are misconstrued and America's morality is assaulted.
When in doubt, among foreigners, the best thing to do is probably just SHUT UP! ¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 12, 2003
AND THE BBC'S "YOUR GREATEST AMERICAN" WILL BE. . .
I can handle most of the BBC viewer nominations for "Your Greatest American."
But besides those who might really deserve it, we get Bill Clinton (oh, good grief, can I stop laughing now!), Homer Simpson (which actually is interesting, if you think about it) and Mr T (Huh?).
And of course, we get Bob Dylan.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee issssssssssss sooooooooooooooooooo noooooooooooooooot surrrrrrrrpreeeeeeeeesed.
And even better, when you vote, you will see that, as of this morning, Homer Simpson is winning with around 19%.
D'oh!
Lincoln is second with 16.5% and M.L.K. is third with 15.5%. Dylan is last, with a little more than 4%. (Ah, some sanity, apparently.)
Trying to be serious, I voted for George Washington. He's in 5th, with 8%, behind Jefferson who has 10%.
Incidentally, Mr T, with 5%, is just ahead of Clinton (second from bottom) and Dylan.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 12, 2003
I can handle most of the BBC viewer nominations for "Your Greatest American."
But besides those who might really deserve it, we get Bill Clinton (oh, good grief, can I stop laughing now!), Homer Simpson (which actually is interesting, if you think about it) and Mr T (Huh?).
And of course, we get Bob Dylan.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee issssssssssss sooooooooooooooooooo noooooooooooooooot surrrrrrrrpreeeeeeeeesed.
And even better, when you vote, you will see that, as of this morning, Homer Simpson is winning with around 19%.
D'oh!
Lincoln is second with 16.5% and M.L.K. is third with 15.5%. Dylan is last, with a little more than 4%. (Ah, some sanity, apparently.)
Trying to be serious, I voted for George Washington. He's in 5th, with 8%, behind Jefferson who has 10%.
Incidentally, Mr T, with 5%, is just ahead of Clinton (second from bottom) and Dylan.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 12, 2003
MASTER HAROLD
We know Master Fisk is the world's greatest journalist. But we must never overlook Master Pinter, the playwright who doubles as the world's foremost expert on America and Britain, their societies, politics and leaders. What a freakin' genius he is! Instapundit tells us (the original is in al Guardian, of course) that:
The playwright Harold Pinter last night likened George W Bush's administration to Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, saying the US was charging towards world domination while the American public and Britain's "mass-murdering" prime minister sat back and watched.
Pinter, 72, was at the National Theatre in London to read from War, a new collection of his anti-war poetry that had been published in the press in response to events in Iraq.
In conversation on stage with Michael Billington, the Guardian's theatre critic, Pinter said the US government was the most dangerous power that had ever existed.
The American detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where al-Qaida and Taliban suspects were being held, was a concentration camp.
The US population had to accept responsibility for allowing an unelected president to take power and the British were exhausted from protesting and being ignored by Tony Blair, a "deluded idiot" Pinter hoped would resign.
As Instapundit points out:
. . .Harold Pinter is still an idiot.
Indeed, his elevator's never gone all the way to the top.
Being a poet, and an extremely deep thinker, you see, what Master Playwright says must be correct.
Uh, no. The Master is just plain wrong.
Wow, does that mean that his next great work will be entitled: "The Poet as Stupid Jerk"?
And it sure seems as well that his brain cells are going now too. In that nonsense above, one gets the "anti-war" viewpoint at its most asinine and depraved, laid out clearly, for all of us to see:
1) America is a new Nazi Germany. No, check that, it is the most dangerous power that ever existed, thus making America worse than Nazi Germany.
2) Bush is a new Hitler.
3) Bush is an unelected president.
4) Guantanamo is a concentration camp. (Gee, why stop there, Master Playwright, when others have already labelled it, what was it? a "death camp"? Is the Master getting a tad, uh, conservative as the brain cells die?)
Decidedly rational responses -- but rationality obviously wouldn't sell the Master's poetry -- to 1 is found here (June 10, "We Are Oppressors?"), 2 is found here, 3 is found here (last five paragraphs of the post), and 4 is found here.
Sigh.
I had read somewhere that, contrary to what we had been told previously, in old age you actually do keep more than 97% percent of the brain cells you had at 21. Harold is seriously calling the validity of that research into question. It certainly seems that the 3% he's lost up to now include those that determine intelligence.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 12, 2003
We know Master Fisk is the world's greatest journalist. But we must never overlook Master Pinter, the playwright who doubles as the world's foremost expert on America and Britain, their societies, politics and leaders. What a freakin' genius he is! Instapundit tells us (the original is in al Guardian, of course) that:
The playwright Harold Pinter last night likened George W Bush's administration to Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, saying the US was charging towards world domination while the American public and Britain's "mass-murdering" prime minister sat back and watched.
Pinter, 72, was at the National Theatre in London to read from War, a new collection of his anti-war poetry that had been published in the press in response to events in Iraq.
In conversation on stage with Michael Billington, the Guardian's theatre critic, Pinter said the US government was the most dangerous power that had ever existed.
The American detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where al-Qaida and Taliban suspects were being held, was a concentration camp.
The US population had to accept responsibility for allowing an unelected president to take power and the British were exhausted from protesting and being ignored by Tony Blair, a "deluded idiot" Pinter hoped would resign.
As Instapundit points out:
. . .Harold Pinter is still an idiot.
Indeed, his elevator's never gone all the way to the top.
Being a poet, and an extremely deep thinker, you see, what Master Playwright says must be correct.
Uh, no. The Master is just plain wrong.
Wow, does that mean that his next great work will be entitled: "The Poet as Stupid Jerk"?
And it sure seems as well that his brain cells are going now too. In that nonsense above, one gets the "anti-war" viewpoint at its most asinine and depraved, laid out clearly, for all of us to see:
1) America is a new Nazi Germany. No, check that, it is the most dangerous power that ever existed, thus making America worse than Nazi Germany.
2) Bush is a new Hitler.
3) Bush is an unelected president.
4) Guantanamo is a concentration camp. (Gee, why stop there, Master Playwright, when others have already labelled it, what was it? a "death camp"? Is the Master getting a tad, uh, conservative as the brain cells die?)
Decidedly rational responses -- but rationality obviously wouldn't sell the Master's poetry -- to 1 is found here (June 10, "We Are Oppressors?"), 2 is found here, 3 is found here (last five paragraphs of the post), and 4 is found here.
Sigh.
I had read somewhere that, contrary to what we had been told previously, in old age you actually do keep more than 97% percent of the brain cells you had at 21. Harold is seriously calling the validity of that research into question. It certainly seems that the 3% he's lost up to now include those that determine intelligence.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 12, 2003
MORE LOVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
It is another one of those mornings. The "cycle of violence" continues unabated.
It has made me remember for a moment the war in the Balkans, as the U.N. and E.U. in the early-mid 1990s desperately tried to bring peace first to Croatia and then to Bosnia-Herzegovina, while the Serbs tried to clear whole areas of Croatia and Bosnia of non-Serbs.
In this war, the Israelis face the same dilemma. The BBC reports that hardline Palestinians want no compromise peace. They simply want every Jew either dead or removed from "Palestine":
. . .At the hospital, Hamas supporters gathered to celebrate their leader's escape. From his hospital bed, he was defiant.
"We will maintain our jihad [holy war] and resistance until we kick out every single criminal Zionist from our land," he vowed.
Later in the evening, thousands of Hamas supporters marched through Gaza City to the hospital. They chanted slogans cursing Abu Mazen, the colloquial name for the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. . .
In the Balkans, it proved impossible to stop a war that only one side wanted to end, while the other side was still fighting to win.
In Israel and the surrounding areas, the situation is much the same. The war there will end when EVERYONE of ANY importance is willing to allow the fighting to cease.
They clearly haven't gotten to -- or haven't been compelled to get to -- that point just yet.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 12, 2003
It is another one of those mornings. The "cycle of violence" continues unabated.
It has made me remember for a moment the war in the Balkans, as the U.N. and E.U. in the early-mid 1990s desperately tried to bring peace first to Croatia and then to Bosnia-Herzegovina, while the Serbs tried to clear whole areas of Croatia and Bosnia of non-Serbs.
In this war, the Israelis face the same dilemma. The BBC reports that hardline Palestinians want no compromise peace. They simply want every Jew either dead or removed from "Palestine":
. . .At the hospital, Hamas supporters gathered to celebrate their leader's escape. From his hospital bed, he was defiant.
"We will maintain our jihad [holy war] and resistance until we kick out every single criminal Zionist from our land," he vowed.
Later in the evening, thousands of Hamas supporters marched through Gaza City to the hospital. They chanted slogans cursing Abu Mazen, the colloquial name for the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. . .
In the Balkans, it proved impossible to stop a war that only one side wanted to end, while the other side was still fighting to win.
In Israel and the surrounding areas, the situation is much the same. The war there will end when EVERYONE of ANY importance is willing to allow the fighting to cease.
They clearly haven't gotten to -- or haven't been compelled to get to -- that point just yet.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 12, 2003
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
OH, DAMIEN
Damien Hirst is an arrrrrtiiiiist, you see. Al Guardian reports:
Just as the enfant terrible of Britart seemed to be settling down, having kicked drink and drugs, Damien Hirst last night unveiled his most outrageously sacrilegious creations.
In a series of sculptures inspired by Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper, which will be seen in London this autumn, Hirst will depict Jesus and the apostles as 13 pingpong balls bobbing on spurting fountains of red wine. A washing bowl to bathe Christ's feet will sit beneath their Formica table.
Hirst had wanted the balls to bob on blood but opted for wine, with all its symbolic echoes of the mass, in which Catholics believe wine is turned into the blood of Christ.
If that were not strong enough meat for many Christians, it will sit alongside a cow with six legs called In His Infinite Wisdom.
The fourth major piece in his next show at the White Cube gallery in London in September will be The Death of the Saints and the Ascension of Jesus, a sequence of "metaphorical" cabinets showing how Christ and the disciples met their ends. A pickled bull's head will sit in front of each cabinet. . .
More inspiring work from Britain's best known meatball.
If someone wants to pay him for this, that's fine. It's their money.
Oh, by way, for his next "work" he really ought to try making a similar "artistic statement" about the Prophet and Islam . . .
[Sound of a jaw dropping to the floor.]
Of course, Christians may be safely made fun of.
And isn't that nice?
It helps prolong the career, you see.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Damien Hirst is an arrrrrtiiiiist, you see. Al Guardian reports:
Just as the enfant terrible of Britart seemed to be settling down, having kicked drink and drugs, Damien Hirst last night unveiled his most outrageously sacrilegious creations.
In a series of sculptures inspired by Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper, which will be seen in London this autumn, Hirst will depict Jesus and the apostles as 13 pingpong balls bobbing on spurting fountains of red wine. A washing bowl to bathe Christ's feet will sit beneath their Formica table.
Hirst had wanted the balls to bob on blood but opted for wine, with all its symbolic echoes of the mass, in which Catholics believe wine is turned into the blood of Christ.
If that were not strong enough meat for many Christians, it will sit alongside a cow with six legs called In His Infinite Wisdom.
The fourth major piece in his next show at the White Cube gallery in London in September will be The Death of the Saints and the Ascension of Jesus, a sequence of "metaphorical" cabinets showing how Christ and the disciples met their ends. A pickled bull's head will sit in front of each cabinet. . .
More inspiring work from Britain's best known meatball.
If someone wants to pay him for this, that's fine. It's their money.
Oh, by way, for his next "work" he really ought to try making a similar "artistic statement" about the Prophet and Islam . . .
[Sound of a jaw dropping to the floor.]
Of course, Christians may be safely made fun of.
And isn't that nice?
It helps prolong the career, you see.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
IT DIDN'T CHANGE EVERYTHING, PART II
When it isn't trying to ban smoking (See previous post.), New York City sends to Rikers homeowners who shoot baby-threatening burglars.
As the Ronald Dixon fiasco (shared with us by Rachel Lucas) demonstrates, New York City government remains chock full of non-entities who think of their jobs as lifetime appointments to do freakin' good, but who more often than not do little other than make life much tougher for people whose lives are already a little hell.
All over typical NYC, bureaucratic bull--it.
How about cutting the guy loose entirely, without comment, end of issue, done and dusted? Was any judgement or normal discretion being exercised?
So, the gun was, urrrr, "unregistered". Okay, brilliant legal minds: What if Dixon hadn't had a gun at all, legal or otherwise?
Was Dixon supposed to chastize the thug with a hard copy of, say, "Pride and Prejudice"? Or perhaps you would have preferred Dixon to admonish the guy -- in suitable, but not profane of course, language -- to 'please wait right here, damn it, while I dial "911" '? Or maybe you felt Dixon should have fired up a Marlboro, and blown second hand smoke in the guy's face? (Oh, no, wait a minute. In NYC nowadays, that last one might have gotten Dixon life behind bars. Bad suggestion on my part.)
Brooklyn D.A. Charles Hynes? Hmmm. I haven't thought of him in ages.
Well, here's my current thought: Hynes, you moron.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
When it isn't trying to ban smoking (See previous post.), New York City sends to Rikers homeowners who shoot baby-threatening burglars.
As the Ronald Dixon fiasco (shared with us by Rachel Lucas) demonstrates, New York City government remains chock full of non-entities who think of their jobs as lifetime appointments to do freakin' good, but who more often than not do little other than make life much tougher for people whose lives are already a little hell.
All over typical NYC, bureaucratic bull--it.
How about cutting the guy loose entirely, without comment, end of issue, done and dusted? Was any judgement or normal discretion being exercised?
So, the gun was, urrrr, "unregistered". Okay, brilliant legal minds: What if Dixon hadn't had a gun at all, legal or otherwise?
Was Dixon supposed to chastize the thug with a hard copy of, say, "Pride and Prejudice"? Or perhaps you would have preferred Dixon to admonish the guy -- in suitable, but not profane of course, language -- to 'please wait right here, damn it, while I dial "911" '? Or maybe you felt Dixon should have fired up a Marlboro, and blown second hand smoke in the guy's face? (Oh, no, wait a minute. In NYC nowadays, that last one might have gotten Dixon life behind bars. Bad suggestion on my part.)
Brooklyn D.A. Charles Hynes? Hmmm. I haven't thought of him in ages.
Well, here's my current thought: Hynes, you moron.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
IT DIDN'T CHANGE EVERYTHING
Peggy Noonan tells us that while the attacks of September 11th and its aftermath -- homeland security, war in Afghanistan and Iraq, trouble with France, closer ties with Britain, huge budget deficits, etc. -- changed most things . . .
. . .New Yorkers themselves have returned to fighting with each other. There's been plenty to fight over, from the new taxes to the mayor's new antismoking laws, which are not so much a policy as a non sequitur--New York is in crisis, let's ban smoking! And there is the declaration of the organizations of World Trade Center families-of-victims that there should not be a statue of the firemen at the WTC memorial site. Three hundred forty-three of them died that day, but to commemorate their sacrifice would be "hierarchical." They want it clear that no one was better than anyone else, that all alike were helpless, victims.
But that is not true; it is the opposite of the truth. The men and women working in the towers were there that morning, and died. The firemen and rescue workers--they weren't there, they went there. They didn't run from the fire, they ran into the fire. They didn't run down the staircase, they ran up the staircase. They didn't lose their lives, they gave them.
This is an important disagreement, because memorials teach. They teach the young what we, as a society, celebrate, hold high, honor. A statue of a man is an assertion: It asserts that his behavior is worthy of emulation. To leave a heroic statue of the firemen out of a WTC memorial would be as dishonest as it would be ungenerous, and would yield a memorial that is primarily about victimization. Which is not what that day was about, as so much subsequent history attests.
But go tell some New Yorkers. They're all arguing. September 11 didn't change everything.
But in so many ways, that's reassuring. After all, if New Yorkers -- and I was born there -- actually did turn to perpetually loving each other, isn't that in the Book of Revelation someplace as a sign that the end of the world is finally upon us?
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Peggy Noonan tells us that while the attacks of September 11th and its aftermath -- homeland security, war in Afghanistan and Iraq, trouble with France, closer ties with Britain, huge budget deficits, etc. -- changed most things . . .
. . .New Yorkers themselves have returned to fighting with each other. There's been plenty to fight over, from the new taxes to the mayor's new antismoking laws, which are not so much a policy as a non sequitur--New York is in crisis, let's ban smoking! And there is the declaration of the organizations of World Trade Center families-of-victims that there should not be a statue of the firemen at the WTC memorial site. Three hundred forty-three of them died that day, but to commemorate their sacrifice would be "hierarchical." They want it clear that no one was better than anyone else, that all alike were helpless, victims.
But that is not true; it is the opposite of the truth. The men and women working in the towers were there that morning, and died. The firemen and rescue workers--they weren't there, they went there. They didn't run from the fire, they ran into the fire. They didn't run down the staircase, they ran up the staircase. They didn't lose their lives, they gave them.
This is an important disagreement, because memorials teach. They teach the young what we, as a society, celebrate, hold high, honor. A statue of a man is an assertion: It asserts that his behavior is worthy of emulation. To leave a heroic statue of the firemen out of a WTC memorial would be as dishonest as it would be ungenerous, and would yield a memorial that is primarily about victimization. Which is not what that day was about, as so much subsequent history attests.
But go tell some New Yorkers. They're all arguing. September 11 didn't change everything.
But in so many ways, that's reassuring. After all, if New Yorkers -- and I was born there -- actually did turn to perpetually loving each other, isn't that in the Book of Revelation someplace as a sign that the end of the world is finally upon us?
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
TIME PASSES
Question: How do you know you are getting old?
Answer: When the Reagan administration feels like an earlier era.
And now Donald Regan, one of its high profile members, is gone . . . .
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Question: How do you know you are getting old?
Answer: When the Reagan administration feels like an earlier era.
And now Donald Regan, one of its high profile members, is gone . . . .
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
NOT FOUND EITHER
Dissident Frogman on unfound Iraqi WMDs:
Just another thought about the WMD buzz on the fact that, 80 years later, there are still passersby who regularly - and totally unexpectedly - step on unexploded WWI shells in the north-east of France.
We're talking about a rather small area, rather populated and cultivated by men over 80 years.
And shells that just fell there. Not hidden.
And not found either.
Just worth bearing in mind, as you jump all over Bush, castigate Blair, accuse Rumsfeld, pillory Powell, decry Rice, and point out Wolfowitz is Jewish . . .
Yep, just worth bearing in mind. . .
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Dissident Frogman on unfound Iraqi WMDs:
Just another thought about the WMD buzz on the fact that, 80 years later, there are still passersby who regularly - and totally unexpectedly - step on unexploded WWI shells in the north-east of France.
We're talking about a rather small area, rather populated and cultivated by men over 80 years.
And shells that just fell there. Not hidden.
And not found either.
Just worth bearing in mind, as you jump all over Bush, castigate Blair, accuse Rumsfeld, pillory Powell, decry Rice, and point out Wolfowitz is Jewish . . .
Yep, just worth bearing in mind. . .
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
YEP, THE FRENCH WAY IS BEST
The Telegraph reports:
The centre of Paris was shrouded in teargas last night after riot police forced back thousands of protesters gathered outside the parliament building after they demanded that the government abandon its plans to reform France's pension system.
Tens of thousands of chanting and whistling demonstrators marched on the National Assembly, where Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the prime minister, was leading the first day of debate on a bill that will force public sector employees to work longer for full pension benefits.
The protests were peaceful until riot police wearing gas masks moved last night to clear the city centre, which had been brought to a standstill. They fired volleys of teargas into crowds in the Place de la Concorde, then unleashed water cannon on those who had not moved on. . .
Such subtle, European sophistication, oui?
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
The Telegraph reports:
The centre of Paris was shrouded in teargas last night after riot police forced back thousands of protesters gathered outside the parliament building after they demanded that the government abandon its plans to reform France's pension system.
Tens of thousands of chanting and whistling demonstrators marched on the National Assembly, where Jean-Pierre Raffarin, the prime minister, was leading the first day of debate on a bill that will force public sector employees to work longer for full pension benefits.
The protests were peaceful until riot police wearing gas masks moved last night to clear the city centre, which had been brought to a standstill. They fired volleys of teargas into crowds in the Place de la Concorde, then unleashed water cannon on those who had not moved on. . .
Such subtle, European sophistication, oui?
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
GEE, WE AGREE WITH IRAN . . .
The Washington Times reports:
An Iranian government official with ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says Tehran sides with the Americans on one big issue — Saddam Hussein's weapons.
"Yes, we agree with the Americans. Our intelligence indicated that Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction and was hiding them from the U.N.," the official said. . .
I wonder what Clare and Robin think about that?
However, it could also be said that the Iranians are saying that just because it serves their purpose. After all, in wiping out Saddam, we have made their lives easier.
Never take anything on face value, remember.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
The Washington Times reports:
An Iranian government official with ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says Tehran sides with the Americans on one big issue — Saddam Hussein's weapons.
"Yes, we agree with the Americans. Our intelligence indicated that Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction and was hiding them from the U.N.," the official said. . .
I wonder what Clare and Robin think about that?
However, it could also be said that the Iranians are saying that just because it serves their purpose. After all, in wiping out Saddam, we have made their lives easier.
Never take anything on face value, remember.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
TONY WANTS AN XBOX
Yesterday was really interesting for curious reasons.
It was all over British media (so it must be true) that England's greatest current player, David Beckham, will leave Man U and go off to greener (richer) Spanish soccer pastures. Barcelona is said to be very interested in him.
Also on Tuesday, as the story broke about Beckham, there were Tony and Chancellor Gordon Brown, in a joint appearance, stating that they believe Britain should join the euro.
The pro-euro argument is usually supported by the normative claim that "we" must remain at the "heart of Europe." This is not a question of what the definition of the word "is" really is, but rather what do they mean by "we"?
Well, a case could be made that the "we" is the political class -- Tony, Gordon, etc. They feel left out because "we" -- the politicos -- don't have the euro like other European politicos -- uh, sorry, other European countries -- do.
But the British people, as well as their government, are undoubtedly at "the heart of Europe" already.
Star soccer players like Beckham may change teams between countries the way American baseball players change teams between N.Y. and Anaheim. Few even seem to think it is curious that Beckham should go to a foreign country. That's because, in practical terms, Spain is no longer a foreign place. Britain and Spain are both members of the European Union.
Many Americans may not know that any citizen of any other European Union member country is free to move to Britain tomorrow, no strings attached. In fact, citizens of E.U. members states are free to reside in any other country in the E.U. tomorrow if they want to do so.
Citizens of member states are also free to take up employment in any other state. Any Italian can move to Britain for a job today with the same ease a New Yorker can move to Pennsylvania. (However, a resident non-citizen cannot, thus creating the typically European bureaucratic situation whereby although I can live and work in Britain, I cannot work or reside in another E.U. member state without first getting that member state's permission. It is not unlike a foreigner being given permission by New York to live only in New York, but the person must apply to the state of California for permission to live and work there, should they want to move to California.)
Britain cannot be ignored in European councils. It has a great say over everything European. It is way too important to be ignored.
But because Britain still has its own currency, it still largely controls its own local economic policy in a manner that most other E.U. countries, which now share the euro, don't.
But the British political class that aches to feel more "European" than they do now, still doesn't have the euro. And when they get together with their euro-using colleagues, like Jacques, Jose Maria and Silvio, who have the euro, they feel left out.
"Euro envy" is a terrible thing.
So, Tony wants what the neighbor kids -- Jacques, Silvio and Jose Maria -- have. As kids they play soccer together. They hang out in each other's backyards. They -- well, Tony often does, and he often gets some help from Jose Maria and Silvio -- fight troublesome kids from another street. (Jacques helps very occasionally -- but only when it serves his purposes. And now Tony has a new, close relationship with the really tough, big kid around the corner, George. But as George doesn't go to the same school as Tony, Jacques, Silvio and Jose Maria, he really doesn't fit in completely with all of them.)
But Jacques, Silvio and Jose Maria all have the XBox. And here Tony is, with a Playstation 2.
Oh, please? Pretty, pretty, please, Tony is asking, can't "we" -- as children often say "we" in such circumstances, to try to make Mom and Dad feel it is in their interests too -- have an X-Box instead?
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Yesterday was really interesting for curious reasons.
It was all over British media (so it must be true) that England's greatest current player, David Beckham, will leave Man U and go off to greener (richer) Spanish soccer pastures. Barcelona is said to be very interested in him.
Also on Tuesday, as the story broke about Beckham, there were Tony and Chancellor Gordon Brown, in a joint appearance, stating that they believe Britain should join the euro.
The pro-euro argument is usually supported by the normative claim that "we" must remain at the "heart of Europe." This is not a question of what the definition of the word "is" really is, but rather what do they mean by "we"?
Well, a case could be made that the "we" is the political class -- Tony, Gordon, etc. They feel left out because "we" -- the politicos -- don't have the euro like other European politicos -- uh, sorry, other European countries -- do.
But the British people, as well as their government, are undoubtedly at "the heart of Europe" already.
Star soccer players like Beckham may change teams between countries the way American baseball players change teams between N.Y. and Anaheim. Few even seem to think it is curious that Beckham should go to a foreign country. That's because, in practical terms, Spain is no longer a foreign place. Britain and Spain are both members of the European Union.
Many Americans may not know that any citizen of any other European Union member country is free to move to Britain tomorrow, no strings attached. In fact, citizens of E.U. members states are free to reside in any other country in the E.U. tomorrow if they want to do so.
Citizens of member states are also free to take up employment in any other state. Any Italian can move to Britain for a job today with the same ease a New Yorker can move to Pennsylvania. (However, a resident non-citizen cannot, thus creating the typically European bureaucratic situation whereby although I can live and work in Britain, I cannot work or reside in another E.U. member state without first getting that member state's permission. It is not unlike a foreigner being given permission by New York to live only in New York, but the person must apply to the state of California for permission to live and work there, should they want to move to California.)
Britain cannot be ignored in European councils. It has a great say over everything European. It is way too important to be ignored.
But because Britain still has its own currency, it still largely controls its own local economic policy in a manner that most other E.U. countries, which now share the euro, don't.
But the British political class that aches to feel more "European" than they do now, still doesn't have the euro. And when they get together with their euro-using colleagues, like Jacques, Jose Maria and Silvio, who have the euro, they feel left out.
"Euro envy" is a terrible thing.
So, Tony wants what the neighbor kids -- Jacques, Silvio and Jose Maria -- have. As kids they play soccer together. They hang out in each other's backyards. They -- well, Tony often does, and he often gets some help from Jose Maria and Silvio -- fight troublesome kids from another street. (Jacques helps very occasionally -- but only when it serves his purposes. And now Tony has a new, close relationship with the really tough, big kid around the corner, George. But as George doesn't go to the same school as Tony, Jacques, Silvio and Jose Maria, he really doesn't fit in completely with all of them.)
But Jacques, Silvio and Jose Maria all have the XBox. And here Tony is, with a Playstation 2.
Oh, please? Pretty, pretty, please, Tony is asking, can't "we" -- as children often say "we" in such circumstances, to try to make Mom and Dad feel it is in their interests too -- have an X-Box instead?
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
SO WHAT'S HIS NAME THEN?
This is much worse than the Osama or Usama difference.
CNN prefers Mahmoud Abbas.
Fox also prefers Mahmoud Abbas, but says he is also known as "Abu Mazen."
The BBC calls him Mahmoud Abbas, but like Fox notes that he is "also known as Abu Mazen".
I don't have time for more examples.
Will some sharp journalist please do us all a favor and go ask Mahmoud Abbas or Abu Mazen or Carmen Montenegro or whatever, which name he prefers to be known by, so it appears the same way in all the cool and hip western media?
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 10, 2003
This is much worse than the Osama or Usama difference.
CNN prefers Mahmoud Abbas.
Fox also prefers Mahmoud Abbas, but says he is also known as "Abu Mazen."
The BBC calls him Mahmoud Abbas, but like Fox notes that he is "also known as Abu Mazen".
I don't have time for more examples.
Will some sharp journalist please do us all a favor and go ask Mahmoud Abbas or Abu Mazen or Carmen Montenegro or whatever, which name he prefers to be known by, so it appears the same way in all the cool and hip western media?
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 10, 2003
WE ARE OPPRESSORS?
If Americans are as bad as Nazis, this photo would never have been taken.
These people would already have been hauled away to be shot.
It is useful to remember that.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 10, 2003
If Americans are as bad as Nazis, this photo would never have been taken.
These people would already have been hauled away to be shot.
It is useful to remember that.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 10, 2003
SILVIO IN ISRAEL
The Israeli paper Haaretz reports that:
[Italian Prime Minister Silvio] Berlusconi arrived in Israel on Monday, at the start of a Middle East swing clouded by controversy over his boycott of Arafat, and contentions by domestic critics that he sought to divert attention from a corruption scandal at home. . .
. . .Welcoming Berlusconi to Jerusalem, [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon said if the European Union's stance on the Middle East were more balanced, "and more similar to that of Italy," Israel could increase its level of cooperation with the EU."
Berlusconi replied that he viewed Israel as a natural partner to join the EU because of a shared common culture, and its standing as "the only democracy in the Middle East.
"The Israeli people have total kinship with the peoples of Europe in terms of religion, culture and politics, and the State of Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East," Berlusconi said. . .
. . .Berlusconi's trip has sparked criticism at home because he was supposed to appear Wednesday at his corruption trial in Milan. Some critics have contended that Berlusconi is trying to keep busy with as many trips and meetings as possible to draw out his trial. . .
His opponents call him a corrupt multigazzillionaire.
But in the end, who cares. On this, Silvio is on the right side of freedom.
Frankly, the last thing we need is an incorruptible and poor Italian prime minister (has there ever been one of those?) who supports suicide bombers.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 10, 2003
The Israeli paper Haaretz reports that:
[Italian Prime Minister Silvio] Berlusconi arrived in Israel on Monday, at the start of a Middle East swing clouded by controversy over his boycott of Arafat, and contentions by domestic critics that he sought to divert attention from a corruption scandal at home. . .
. . .Welcoming Berlusconi to Jerusalem, [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon said if the European Union's stance on the Middle East were more balanced, "and more similar to that of Italy," Israel could increase its level of cooperation with the EU."
Berlusconi replied that he viewed Israel as a natural partner to join the EU because of a shared common culture, and its standing as "the only democracy in the Middle East.
"The Israeli people have total kinship with the peoples of Europe in terms of religion, culture and politics, and the State of Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East," Berlusconi said. . .
. . .Berlusconi's trip has sparked criticism at home because he was supposed to appear Wednesday at his corruption trial in Milan. Some critics have contended that Berlusconi is trying to keep busy with as many trips and meetings as possible to draw out his trial. . .
His opponents call him a corrupt multigazzillionaire.
But in the end, who cares. On this, Silvio is on the right side of freedom.
Frankly, the last thing we need is an incorruptible and poor Italian prime minister (has there ever been one of those?) who supports suicide bombers.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 10, 2003
WHERE THERE'S SMOKE, THERE'S -- AH, YOU KNOW
Instapundit notes that Christopher Hitchens writes in Slate how there seems a pronounced effort to, uh, contort Paul Wolfowitz's surname into something that sounds distinctly like Wolfowitzberggoldsteinblummeirsharon.
Back on June 6, I wrote about the Guardian repeatedly making backhanded (and decidedly forehanded) comments about his Jewishness.
Ah, we great minds, thinking alike again . . .
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Instapundit notes that Christopher Hitchens writes in Slate how there seems a pronounced effort to, uh, contort Paul Wolfowitz's surname into something that sounds distinctly like Wolfowitzberggoldsteinblummeirsharon.
Back on June 6, I wrote about the Guardian repeatedly making backhanded (and decidedly forehanded) comments about his Jewishness.
Ah, we great minds, thinking alike again . . .
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 10, 2003
NOT SO MUCH ANGRY, AS CHANGED
It now being June 2003, I thought I'd revisit Kathleen Parker's September 11, 2002 piece. It was superb.
I find that although my volcanic eruptions have slowly diminished with time, I am different as a person. Several major points pop to mind immediately:
1) I used to be a Democrat. Now, I'm not so sure I am one anymore.
2) I used to be open-minded. Now, I find I don't suffer fools as gladly as I once did.
3) I used to believe we Americans were arrogant, that we thought we had all of the answers. Now, I've come to know that while we don't have all of the answers of course, foreigners DON'T have ALL of the answers either.
4) I had never really waved a flag with gusto, or got misty over "The Star Spangled Banner." Now, I find I love "Over There" as sung by Robert Merrill. (And while the song is about innocence, it conveys the sense of determination to do right. It's worth noting too that the Allies probably would have lost had "Johnnie" decided to stay home.)
Saying as much doesn't make one a Nazi.
It just means that you at last realize you must get your head out of the freakin' clouds, because there are many people walking around "over there" who hate you just because you are an American, and who wish fervently that you and yours were dead.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 10, 2003
It now being June 2003, I thought I'd revisit Kathleen Parker's September 11, 2002 piece. It was superb.
I find that although my volcanic eruptions have slowly diminished with time, I am different as a person. Several major points pop to mind immediately:
1) I used to be a Democrat. Now, I'm not so sure I am one anymore.
2) I used to be open-minded. Now, I find I don't suffer fools as gladly as I once did.
3) I used to believe we Americans were arrogant, that we thought we had all of the answers. Now, I've come to know that while we don't have all of the answers of course, foreigners DON'T have ALL of the answers either.
4) I had never really waved a flag with gusto, or got misty over "The Star Spangled Banner." Now, I find I love "Over There" as sung by Robert Merrill. (And while the song is about innocence, it conveys the sense of determination to do right. It's worth noting too that the Allies probably would have lost had "Johnnie" decided to stay home.)
Saying as much doesn't make one a Nazi.
It just means that you at last realize you must get your head out of the freakin' clouds, because there are many people walking around "over there" who hate you just because you are an American, and who wish fervently that you and yours were dead.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 10, 2003
THEY WIN!
I was a bit disappointed to discover (accidently) that the Devils won game 7 last night. (Stupid me, reading CNN this morning!) Oh well.
But the wife happens to be out this evening with a couple of girlfriends -- one of whom is emigrating to Australia (with her husband and son, of course) in late July.
She almost never goes out by herself. We do almost everything together! Isn't that sickening?
Although she likes sports (I'm a lucky guy!) -- and does like ice hockey -- I'll get to rewind the tape and enjoy the game (it was shown overnight here in Britain on Channel 5), without having to compel her to sit through it also.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 10, 2003
I was a bit disappointed to discover (accidently) that the Devils won game 7 last night. (Stupid me, reading CNN this morning!) Oh well.
But the wife happens to be out this evening with a couple of girlfriends -- one of whom is emigrating to Australia (with her husband and son, of course) in late July.
She almost never goes out by herself. We do almost everything together! Isn't that sickening?
Although she likes sports (I'm a lucky guy!) -- and does like ice hockey -- I'll get to rewind the tape and enjoy the game (it was shown overnight here in Britain on Channel 5), without having to compel her to sit through it also.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Monday, June 09, 2003
AND THE GREATEST AMERICAN IS. . .
I just answered the BBC poll on "Your Greatest American." You can do the same by clicking here at bbc.co.uk.
I think it was George Washington.
Why? I wrote on my form that, "There are too many reasons to list here. The bottom line is there would be no United States if it weren't for him."
It makes no difference if you think it was George, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, F.D.R., M.L.K. or Ronald Reagan. Anyone of such stature will do. Please, if you are an American, or an honest friend of America, get in there and vote responsibly for someone great and worthwhile . . .
. . . for if we leave this to the BBC's "regular audience," I get the uneasy feeling that we will be told it was the likes of Abbie Hoffman.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
I just answered the BBC poll on "Your Greatest American." You can do the same by clicking here at bbc.co.uk.
I think it was George Washington.
Why? I wrote on my form that, "There are too many reasons to list here. The bottom line is there would be no United States if it weren't for him."
It makes no difference if you think it was George, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, F.D.R., M.L.K. or Ronald Reagan. Anyone of such stature will do. Please, if you are an American, or an honest friend of America, get in there and vote responsibly for someone great and worthwhile . . .
. . . for if we leave this to the BBC's "regular audience," I get the uneasy feeling that we will be told it was the likes of Abbie Hoffman.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
THE BBC'S "GREATEST AMERICAN" POLL
Oh my god, the BBC is having a "greatest American" viewer vote:
As part of a unique BBC-led global debate about the USA's place in the world, we want you to nominate your greatest American ever.
Who do you think was the most important and influential American throughout history?. . .
. . .We will publish a shortlist of the 10 Americans who received the most nominations on Wednesday morning.
Make sure you return to this website from that time to cast your final votes on who you - the public - decide is the greatest American to have ever lived.
What The World Thinks of America will be broadcast in the UK on BBC Two at 2100 BST on Tuesday, 17 June, 2003.
Sort of like "American Idol", 'cept intellectual BBC style.
Get ready. This oughta be hilarious.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
Oh my god, the BBC is having a "greatest American" viewer vote:
As part of a unique BBC-led global debate about the USA's place in the world, we want you to nominate your greatest American ever.
Who do you think was the most important and influential American throughout history?. . .
. . .We will publish a shortlist of the 10 Americans who received the most nominations on Wednesday morning.
Make sure you return to this website from that time to cast your final votes on who you - the public - decide is the greatest American to have ever lived.
What The World Thinks of America will be broadcast in the UK on BBC Two at 2100 BST on Tuesday, 17 June, 2003.
Sort of like "American Idol", 'cept intellectual BBC style.
Get ready. This oughta be hilarious.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
THE FORGOTTEN WAR AIN'T THE ONE IN AFGHANISTAN
Axis of Weasels has this on the war in the Congo, from the original -- we presume -- in the New York Times (link requires registration):
"No one knows how many have been raped during Congo's four-year war. It is clear that especially in this part of the country, South Kivu Province, sexual attacks have become endemic and have gone virtually unpunished, as soldiers from one armed group after another have seized villages, pillaged homes, taken women and girls at the point of a gun or knife. Neither 4-year-old girls nor 80-year-old grandmothers have been spared. Judging by the new cases before the mobile medical clinic, many have been raped by several men."
Reuters tells us that the French-led U.N. force has troops in the capital, Bunia. (Word has filtered out that they are doing a first-rate job protecting museums.)
The U.N. has been involved in central Africa for nearly 45 years. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold lost his life in 1961 trying to bring peace to the Congo. Alongside the Arab-Israeli conflict and the divided Korea, the Congo remains one of the U.N.'s longest running commitments -- and longest running headaches. Reuters continues:
. . The European Union approved the French-initiated force of 1,400 troops for Congo on Wednesday, diplomatic sources said. France is expected to provide at least half the troops, with the rest coming from a small group of other EU nations as well as non-European countries such as Canada and South Africa.
The United Nations says more than 500 civilians have been massacred in the Ituri region in the past two weeks and 50,000 killed since 1999. It has approved the French-initiated force. . .
Of course, a small group will save one person, or several dozen, or several hundred, maybe even several thousand. But in the larger sense, what's the point? 1,400 is barely a droplet in the midst of a raging torrent, just a sop to E.U. and U.N. consciences.
If the U.S. could send in 200,000, would the U.N. approve that? Of course it would. But in the international team spirit, would France and the E.U. and South Africa and Canada then also commit tens of thousands of troops each, to really make it a force to be reckoned with -- to get it to nearly, say, half a million?
Of course the U.S. won't be sending in any, let alone 200,000. Even the U.S. can't be everywhere at once. It cannot put out every fire raging on the planet. But you can bet that if the U.S. had even just two full divisions (about 30,000 personnel) in the Congo, fully supported as in Iraq, with additional thousands of French, British and other actually skilled troops, they would quickly make more of a positive difference to the Congolese than all the U.N.'s mucking around for the last 45 years.
But is the U.S. the world's policeman? Remember, Claire Short and countless others don't like that idea. And Claire makes no secret of the fact that she thinks Americans are bullies.
One might wonder how, given their life or death dilemma, the Congolese feel about the U.N.? Well, here's a clue, again from Reuters:
. . .The U.N. mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) has around 700 personnel in and around Bunia, but their mandate is limited. Militias allied to the Hema and Lendu tribes have killed hundreds and ransacked the town despite their presence. . .
. . .most people in Bunia are angry that they did not stop the bloodshed.
"If you observe (the fighting) then it just becomes a show. People are killing each other and you just become a spectator," said 24-year-old Florent Nzama, whose church compound was raided by drugged Lendu militiamen who killed at least 22 people.
"Do you sacrifice a human being for the sake of a mandate? Is it not possible to write the mandate in another way? We know there's another international force coming in, but at the moment we don't know what the result will be."
Well, Claire Short needn't worry. The U.S. is not involved; the U.N. is running things there.
And those droplets will be there any time now.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
Axis of Weasels has this on the war in the Congo, from the original -- we presume -- in the New York Times (link requires registration):
"No one knows how many have been raped during Congo's four-year war. It is clear that especially in this part of the country, South Kivu Province, sexual attacks have become endemic and have gone virtually unpunished, as soldiers from one armed group after another have seized villages, pillaged homes, taken women and girls at the point of a gun or knife. Neither 4-year-old girls nor 80-year-old grandmothers have been spared. Judging by the new cases before the mobile medical clinic, many have been raped by several men."
Reuters tells us that the French-led U.N. force has troops in the capital, Bunia. (Word has filtered out that they are doing a first-rate job protecting museums.)
The U.N. has been involved in central Africa for nearly 45 years. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold lost his life in 1961 trying to bring peace to the Congo. Alongside the Arab-Israeli conflict and the divided Korea, the Congo remains one of the U.N.'s longest running commitments -- and longest running headaches. Reuters continues:
. . The European Union approved the French-initiated force of 1,400 troops for Congo on Wednesday, diplomatic sources said. France is expected to provide at least half the troops, with the rest coming from a small group of other EU nations as well as non-European countries such as Canada and South Africa.
The United Nations says more than 500 civilians have been massacred in the Ituri region in the past two weeks and 50,000 killed since 1999. It has approved the French-initiated force. . .
Of course, a small group will save one person, or several dozen, or several hundred, maybe even several thousand. But in the larger sense, what's the point? 1,400 is barely a droplet in the midst of a raging torrent, just a sop to E.U. and U.N. consciences.
If the U.S. could send in 200,000, would the U.N. approve that? Of course it would. But in the international team spirit, would France and the E.U. and South Africa and Canada then also commit tens of thousands of troops each, to really make it a force to be reckoned with -- to get it to nearly, say, half a million?
Of course the U.S. won't be sending in any, let alone 200,000. Even the U.S. can't be everywhere at once. It cannot put out every fire raging on the planet. But you can bet that if the U.S. had even just two full divisions (about 30,000 personnel) in the Congo, fully supported as in Iraq, with additional thousands of French, British and other actually skilled troops, they would quickly make more of a positive difference to the Congolese than all the U.N.'s mucking around for the last 45 years.
But is the U.S. the world's policeman? Remember, Claire Short and countless others don't like that idea. And Claire makes no secret of the fact that she thinks Americans are bullies.
One might wonder how, given their life or death dilemma, the Congolese feel about the U.N.? Well, here's a clue, again from Reuters:
. . .The U.N. mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) has around 700 personnel in and around Bunia, but their mandate is limited. Militias allied to the Hema and Lendu tribes have killed hundreds and ransacked the town despite their presence. . .
. . .most people in Bunia are angry that they did not stop the bloodshed.
"If you observe (the fighting) then it just becomes a show. People are killing each other and you just become a spectator," said 24-year-old Florent Nzama, whose church compound was raided by drugged Lendu militiamen who killed at least 22 people.
"Do you sacrifice a human being for the sake of a mandate? Is it not possible to write the mandate in another way? We know there's another international force coming in, but at the moment we don't know what the result will be."
Well, Claire Short needn't worry. The U.S. is not involved; the U.N. is running things there.
And those droplets will be there any time now.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
CLARE'S VISION: LET THE U.N. RUN THE WORLD
It is good Clare Short is out of government. She is terribly naïve, and does not know the U.S. half as well as she smugly believes she does. Quoted on the BBC, Short says:
. . .many in the US hate the UN.
The fanatical Right - represented by people like the Oklahoma bomber - think the UN is a conspiracy to create a world government and destroy America's freedom. . .
So, in Clare's world, Americans who oppose various UN silliness are on the "fanatical Right" and in the same league as Murrah Federal Building bomber Tim McVeigh.
Okay, how about this then?
1) Clare's in the Labour Party.
2) There are Marxists in the Labour party.
3) Clare is therefore a supporter of mass-murdering, blood all over their hands, unreconstructed Stalinists.
Silly of me to write that? No. It's the same sort of dimwitted comparison she makes above.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
It is good Clare Short is out of government. She is terribly naïve, and does not know the U.S. half as well as she smugly believes she does. Quoted on the BBC, Short says:
. . .many in the US hate the UN.
The fanatical Right - represented by people like the Oklahoma bomber - think the UN is a conspiracy to create a world government and destroy America's freedom. . .
So, in Clare's world, Americans who oppose various UN silliness are on the "fanatical Right" and in the same league as Murrah Federal Building bomber Tim McVeigh.
Okay, how about this then?
1) Clare's in the Labour Party.
2) There are Marxists in the Labour party.
3) Clare is therefore a supporter of mass-murdering, blood all over their hands, unreconstructed Stalinists.
Silly of me to write that? No. It's the same sort of dimwitted comparison she makes above.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
JUST A REVISIT FROM FRIDAY
Missed this Friday, but it's worth including:
Best of the Web Today had this from Reuters:
"Belgian police said Thursday they detained an Iraqi man after letters containing a nerve-gas ingredient were sent to the prime minister's office," Reuters reports from Brussels. Let's review
* Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.
* Iraq doesn't have chemical weapons.
* Pursuing a less-aggressive foreign policy is the best way to prevent terrorism.
It's a myth-busting trifecta!
Actually, this may help answer the question of where Iraq's stocks of unaccounted for nerve gas ended up. (See previous post.)
They're in Belgium.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
Missed this Friday, but it's worth including:
Best of the Web Today had this from Reuters:
"Belgian police said Thursday they detained an Iraqi man after letters containing a nerve-gas ingredient were sent to the prime minister's office," Reuters reports from Brussels. Let's review
* Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.
* Iraq doesn't have chemical weapons.
* Pursuing a less-aggressive foreign policy is the best way to prevent terrorism.
It's a myth-busting trifecta!
Actually, this may help answer the question of where Iraq's stocks of unaccounted for nerve gas ended up. (See previous post.)
They're in Belgium.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
SO WHERE ARE THE WMDS? THE SAGA CONTINUES. . .
Robert Kagan in the Washington Post tells us that everybody except one guy appears to be, uh, lying. And he has been -- [insert Dr Evil laugh here] heh, heh, heh -- conveniently done away with. That's if you believe the latest crop of conspiracy theorists, of course:
. . .the Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report last year: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons." The only thing not known was where they were and how far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in 1998.
Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin". . .
. . .if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats. . .
Kagan goes on to cite the following as also accepting the evidence that Saddam had stuff he should NOT have had, to say the least: CIA director John Deutch, former defense secretary William Cohen, the German intelligence service, French President Jacques Chirac, Al Gore and Bill Clinton. He concludes:
. . .Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to address the "kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed." I think Bush said that, too.
So if you like a good conspiracy, this one's a doozy. And the best thing about it is that if all these people are lying, there's only one person who ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can't find him either.
Heh, heh, heh . . .
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
Robert Kagan in the Washington Post tells us that everybody except one guy appears to be, uh, lying. And he has been -- [insert Dr Evil laugh here] heh, heh, heh -- conveniently done away with. That's if you believe the latest crop of conspiracy theorists, of course:
. . .the Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report last year: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons." The only thing not known was where they were and how far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in 1998.
Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin". . .
. . .if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats. . .
Kagan goes on to cite the following as also accepting the evidence that Saddam had stuff he should NOT have had, to say the least: CIA director John Deutch, former defense secretary William Cohen, the German intelligence service, French President Jacques Chirac, Al Gore and Bill Clinton. He concludes:
. . .Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to address the "kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed." I think Bush said that, too.
So if you like a good conspiracy, this one's a doozy. And the best thing about it is that if all these people are lying, there's only one person who ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can't find him either.
Heh, heh, heh . . .
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
LACK OF PROPORTIONALITY?
On Sunday's ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos (which is not shown in Europe; my mother told me about this yesterday evening), Michel Martin remarked about the various detainees post-September 11th:
. . ."In fairness, the scale of this doesn't approach say the Palmer Raids of the 1920s, which you know thousands of people were rounded up; it doesn't approach the Japanese internment where 100,000 were rounded up," Martin said. "But it doesn't matter, because we live and die by the rule of law in this country, and the lack of proportion here has to be called into account". . .
Michel Martin's by no means an idiot. But this one's been debated to death. Courts have already ruled that things are being handled within reason at Guantanamo. And within the U.S., the Justice Department's Inspector General noted in The September 11 Detainees: A Review of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in Connection with the Investigation of the September 11 Attacks published in June 2003:
. . ."While our review recognized the enormous challenges and difficult circumstances confronting the Department [of Justice] in responding to the terrorist attacks, we found significant problems in the way the detainees were handled". . .
Agreed. Few dispute that all was rosy. After all, New York and Washington were attacked.
. . .the OIG [Office of the Inspector General] offers 21 recommendations dealing with issues such as the need to develop uniform arrest and detainee classification policies, methods to improve information sharing among federal agencies on detainee issues, improving the FBI clearance process, clarifying procedures for processing detainee cases, revising BOP procedures for confining aliens arrested on immigration charges who are suspected of having ties to terrorism, and improving oversight of detainees housed in contract facilities. . .
Which is the way we do things -- rationally. We try to learn lessons. And of course we hope that we will never be in a similar situation ever again.
But let's deal with the issue of proportionality -- especially the lack thereof.
As Google shows, what Michel calls "the Palmer Raids" has become a battle cry of the left. In labelling the rational actions of the current U.S. Attorney General after September 11, 2001 as "the Ashcroft Raids," the aim appears to be to draw a direct link between the two as being irrational and lacking proportionality.
So, in fact, proportionality seems to be PRECISELY the issue.
The major reasons the U.S. entered WWI included the continued sinkings of American merchant shipping by German submarines, and tempers being raised by the "Zimmermann note."
The U.S. entered WWII because the empire of Japan's First Air Fleet attacked the U.S. navy at Pearl Harbor. That latter was a "fair fight" really. The Japanese caught the U.S. military sleeping in on a Sunday morning. Yet it was military v. military for the most part. Japanese pilots v. U.S. pilots and U.S. ships. It was war. And the horrors of the subsequent war led the U.S. to make sure U.S. soldiers did not have to die in the tens of thousands by having to invade the main islands of Japan in order to get Japan to capitulate.
The U.S. entered the war in Europe with ease only because Herr Hitler made it easy -- Nazi Germany declared war on the U.S. right after Pearl Harbor.
Now, on September 11, 2001, the U.S. was attacked by, yes, what was, for all intents and purposes, the government of Afghanistan. (There was no real difference between the Taliban and al Qaeda, as the former was sheltering and supporting the latter, and the latter's money was helping keep the former in power.) That sneak attack aimed at killing at least 75,000 civilians in NYC and possibly annihilating the U.S. Capitol building and/or the White House.
The Germans did not do that at the outset of WWI. And the Japanese navy did not do that to open WWII.
The U.S. responded to the attacks of September 11th by, naturally, dispatching troops, and launching a limited military campaign which within a couple of months defeated that enemy government.
At home, the U.S. simultaneously tightened -- reasonably -- security. And unless one flies regularly, there has been little or no dramatic change to most people's daily lives. More importantly, despite the carryings on by many about a "police state" (an argument usually made by those who've never actually had to live under a real one of those), there has been no real loss of freedom. There has certainly been no reaction akin to hundreds of thousands interned, no governmental attempt to chase down dissidents, and certainly no plan to rescind habeas corpus.
Every major governmental post-September 11th security measure undoubtedly has been thoroughly vetted by the government's own lawyers before being put into practice, and as a result most have stood up to challenges in the courts. And there have been criticisms such as those made in the OIG report cited above. If this is meant to be a police state, those in charge of it had better pick up the pace on their crackdown.
Those interned have been treated decently in general, and almost all have already been released. In contrast, thousands of U.S. service people captured on battlefields and tens of thousands of American civilian expatriates residing abroad spent years in detention between 1941-1945.
No one with any sense is asserting for an instant that everything the U.S. government has done in response to September 11th has been right, of course. But in total, most actions have been measured and eminently reasonable given the level of provocation -- and the ongoing threat, as al Qaeda's various pronouncements continue to remind us, right up to the present.
And the capture of irregular fighters and dispatching them to an irregular camp is not as jarring as one might think if one considers that in most wars in the recent past, irregular fighters were shot summarily on the battlefield, immediately after capture.
What would have been a lack of proportionality? How about these for examples:
1) Taking every captured member of al Qaeda into a darkened cell in the middle of the night, shooting each in the back of the head after he is no longer of any use following repeated interrogation, and dumping his remains into a mass grave.
2) Interning in the U.S. hundreds of thousands of Muslims.
3) Nuking the area from Morocco all the way to the Indian subcontinent (and also obliterating Indonesia, Malaysia and the southern Philippines so the U.S. didn't risk missing any other al Qaeda supporters), and in the process killing about 1 billion people, most of whom are innocent.
Now THAT'S what you call a lack of "proportionality"!
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
On Sunday's ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos (which is not shown in Europe; my mother told me about this yesterday evening), Michel Martin remarked about the various detainees post-September 11th:
. . ."In fairness, the scale of this doesn't approach say the Palmer Raids of the 1920s, which you know thousands of people were rounded up; it doesn't approach the Japanese internment where 100,000 were rounded up," Martin said. "But it doesn't matter, because we live and die by the rule of law in this country, and the lack of proportion here has to be called into account". . .
Michel Martin's by no means an idiot. But this one's been debated to death. Courts have already ruled that things are being handled within reason at Guantanamo. And within the U.S., the Justice Department's Inspector General noted in The September 11 Detainees: A Review of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in Connection with the Investigation of the September 11 Attacks published in June 2003:
. . ."While our review recognized the enormous challenges and difficult circumstances confronting the Department [of Justice] in responding to the terrorist attacks, we found significant problems in the way the detainees were handled". . .
Agreed. Few dispute that all was rosy. After all, New York and Washington were attacked.
. . .the OIG [Office of the Inspector General] offers 21 recommendations dealing with issues such as the need to develop uniform arrest and detainee classification policies, methods to improve information sharing among federal agencies on detainee issues, improving the FBI clearance process, clarifying procedures for processing detainee cases, revising BOP procedures for confining aliens arrested on immigration charges who are suspected of having ties to terrorism, and improving oversight of detainees housed in contract facilities. . .
Which is the way we do things -- rationally. We try to learn lessons. And of course we hope that we will never be in a similar situation ever again.
But let's deal with the issue of proportionality -- especially the lack thereof.
As Google shows, what Michel calls "the Palmer Raids" has become a battle cry of the left. In labelling the rational actions of the current U.S. Attorney General after September 11, 2001 as "the Ashcroft Raids," the aim appears to be to draw a direct link between the two as being irrational and lacking proportionality.
So, in fact, proportionality seems to be PRECISELY the issue.
The major reasons the U.S. entered WWI included the continued sinkings of American merchant shipping by German submarines, and tempers being raised by the "Zimmermann note."
The U.S. entered WWII because the empire of Japan's First Air Fleet attacked the U.S. navy at Pearl Harbor. That latter was a "fair fight" really. The Japanese caught the U.S. military sleeping in on a Sunday morning. Yet it was military v. military for the most part. Japanese pilots v. U.S. pilots and U.S. ships. It was war. And the horrors of the subsequent war led the U.S. to make sure U.S. soldiers did not have to die in the tens of thousands by having to invade the main islands of Japan in order to get Japan to capitulate.
The U.S. entered the war in Europe with ease only because Herr Hitler made it easy -- Nazi Germany declared war on the U.S. right after Pearl Harbor.
Now, on September 11, 2001, the U.S. was attacked by, yes, what was, for all intents and purposes, the government of Afghanistan. (There was no real difference between the Taliban and al Qaeda, as the former was sheltering and supporting the latter, and the latter's money was helping keep the former in power.) That sneak attack aimed at killing at least 75,000 civilians in NYC and possibly annihilating the U.S. Capitol building and/or the White House.
The Germans did not do that at the outset of WWI. And the Japanese navy did not do that to open WWII.
The U.S. responded to the attacks of September 11th by, naturally, dispatching troops, and launching a limited military campaign which within a couple of months defeated that enemy government.
At home, the U.S. simultaneously tightened -- reasonably -- security. And unless one flies regularly, there has been little or no dramatic change to most people's daily lives. More importantly, despite the carryings on by many about a "police state" (an argument usually made by those who've never actually had to live under a real one of those), there has been no real loss of freedom. There has certainly been no reaction akin to hundreds of thousands interned, no governmental attempt to chase down dissidents, and certainly no plan to rescind habeas corpus.
Every major governmental post-September 11th security measure undoubtedly has been thoroughly vetted by the government's own lawyers before being put into practice, and as a result most have stood up to challenges in the courts. And there have been criticisms such as those made in the OIG report cited above. If this is meant to be a police state, those in charge of it had better pick up the pace on their crackdown.
Those interned have been treated decently in general, and almost all have already been released. In contrast, thousands of U.S. service people captured on battlefields and tens of thousands of American civilian expatriates residing abroad spent years in detention between 1941-1945.
No one with any sense is asserting for an instant that everything the U.S. government has done in response to September 11th has been right, of course. But in total, most actions have been measured and eminently reasonable given the level of provocation -- and the ongoing threat, as al Qaeda's various pronouncements continue to remind us, right up to the present.
And the capture of irregular fighters and dispatching them to an irregular camp is not as jarring as one might think if one considers that in most wars in the recent past, irregular fighters were shot summarily on the battlefield, immediately after capture.
What would have been a lack of proportionality? How about these for examples:
1) Taking every captured member of al Qaeda into a darkened cell in the middle of the night, shooting each in the back of the head after he is no longer of any use following repeated interrogation, and dumping his remains into a mass grave.
2) Interning in the U.S. hundreds of thousands of Muslims.
3) Nuking the area from Morocco all the way to the Indian subcontinent (and also obliterating Indonesia, Malaysia and the southern Philippines so the U.S. didn't risk missing any other al Qaeda supporters), and in the process killing about 1 billion people, most of whom are innocent.
Now THAT'S what you call a lack of "proportionality"!
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
SEARCH
I added a simple search engine back on Friday. It's found at the bottom of the current page. You can also do general web searches through it -- when you are trying to get out of here and find someone who knows what he or she is actually talking about!
Happy Monday everyone.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
I added a simple search engine back on Friday. It's found at the bottom of the current page. You can also do general web searches through it -- when you are trying to get out of here and find someone who knows what he or she is actually talking about!
Happy Monday everyone.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 09, 2003
Sunday, June 08, 2003
EURO DECISION MONDAY
The British government's "hamletting" over Euro entry is beginning to resemble Quebec's "perpetual-endum" on independence. The British don't want to say "non," but they can't quite bring themselves to say "oui" either.
The countdown is on to Chancellor Gordon Brown's statement on whether Britain should join the euro.
It is widely expected that Mr Brown will opt to keep the pound, saying his five economic tests for joining the eurozone have not been met. . .
What that means is that the Chancellor (he is like a Secretary of the Treasury on steroids) will declare on "Euro decision day" tomorrow that Britain will not join now, but Britain is of course not ruling out joining in the future.
Which is about where everyone knew the government stood already.
Nothing like being irrevocably committed to keeping one's options open to being irrevocably committed.
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 08, 2003
The British government's "hamletting" over Euro entry is beginning to resemble Quebec's "perpetual-endum" on independence. The British don't want to say "non," but they can't quite bring themselves to say "oui" either.
The countdown is on to Chancellor Gordon Brown's statement on whether Britain should join the euro.
It is widely expected that Mr Brown will opt to keep the pound, saying his five economic tests for joining the eurozone have not been met. . .
What that means is that the Chancellor (he is like a Secretary of the Treasury on steroids) will declare on "Euro decision day" tomorrow that Britain will not join now, but Britain is of course not ruling out joining in the future.
Which is about where everyone knew the government stood already.
Nothing like being irrevocably committed to keeping one's options open to being irrevocably committed.
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 08, 2003
OOOH, GAME 7
Well, there will be a game 7 Monday night, in New Jersey.
Will the Devils lose a game 7 at home? I find it hard to believe they will.
We'll see!
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 08, 2003
Well, there will be a game 7 Monday night, in New Jersey.
Will the Devils lose a game 7 at home? I find it hard to believe they will.
We'll see!
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 08, 2003
Saturday, June 07, 2003
OKAY, CHOOSE!
What I write here are my own opinions. If someone doesn't like them, well fine. Everyone is free to share his or her opinions -- backed up by some facts, one would hope -- as they see fit, on their own sites.
If you think Bush is another Hitler, if you are convinced Republicans are the new Nazis, if you are dead certain America is the second coming of Nazi Germany, etc., go on, blog yourself senseless. Have a field day.
However, please do take the following question extremely seriously, because nothing can better focus the mind on stark reality quicker than a hard, either/or choice.
Okay, so, now, you have that choice. There is no "none of the above," and no "third party" from which to choose. These are it. Which of these gentlemen would you rather live under?
Would you prefer Ashcroft's world view to shape your life?
Remember, John Ashcroft suspended his U.S. Senate re-election bid in 2000 after the Democratic candidate died in a tragic plane crash. Of course, it would have been hard for him to do have done anything else. But in doing so he practically conceded the seat to the dead candidate's wife -- hardly the action of a new Himmler.
Or would you rather that bin Laden's outlook is the one that shapes your life?
Remember, bin Laden (if he is still alive) and his followers want every American dead.
Bear that in mind.
One or the other.
Now, if you prefer bin Laden, I can't see how most normal Americans can have a civil conversation with you, because you are 1) apparently insane, or 2) you are on the side of the enemy. Or you are both.
By the way, just in case you are curious, if the first choice were Dennis Kucinich instead of Ashcroft, I'd choose Kucinich.
That's called being a rational American.
Thanks for your time. Hope you are having a nice weekend.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 07, 2003
What I write here are my own opinions. If someone doesn't like them, well fine. Everyone is free to share his or her opinions -- backed up by some facts, one would hope -- as they see fit, on their own sites.
If you think Bush is another Hitler, if you are convinced Republicans are the new Nazis, if you are dead certain America is the second coming of Nazi Germany, etc., go on, blog yourself senseless. Have a field day.
However, please do take the following question extremely seriously, because nothing can better focus the mind on stark reality quicker than a hard, either/or choice.
Okay, so, now, you have that choice. There is no "none of the above," and no "third party" from which to choose. These are it. Which of these gentlemen would you rather live under?
Would you prefer Ashcroft's world view to shape your life?
Remember, John Ashcroft suspended his U.S. Senate re-election bid in 2000 after the Democratic candidate died in a tragic plane crash. Of course, it would have been hard for him to do have done anything else. But in doing so he practically conceded the seat to the dead candidate's wife -- hardly the action of a new Himmler.
Or would you rather that bin Laden's outlook is the one that shapes your life?
Remember, bin Laden (if he is still alive) and his followers want every American dead.
Bear that in mind.
One or the other.
Now, if you prefer bin Laden, I can't see how most normal Americans can have a civil conversation with you, because you are 1) apparently insane, or 2) you are on the side of the enemy. Or you are both.
By the way, just in case you are curious, if the first choice were Dennis Kucinich instead of Ashcroft, I'd choose Kucinich.
That's called being a rational American.
Thanks for your time. Hope you are having a nice weekend.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 07, 2003
AN ATTACK OF JUDICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Freedom of religion is a cherished American right. One is free to practice one's faith largely as one chooses, without government intrusion. That right is found in the very first amendment to the U.S. constitution.
There are, of course, certain limits. Courts have repeatedly held that civil society at times must draw lines when it comes to those areas of the public arena which we all must share. CNN reports:
A Florida judge Friday rejected a woman's request to have her face mostly covered by a veil in the photograph on her state driver's license, the state attorney general's office told CNN. . .
. . .Sultaana Freeman had testified that a state order requesting that she remove her veil -- a niqab, which covers all of her face except her eyes -- infringed on her religious freedom. . .
In short, no one's forcing her to remove her veil. If her religion demands she walk around covered from head to toe, that's fine. The state has no objection to that.
But if she doesn't make a reasonable effort to take the covering off for a few moments, in private, in front of only another woman (as the state had offered to let her do), for the ID photograph for the state driver's license, the state cannot license her to drive.
However, if her faith is as important to her as she claims it is, then driving would be, one would think, about as relevant to her as it might be to, say, the Amish of Pennsylvania.
One presumes as well that she is aware that in the birthplace of Islam (Saudi Arabia) women are simply forbidden to drive . . . period.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 07, 2003
Freedom of religion is a cherished American right. One is free to practice one's faith largely as one chooses, without government intrusion. That right is found in the very first amendment to the U.S. constitution.
There are, of course, certain limits. Courts have repeatedly held that civil society at times must draw lines when it comes to those areas of the public arena which we all must share. CNN reports:
A Florida judge Friday rejected a woman's request to have her face mostly covered by a veil in the photograph on her state driver's license, the state attorney general's office told CNN. . .
. . .Sultaana Freeman had testified that a state order requesting that she remove her veil -- a niqab, which covers all of her face except her eyes -- infringed on her religious freedom. . .
In short, no one's forcing her to remove her veil. If her religion demands she walk around covered from head to toe, that's fine. The state has no objection to that.
But if she doesn't make a reasonable effort to take the covering off for a few moments, in private, in front of only another woman (as the state had offered to let her do), for the ID photograph for the state driver's license, the state cannot license her to drive.
However, if her faith is as important to her as she claims it is, then driving would be, one would think, about as relevant to her as it might be to, say, the Amish of Pennsylvania.
One presumes as well that she is aware that in the birthplace of Islam (Saudi Arabia) women are simply forbidden to drive . . . period.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 07, 2003
THIS WAS A REAL ELECTORAL COUP D'ETAT
There is no doubt that if the election in March 2002 had been fair, Morgan Tsvangirai and not Robert Mugabe would today be president of Zimbabwe. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
The United States criticized the arrest Friday of Zimbabwe's main opposition leader and urged the government of President Robert Mugabe to begin a dialogue with its opponents.
"We strongly condemn this arrest" of Morgan Tsvangirai on charges of treason, said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. "The heightened climate of confrontation and violence in Zimbabwe this week we think heightens the urgent need for dialogue between the government and the opposition."
Government forces in Harare, the capital, have resorted to beating protesters, firing warning shots in the air and using water cannons and tear gas to break up demonstrations this week. The strikes have ground the battered economy to a halt in the biggest opposition challenge to Mugabe's 23-year authoritarian rule. . .
Now MSNBC's Jill Nelson might like to know that Mugabe's election rigging is what she might safely term a real electoral coup d'etat.
The proof is in the arresting. Is Al Gore in custody? Has Joe Lieberman fled the country? Have Democrats been attacked and even killed on the streets by mobs of Republicans? Have Democratic leaders been driven into hiding?
None of those things happened of course, because the Bush election wasn't illegitimate. It is about high time that Democrats stopped with the misplaced and dimwitted hyperbole about President Bush having stolen the election. By insisting that Bush engaged in some sort of electoral coup in 2000, when all that happened was that the closest presidential election in U.S. history had to be decided in court, Democrats and others are insulting and demeaning all those very real and very unfortunate people, like Zimbabweans, who have to live under a real, freakin' tyrant who actually pulled off a very real electoral coup d'etat.
Still have doubts?
Okay, when will the next U.S. presidential election take place? In 2004.
And when will the next Zimbabwean presidential vote take place? Uuuuuuuh, when Mugabe and his ZANU-PF have made sure they win, by any means necessary.
'Nuff said.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 07, 2003
There is no doubt that if the election in March 2002 had been fair, Morgan Tsvangirai and not Robert Mugabe would today be president of Zimbabwe. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
The United States criticized the arrest Friday of Zimbabwe's main opposition leader and urged the government of President Robert Mugabe to begin a dialogue with its opponents.
"We strongly condemn this arrest" of Morgan Tsvangirai on charges of treason, said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. "The heightened climate of confrontation and violence in Zimbabwe this week we think heightens the urgent need for dialogue between the government and the opposition."
Government forces in Harare, the capital, have resorted to beating protesters, firing warning shots in the air and using water cannons and tear gas to break up demonstrations this week. The strikes have ground the battered economy to a halt in the biggest opposition challenge to Mugabe's 23-year authoritarian rule. . .
Now MSNBC's Jill Nelson might like to know that Mugabe's election rigging is what she might safely term a real electoral coup d'etat.
The proof is in the arresting. Is Al Gore in custody? Has Joe Lieberman fled the country? Have Democrats been attacked and even killed on the streets by mobs of Republicans? Have Democratic leaders been driven into hiding?
None of those things happened of course, because the Bush election wasn't illegitimate. It is about high time that Democrats stopped with the misplaced and dimwitted hyperbole about President Bush having stolen the election. By insisting that Bush engaged in some sort of electoral coup in 2000, when all that happened was that the closest presidential election in U.S. history had to be decided in court, Democrats and others are insulting and demeaning all those very real and very unfortunate people, like Zimbabweans, who have to live under a real, freakin' tyrant who actually pulled off a very real electoral coup d'etat.
Still have doubts?
Okay, when will the next U.S. presidential election take place? In 2004.
And when will the next Zimbabwean presidential vote take place? Uuuuuuuh, when Mugabe and his ZANU-PF have made sure they win, by any means necessary.
'Nuff said.
¶ by Robert, Saturday, June 07, 2003
Friday, June 06, 2003
TODAY IS JUNE 6, REMEMBER
Today being June 6, 2003, it is worth remembering that 59 years ago today an event of some significance took place on the isolated Normandy coast.
The attackers were fighting to topple a madman, who led a mad regime.
Less well known is that the Allies knew the Nazis were working on -- although they had not perfected -- what we would today call WMDs. They had been trying to build an atomic bomb. They were working on jet aircraft. And, indeed, shortly, they would be lobbing missiles into London and southern England.
Generations come and go, but our problem thugs never seem to go away entirely. They just regenerate in another form, someplace else.
However, defeat will never come to us until we decide it is no longer worth fighting evil.
Let us hope we never sink to that sorry state.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 06, 2003
Today being June 6, 2003, it is worth remembering that 59 years ago today an event of some significance took place on the isolated Normandy coast.
The attackers were fighting to topple a madman, who led a mad regime.
Less well known is that the Allies knew the Nazis were working on -- although they had not perfected -- what we would today call WMDs. They had been trying to build an atomic bomb. They were working on jet aircraft. And, indeed, shortly, they would be lobbing missiles into London and southern England.
Generations come and go, but our problem thugs never seem to go away entirely. They just regenerate in another form, someplace else.
However, defeat will never come to us until we decide it is no longer worth fighting evil.
Let us hope we never sink to that sorry state.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 06, 2003
PRESS RELEASE FROM BRITISH ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
This link will take you to the very latest press release by the AUT on the occupation of the Palestinian territories by the Israelis. Below is an exerpt:
". . .Jerusalem institutions must coordinate and cooperate with one another in order to face the Judaization process. Those concerned in the Arab and Islamic World must assign an adequate budget for these institutions so that they can continue their health care, educational, social, and humanitarian services and protect the lands in Jerusalem. This does not exempt the rulers and kings in the Islamic World of their big responsibility to work earnestly toward ending the Israeli occupation of this holy city and all Palestinian territories. We affirm that the people of Jerusalem and its vicinity hold to their unshakable religious stand until final destiny". . .
Oops. Sorry. The above is actually from the sermon given at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on Friday, May 30.
My mistake.
Silly me.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 06, 2003
This link will take you to the very latest press release by the AUT on the occupation of the Palestinian territories by the Israelis. Below is an exerpt:
". . .Jerusalem institutions must coordinate and cooperate with one another in order to face the Judaization process. Those concerned in the Arab and Islamic World must assign an adequate budget for these institutions so that they can continue their health care, educational, social, and humanitarian services and protect the lands in Jerusalem. This does not exempt the rulers and kings in the Islamic World of their big responsibility to work earnestly toward ending the Israeli occupation of this holy city and all Palestinian territories. We affirm that the people of Jerusalem and its vicinity hold to their unshakable religious stand until final destiny". . .
Oops. Sorry. The above is actually from the sermon given at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on Friday, May 30.
My mistake.
Silly me.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 06, 2003
WHY DO I GET ANNOYED AT THE BBC?
My lovely wife asked me this morning why I get so worked up about BBC inaccuracies, yet believe what I read and see elsewhere? It is a good question.
It's likely that the BBC has attracted my ire on numerous occasions because it is ubiquitous in the U.K. You can't escape its reach. It's everywhere. There are BBC TV channels 1, 2, 3, and 4, and BBC News 24 (which is like CNN), as well as children's channels and probably others I've overlooked. (And don't even mention all the BBC radio channels.)
In general, I don't believe much of anything -- unless it is supported by facts. What is disturbing and becoming increasingly obvious is that in the broadcasting behemoth's news reporting, facts seem often to be rather thin on the ground. Instead, what listeners, viewers and web readers too often get is an exceedingly large dose of opinion and editorializing.
From my perspective, worse of all perhaps is the oh we are so worldly, sneering, wink, wink, "yeh, sure" reporting technique, used mostly on of course less than worldly Americans, but only rarely on, say, Islamist extremists. On "Breakfast", former anchor Jeremy Bowen had been a master of that, whenever he was discussing anything remotely connected to the U.S. or to Americans.
Ian Pannell's "reports" from America are such that I often find myself wondering if he is actually in the country, or just in a BBC London studio with a photo of the U.S. Capitol tacked to a wall behind him. Consider a "report" he sent over on the then upcoming November 2002 elections. Pannell infers in August 2002 -- from Smithtown, Long Island, no less (a place I am rather well acquainted with) -- that the Republicans were highly vulnerable due to economic concerns, although he also points out, Americans haven't turned on "US capitalism per se". (What's the alternative, one wonders: Chinese or Cuban socialism?) But as we all know, in November, the Democrats got their clocks well and truly cleaned.
Oh, well. No one's really checking.
But they are. And the BBC keeps getting caught out.
As friends of this blog know, my recent problems with the BBC stem from the likes of often blatant omission of salient facts, slipping editorial commentary into factual pieces (at this link, note the photo of a Palestinian kissing the ground), and slanted questioning techniques.
So I am naturally rather pleased to find that I am not alone in all this. I don't think of myself as insane and I don't think I have a persecution complex. As Biased BBC demonstrates, (see especially the June 5 entry on the Guardian retraction of their claim that Wolfowitz stated the Iraq war was all about oil), many other people see exactly the same problems with the BBC that I see.
Of course the press are one of the guardians of our freedom. They help keep government truthful and accountable. But by the same token, that does not mean that the press has a monopoly on guarding our freedom, nor is the press free to print whatever drivel it may see fit to print without facing cross-examination.
Simple really.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 06, 2003
My lovely wife asked me this morning why I get so worked up about BBC inaccuracies, yet believe what I read and see elsewhere? It is a good question.
It's likely that the BBC has attracted my ire on numerous occasions because it is ubiquitous in the U.K. You can't escape its reach. It's everywhere. There are BBC TV channels 1, 2, 3, and 4, and BBC News 24 (which is like CNN), as well as children's channels and probably others I've overlooked. (And don't even mention all the BBC radio channels.)
In general, I don't believe much of anything -- unless it is supported by facts. What is disturbing and becoming increasingly obvious is that in the broadcasting behemoth's news reporting, facts seem often to be rather thin on the ground. Instead, what listeners, viewers and web readers too often get is an exceedingly large dose of opinion and editorializing.
From my perspective, worse of all perhaps is the oh we are so worldly, sneering, wink, wink, "yeh, sure" reporting technique, used mostly on of course less than worldly Americans, but only rarely on, say, Islamist extremists. On "Breakfast", former anchor Jeremy Bowen had been a master of that, whenever he was discussing anything remotely connected to the U.S. or to Americans.
Ian Pannell's "reports" from America are such that I often find myself wondering if he is actually in the country, or just in a BBC London studio with a photo of the U.S. Capitol tacked to a wall behind him. Consider a "report" he sent over on the then upcoming November 2002 elections. Pannell infers in August 2002 -- from Smithtown, Long Island, no less (a place I am rather well acquainted with) -- that the Republicans were highly vulnerable due to economic concerns, although he also points out, Americans haven't turned on "US capitalism per se". (What's the alternative, one wonders: Chinese or Cuban socialism?) But as we all know, in November, the Democrats got their clocks well and truly cleaned.
Oh, well. No one's really checking.
But they are. And the BBC keeps getting caught out.
As friends of this blog know, my recent problems with the BBC stem from the likes of often blatant omission of salient facts, slipping editorial commentary into factual pieces (at this link, note the photo of a Palestinian kissing the ground), and slanted questioning techniques.
So I am naturally rather pleased to find that I am not alone in all this. I don't think of myself as insane and I don't think I have a persecution complex. As Biased BBC demonstrates, (see especially the June 5 entry on the Guardian retraction of their claim that Wolfowitz stated the Iraq war was all about oil), many other people see exactly the same problems with the BBC that I see.
Of course the press are one of the guardians of our freedom. They help keep government truthful and accountable. But by the same token, that does not mean that the press has a monopoly on guarding our freedom, nor is the press free to print whatever drivel it may see fit to print without facing cross-examination.
Simple really.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 06, 2003
WHAT DID THE DEVILS DO LAST NIGHT?
I don't want to know if they won or lost.
It's in the VCR awaiting viewing later.
Do you think? Well, it's game 5. At two apiece, this one's IMPORTANT.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 06, 2003
I don't want to know if they won or lost.
It's in the VCR awaiting viewing later.
Do you think? Well, it's game 5. At two apiece, this one's IMPORTANT.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 06, 2003
RUMSFELD ON WEAPONS AND HUSSEIN
On the WMD "debate" -- Saddam didn't have them! See, the evil Bush/Cheney oil thieves were at work here! Wolfowitz said it was all about oil! (although now even the Guardian admits it got the supposed Wolfowitz "It's about oil" statement utterly wrong and has retracted the assertion; see previous post) -- CNN reports:
. . .Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the intelligence presentation Secretary of State Colin Powell gave to the United Nations in February "was accurate, and will be proved to be accurate."
"We haven't found Saddam Hussein, and I don't know anyone who's running around saying he didn't exist," Rumsfeld told reporters Thursday, following a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill. . .
Similarly, most of us have never been to Brazil.
But we know it's there of course.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 06, 2003
On the WMD "debate" -- Saddam didn't have them! See, the evil Bush/Cheney oil thieves were at work here! Wolfowitz said it was all about oil! (although now even the Guardian admits it got the supposed Wolfowitz "It's about oil" statement utterly wrong and has retracted the assertion; see previous post) -- CNN reports:
. . .Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the intelligence presentation Secretary of State Colin Powell gave to the United Nations in February "was accurate, and will be proved to be accurate."
"We haven't found Saddam Hussein, and I don't know anyone who's running around saying he didn't exist," Rumsfeld told reporters Thursday, following a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill. . .
Similarly, most of us have never been to Brazil.
But we know it's there of course.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 06, 2003
THE GUARDIAN RETRACTS
The Guardian has retracted their disgraceful Wolfowitz misquote (See post below, June 5):
A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the department of defence website, "The . . . difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.
Gotcha -- the calculatingly, misrepresenting slugs.
But don't believe for a second that they retract their general view that Paul Wolfowitz is one of the driving forces behind the new "American imperialism", which is of course driven by an alliance between crazy evangelical Christians and Zionists:
Lurking in the background behind Bush, his Vice-President, Dick Cheney, and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are the people propelling US policy. And behind them, the masterminds of the Bush presidency as it arrived at the White House from Texas, are Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz. . .
"Mastermind?" Aside from the "Mastermind" game, a routine Google search demonstrates that it has become mostly the word of choice for describing terrorists who organize things, as in "he was the mastermind of the [insert evil event here]." Or, as holocaust denier David Irving wrote, Goebbels was the "mastermind of the Third Reich." Hmm. Thus, aside of a particular meaning for boardgame addicts, "mastermind" also certainly has less than savory connotations nowadays.
Rove's position dovetailed with the beliefs of Paul Wolfowitz, and the axis between conservative Southern Protestantism and fervent, highly intellectual, East Coast Zionism was forged - each as zealous about their religion as the other. . .
Would that "axis" be, um, an "axis of evil?" After all, Bush used the word "axis" in his famous "axis of evil" speech mostly to draw a comparison to the alliance -- the "Axis" -- that was organized before and during World War II primarily by Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and later militarist Japan. It is now used in public discourse mostly to denote some sort of "evil conspiracy" or "evil alliance" or an "evil partnership."
And lastly, pause for a moment and look closely at how many different ways the Guardian managed to make snide references to Wolfowitz's Judaism back in February:
"East Coast Zionism" -- I guess that means that there are lot of people in New York and the northeast U.S. who support the existence of the democratic state of Israel. Wow, that makes me an East Coast Zionist too. I accept this honor on behalf of . . .
"a Jewish son of academe," -- Translation: there are lots of annoying Jews in American universities.
"joined the Pentagon after the Yom Kippur war," -- Why not refer to his taking the job in the Pentagon in, say, 1974? Yeh, but if they did, they would have failed to have gotten yet another Zionist/Jewish/Israel reference into the article.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 06, 2003
The Guardian has retracted their disgraceful Wolfowitz misquote (See post below, June 5):
A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the department of defence website, "The . . . difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.
Gotcha -- the calculatingly, misrepresenting slugs.
But don't believe for a second that they retract their general view that Paul Wolfowitz is one of the driving forces behind the new "American imperialism", which is of course driven by an alliance between crazy evangelical Christians and Zionists:
Lurking in the background behind Bush, his Vice-President, Dick Cheney, and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are the people propelling US policy. And behind them, the masterminds of the Bush presidency as it arrived at the White House from Texas, are Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz. . .
"Mastermind?" Aside from the "Mastermind" game, a routine Google search demonstrates that it has become mostly the word of choice for describing terrorists who organize things, as in "he was the mastermind of the [insert evil event here]." Or, as holocaust denier David Irving wrote, Goebbels was the "mastermind of the Third Reich." Hmm. Thus, aside of a particular meaning for boardgame addicts, "mastermind" also certainly has less than savory connotations nowadays.
Rove's position dovetailed with the beliefs of Paul Wolfowitz, and the axis between conservative Southern Protestantism and fervent, highly intellectual, East Coast Zionism was forged - each as zealous about their religion as the other. . .
Would that "axis" be, um, an "axis of evil?" After all, Bush used the word "axis" in his famous "axis of evil" speech mostly to draw a comparison to the alliance -- the "Axis" -- that was organized before and during World War II primarily by Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and later militarist Japan. It is now used in public discourse mostly to denote some sort of "evil conspiracy" or "evil alliance" or an "evil partnership."
And lastly, pause for a moment and look closely at how many different ways the Guardian managed to make snide references to Wolfowitz's Judaism back in February:
"East Coast Zionism" -- I guess that means that there are lot of people in New York and the northeast U.S. who support the existence of the democratic state of Israel. Wow, that makes me an East Coast Zionist too. I accept this honor on behalf of . . .
"a Jewish son of academe," -- Translation: there are lots of annoying Jews in American universities.
"joined the Pentagon after the Yom Kippur war," -- Why not refer to his taking the job in the Pentagon in, say, 1974? Yeh, but if they did, they would have failed to have gotten yet another Zionist/Jewish/Israel reference into the article.
¶ by Robert, Friday, June 06, 2003
Thursday, June 05, 2003
MARTHA, MY DEAR
The WSJ's Opinionjournal has this by Amy Finnerty on Martha's indictment. (Do I even have to give you her surname?):
The spectacle of Martha Stewart being led into a Manhattan courthouse yesterday was disconcerting in so many ways that one doesn't know where to begin. For a start, hers may have been the first ever "perp walk" in which the accused carried an umbrella that was color coordinated to match her trench coat (both tasteful pale neutrals).
The "Domestic Diva" was indicted on charges of securities fraud, conspiracy, making false statements and obstruction of justice, so the prospect of Greta van Susteren putting Martha on the grill lies uncomfortably before us. Ms. Stewart pleaded not guilty, but what about her customers, and their torn loyalties?. . .
. . .It's as if the bossiest, most efficient mom at the kids' school were drawn into scandal. After years of envying her for being so perfect, we'd feel bad for resenting her and all pitch in at the bake sale for her legal defense fund. The cupcake recipe would be from one of the magazines churned out by Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (note the unembarrassed megalomania suggested by her company's name). . .
. . .Ordinary investors, the types who shop at Kmart, are the ones who are hurt by unfair trading practices, of course. They don't attend cocktail parties with Sam Waksal. But, like a centerpiece that doesn't quite work, there's something unsettling about the jokes that are already staler than old bread, about Martha redecorating her jail cell.
I found it particularly interesting that Amy compared Martha with "steamy" Nigella Lawson. Considering that I noted on June 4 how Larry Miller inferred that he was a bit smitten by Carol Smillie, it is becoming clear that a new generation of lovely British media women are making inroads among American TV audiences.
Having married an English woman myself, you would probably presume I could offer the reasons why. Actually, I prefer to restrict myself to Bush, Islamists, and anti-Americanism, etc. It's easier.
I suppose, if I am honest, I am just less fearful of anti-Bushies, Islamists and American-haters than I am of my own domestic goddess. I don't want to have to explain my answer to her.
The only thing I will say is that she puts Nigella to shame.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 05, 2003
The WSJ's Opinionjournal has this by Amy Finnerty on Martha's indictment. (Do I even have to give you her surname?):
The spectacle of Martha Stewart being led into a Manhattan courthouse yesterday was disconcerting in so many ways that one doesn't know where to begin. For a start, hers may have been the first ever "perp walk" in which the accused carried an umbrella that was color coordinated to match her trench coat (both tasteful pale neutrals).
The "Domestic Diva" was indicted on charges of securities fraud, conspiracy, making false statements and obstruction of justice, so the prospect of Greta van Susteren putting Martha on the grill lies uncomfortably before us. Ms. Stewart pleaded not guilty, but what about her customers, and their torn loyalties?. . .
. . .It's as if the bossiest, most efficient mom at the kids' school were drawn into scandal. After years of envying her for being so perfect, we'd feel bad for resenting her and all pitch in at the bake sale for her legal defense fund. The cupcake recipe would be from one of the magazines churned out by Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (note the unembarrassed megalomania suggested by her company's name). . .
. . .Ordinary investors, the types who shop at Kmart, are the ones who are hurt by unfair trading practices, of course. They don't attend cocktail parties with Sam Waksal. But, like a centerpiece that doesn't quite work, there's something unsettling about the jokes that are already staler than old bread, about Martha redecorating her jail cell.
I found it particularly interesting that Amy compared Martha with "steamy" Nigella Lawson. Considering that I noted on June 4 how Larry Miller inferred that he was a bit smitten by Carol Smillie, it is becoming clear that a new generation of lovely British media women are making inroads among American TV audiences.
Having married an English woman myself, you would probably presume I could offer the reasons why. Actually, I prefer to restrict myself to Bush, Islamists, and anti-Americanism, etc. It's easier.
I suppose, if I am honest, I am just less fearful of anti-Bushies, Islamists and American-haters than I am of my own domestic goddess. I don't want to have to explain my answer to her.
The only thing I will say is that she puts Nigella to shame.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 05, 2003
ARE THEY LOOPY TOO?
My "don't criticize politicians in the country in which I consider myself a guest" rule has fallen over completely. I can't keep it up anymore. So, I am rescinding it. There is too much current idiocy flying around for someone like myself to be able to stay above the fray.
The other day, I called the Liberal Democrats "loopy". I haven't changed that view.
And now it seems that Iain Duncan Smith and the Conservatives have lost their minds. At least one hopes so. That they've apparently gone full off the beam is the only explanation I can find for these comments on WMDs made by Shadow Foreign Secretary and Deputy Conservative Leader Michael Ancram:
. . ."It is right for Tony Blair to come forward with the evidence and publish it so he can defend his arguments. He is paying the price for not having made the case before the war. He says he has got evidence not so far made public. It is time now to make that evidence public. Serious questions will be asked if there is no evidence.
"The Prime Minister says the evidence is compelling. He has the responsibility to bring it forward and publish it so the British public can see why he took the decision to go to war. We believe it was right, in line with the information available, to take the action that was taken. Saddam Hussein had the opportunity to comply with the UN resolution and he failed to do so". . .
I have no idea what on earth the Conservatives hope to gain by that method of attack on Blair -- if one can even go so far as label it a "method".
Blair didn't make the case before the war? That's ridiculous! But Ancram later admits that the attack was right. So, which is it? Or Blair attacked without making a case?
Blair must defend HIS arguments? He doesn't have to DEFEND anything. The burden of proof was on Saddam, not on Blair. And not on Bush.
And then Ancram goes on to say he believes that it "was right, in line with the information available, to take the action that was taken. Saddam Hussein had the opportunity to comply with the UN resolution and he failed to do so." Yet in saying that, he pretty much overturns his own previous points.
Most mindboggling is this: Blair, of course, had more information, but also had at minimum the exact same information that Ancram did. But if Ancram and the Conservatives would have gone on the attack in Iraq based on the lesser information that Ancram had, why is it a problem that the attack was undertaken based on the presumably clearer and probably fuller information Blair possessed?
Heeeeeeeeello!
The Lib Dems already have made it quite clear they wish Saddam Hussein, apparently being more open-minded than Bush in Lib Dem eyes, were president of the U.S. Similarly, a large minority of old Labour also prefer Saddam -- he resembles that other venerable, old Labour hero, Fidel Castro -- over Bush.
In their shifting over now to what amounts to being "Lib Dem lite", the Conservatives hope to gain . . . what? Indeed, at whom the Conservatives are aiming their current "let's doubt the validity of Tony's War" sales pitch is rather unclear. They are targeting -- no pun intended -- the "anti-war" crowd? Yet the Conservatives, having supported the war, are unlikely ever to win over what are mostly leftist, "anti-war" voters.
No wonder the Tories can't unseat Blair. They're clueless.
How about sticking to one's guns? I suspect Margaret Thatcher -- remember her? -- might have said something like this:
We have liberated an oppressed people. We have unseated a ghastly dictator. The world now has one less dictatorship. We are now unearthing its evil, especially the mass graves, including some containing the remains of murdered children. Saddam Hussein and his thug regime have been swept away, and will no longer be able even to contemplate striking us with anything. Many people who have been hiding inside Iraq, in their homes, for 20 years are now out in the open once more, breathing freely. We have much to be proud of. We have done the right thing. Our opposition would have him still there. The graves would remain silent, hidden, uncovered. The people would continue to cower in fear. Weapons would be developed, out of sight, which one day might well be used against us. This was a situation our free people, and other free peoples, could not tolerate. We took the decision, and we stand by it.
But Margaret's long retired. And with her went the Conservatives party's backbone, apparently.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 05, 2003
My "don't criticize politicians in the country in which I consider myself a guest" rule has fallen over completely. I can't keep it up anymore. So, I am rescinding it. There is too much current idiocy flying around for someone like myself to be able to stay above the fray.
The other day, I called the Liberal Democrats "loopy". I haven't changed that view.
And now it seems that Iain Duncan Smith and the Conservatives have lost their minds. At least one hopes so. That they've apparently gone full off the beam is the only explanation I can find for these comments on WMDs made by Shadow Foreign Secretary and Deputy Conservative Leader Michael Ancram:
. . ."It is right for Tony Blair to come forward with the evidence and publish it so he can defend his arguments. He is paying the price for not having made the case before the war. He says he has got evidence not so far made public. It is time now to make that evidence public. Serious questions will be asked if there is no evidence.
"The Prime Minister says the evidence is compelling. He has the responsibility to bring it forward and publish it so the British public can see why he took the decision to go to war. We believe it was right, in line with the information available, to take the action that was taken. Saddam Hussein had the opportunity to comply with the UN resolution and he failed to do so". . .
I have no idea what on earth the Conservatives hope to gain by that method of attack on Blair -- if one can even go so far as label it a "method".
Blair didn't make the case before the war? That's ridiculous! But Ancram later admits that the attack was right. So, which is it? Or Blair attacked without making a case?
Blair must defend HIS arguments? He doesn't have to DEFEND anything. The burden of proof was on Saddam, not on Blair. And not on Bush.
And then Ancram goes on to say he believes that it "was right, in line with the information available, to take the action that was taken. Saddam Hussein had the opportunity to comply with the UN resolution and he failed to do so." Yet in saying that, he pretty much overturns his own previous points.
Most mindboggling is this: Blair, of course, had more information, but also had at minimum the exact same information that Ancram did. But if Ancram and the Conservatives would have gone on the attack in Iraq based on the lesser information that Ancram had, why is it a problem that the attack was undertaken based on the presumably clearer and probably fuller information Blair possessed?
Heeeeeeeeello!
The Lib Dems already have made it quite clear they wish Saddam Hussein, apparently being more open-minded than Bush in Lib Dem eyes, were president of the U.S. Similarly, a large minority of old Labour also prefer Saddam -- he resembles that other venerable, old Labour hero, Fidel Castro -- over Bush.
In their shifting over now to what amounts to being "Lib Dem lite", the Conservatives hope to gain . . . what? Indeed, at whom the Conservatives are aiming their current "let's doubt the validity of Tony's War" sales pitch is rather unclear. They are targeting -- no pun intended -- the "anti-war" crowd? Yet the Conservatives, having supported the war, are unlikely ever to win over what are mostly leftist, "anti-war" voters.
No wonder the Tories can't unseat Blair. They're clueless.
How about sticking to one's guns? I suspect Margaret Thatcher -- remember her? -- might have said something like this:
We have liberated an oppressed people. We have unseated a ghastly dictator. The world now has one less dictatorship. We are now unearthing its evil, especially the mass graves, including some containing the remains of murdered children. Saddam Hussein and his thug regime have been swept away, and will no longer be able even to contemplate striking us with anything. Many people who have been hiding inside Iraq, in their homes, for 20 years are now out in the open once more, breathing freely. We have much to be proud of. We have done the right thing. Our opposition would have him still there. The graves would remain silent, hidden, uncovered. The people would continue to cower in fear. Weapons would be developed, out of sight, which one day might well be used against us. This was a situation our free people, and other free peoples, could not tolerate. We took the decision, and we stand by it.
But Margaret's long retired. And with her went the Conservatives party's backbone, apparently.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 05, 2003
A CORRECTION
On 2 June, this blog noted that Sean Penn was apparently being impersonated.
However, it is now clear that the author of the New York Times screed was indeed Sean Penn. This blog would like to make it clear that Ted was in no way involved.
This blog apologizes for any confusion that 2 June post may have caused readers.
Follow this link for a response (in far fewer words, thank goodness) to Sean Penn's incoherency in the New York Times.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 05, 2003
On 2 June, this blog noted that Sean Penn was apparently being impersonated.
However, it is now clear that the author of the New York Times screed was indeed Sean Penn. This blog would like to make it clear that Ted was in no way involved.
This blog apologizes for any confusion that 2 June post may have caused readers.
Follow this link for a response (in far fewer words, thank goodness) to Sean Penn's incoherency in the New York Times.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 05, 2003
HERE SHE IS AGAIN -- GET READY!
Ann Coulter doesn't need WMDs, just a keyboard.
Down! Down! Take cover!
I said, TAKE COVER!
. . .Contrary to their current self-advertisements, it was liberals who were citing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction – and with gusto – in order to argue against war with Iraq. They said America would suffer retaliatory strikes, there would be mass casualties, Israel would be nuked, our troops would be hit with Saddam's chemical weapons, it would be a Vietnam quagmire. . .
. . .The United Nations weapons inspectors repeatedly found Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, right up until Saddam threw them out in 1998. Justifying his impeachment-day bombing, Clinton cited the Iraqi regime's "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs." (Indeed, this constitutes the only evidence that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction: Bill Clinton said he did.). . .
. . .If Americans were lied to, they were lied to by liberals who warned we would be annihilated if we attacked Iraq. The left's leading intellectual light, Janeane Garofalo, was featured in an anti-war commercial before the war, saying: "If we invade Iraq, there's a United Nations estimate that says, 'There will be up to a half a million people killed or wounded.'" Now they're testy because they fear Saddam may never have had even a sporting chance to unleash dastardly weapons against Americans.
But why be consistent, when consistency demands that one would have to admit we did the right thing? For one of the first times in our history, we've snuffed out evil before it could hit us first.
So where are the weapons? Who knows. And frankly, who cares. The fact is whatever weapons he did have -- and there is no dispute that he DID have them; ask the Kurds and Iranians, and they'll tell you! -- Saddam and Co. won't be making or using any more of them.
And we won't be facing a Saddam-made bio or chemical device detonated perhaps in a parking lot of a shopping mall in, say, suburban Washington.
And isn't that nice?
Well, not if one hates Bush. In that case, it seems one just hates Bush, and couldn't care less about anything else.
And that is just demented, really.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 05, 2003
Ann Coulter doesn't need WMDs, just a keyboard.
Down! Down! Take cover!
I said, TAKE COVER!
. . .Contrary to their current self-advertisements, it was liberals who were citing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction – and with gusto – in order to argue against war with Iraq. They said America would suffer retaliatory strikes, there would be mass casualties, Israel would be nuked, our troops would be hit with Saddam's chemical weapons, it would be a Vietnam quagmire. . .
. . .The United Nations weapons inspectors repeatedly found Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, right up until Saddam threw them out in 1998. Justifying his impeachment-day bombing, Clinton cited the Iraqi regime's "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs." (Indeed, this constitutes the only evidence that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction: Bill Clinton said he did.). . .
. . .If Americans were lied to, they were lied to by liberals who warned we would be annihilated if we attacked Iraq. The left's leading intellectual light, Janeane Garofalo, was featured in an anti-war commercial before the war, saying: "If we invade Iraq, there's a United Nations estimate that says, 'There will be up to a half a million people killed or wounded.'" Now they're testy because they fear Saddam may never have had even a sporting chance to unleash dastardly weapons against Americans.
But why be consistent, when consistency demands that one would have to admit we did the right thing? For one of the first times in our history, we've snuffed out evil before it could hit us first.
So where are the weapons? Who knows. And frankly, who cares. The fact is whatever weapons he did have -- and there is no dispute that he DID have them; ask the Kurds and Iranians, and they'll tell you! -- Saddam and Co. won't be making or using any more of them.
And we won't be facing a Saddam-made bio or chemical device detonated perhaps in a parking lot of a shopping mall in, say, suburban Washington.
And isn't that nice?
Well, not if one hates Bush. In that case, it seems one just hates Bush, and couldn't care less about anything else.
And that is just demented, really.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 05, 2003
MAUREEN DOWD WOULD BE SO, SO PROUD
LGF descends on the misquote of Paul Wolfowitz in the British left-wing, anti-American newspaper, the Guardian.
The paper claims Wolfowitz admitted that the war was all about oil. But the Guardian's editors, similar to those at the BBC, have apparently attended the Maureen Dowd school of misquotation and misinterpretation. The money paragraphs in the Guardian are these:
. . .The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil". . .
The most relevant fact the Guardian actually got right in the above was that Wolfowitz was indeed in Singapore. Here is a distinctly more truthful version, based on Wolfowitz's English original.
. . .The difference between North Korea and Iraq, Wolfowitz said, is that the United States could not use economic pressure to strangle Hussein's regime "because the country floats on a sea of oil." North Korea, by comparison, is near economic collapse, and that offers "a major point of leverage," he said. . .
And this link has the complete (not the al Guardianized) transcript of Wolfowitz's remarks, which place them in the correct context, and without omissions:
. . .Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different. . .
Instapundit notes from Daniel Drezner that:
The Guardian's version of events is such a ludicrous distortion of Wolfowitz's words that it falls into the "useful idiots" category. By apparently relying on a German translation/distortion of Wolfowitz's words -- when multiple English-language sources of the actual comments were available -- I have to wonder if the Guardian is guilty of libel in this case.
What a ridiculous, and even dangerous newspaper the Guardian is.
Why do I write "dangerous"? Not because what they wrote about Wolfowitz might be libelous, although of course that would be bad enough. The reasons are two-fold. First, the Guardian is the primary newspaper in which the BBC advertises its job openings, and, secondly, the Guardian is generally considered "the newspaper of education" -- meaning it is the newspaper most preferred by teachers and university lecturers -- in the U.K.
So, those being the case, if people hired by the BBC read the Guardian primarily, and if British, uh, educators are feasting daily on nonsense like that -- most of which of course never gets blogged or uncovered -- it is hardly shocking that both groups are also dominated by those who believe the U.S. is a menace, and Bush/Cheney and the administration are the source of unmitigated evil.
And it makes it even less surprising that the British Association of University Teachers union makes public a union position on Israel that is so biased and anti-Israel (see my June 2 entry) that one would think it were authored by Iranian mullahs.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 05, 2003
LGF descends on the misquote of Paul Wolfowitz in the British left-wing, anti-American newspaper, the Guardian.
The paper claims Wolfowitz admitted that the war was all about oil. But the Guardian's editors, similar to those at the BBC, have apparently attended the Maureen Dowd school of misquotation and misinterpretation. The money paragraphs in the Guardian are these:
. . .The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil". . .
The most relevant fact the Guardian actually got right in the above was that Wolfowitz was indeed in Singapore. Here is a distinctly more truthful version, based on Wolfowitz's English original.
. . .The difference between North Korea and Iraq, Wolfowitz said, is that the United States could not use economic pressure to strangle Hussein's regime "because the country floats on a sea of oil." North Korea, by comparison, is near economic collapse, and that offers "a major point of leverage," he said. . .
And this link has the complete (not the al Guardianized) transcript of Wolfowitz's remarks, which place them in the correct context, and without omissions:
. . .Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different. . .
Instapundit notes from Daniel Drezner that:
The Guardian's version of events is such a ludicrous distortion of Wolfowitz's words that it falls into the "useful idiots" category. By apparently relying on a German translation/distortion of Wolfowitz's words -- when multiple English-language sources of the actual comments were available -- I have to wonder if the Guardian is guilty of libel in this case.
What a ridiculous, and even dangerous newspaper the Guardian is.
Why do I write "dangerous"? Not because what they wrote about Wolfowitz might be libelous, although of course that would be bad enough. The reasons are two-fold. First, the Guardian is the primary newspaper in which the BBC advertises its job openings, and, secondly, the Guardian is generally considered "the newspaper of education" -- meaning it is the newspaper most preferred by teachers and university lecturers -- in the U.K.
So, those being the case, if people hired by the BBC read the Guardian primarily, and if British, uh, educators are feasting daily on nonsense like that -- most of which of course never gets blogged or uncovered -- it is hardly shocking that both groups are also dominated by those who believe the U.S. is a menace, and Bush/Cheney and the administration are the source of unmitigated evil.
And it makes it even less surprising that the British Association of University Teachers union makes public a union position on Israel that is so biased and anti-Israel (see my June 2 entry) that one would think it were authored by Iranian mullahs.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 05, 2003
NOT A GOOD PLACE TO HIDE FROM THE JACKBOOTED THUGS
Best of the Web Today had this yesterday, based on this original in the American Spectator:
John Kerry may be positively middle-of-the-road when compared with Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean, but The American Spectator Online makes clear that these things are relative. Last night, TASO reports, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam, "appeared on Park Avenue where a former Goldman Sachs partner hosted the likes of grand lefties Robert Downey, Sr. (the one who taught his kid how to smoke pot), Erica Jong, Norman Mailer, George Plimpton, movie director Robert Altman (who has still not moved out of the country), Carly Simon, and Candice Bergen."
So, that's where Bob is these days. Well, it must be better in the States than he thought. He could still move to France -- and I'm sure happily give away about 60 percent or more of his income to the French government. (Although, John Malkovich didn't much like doing that, it seems.)
But why go to all that trouble, really, when you can just prattle on about how evil America is . . . and yet still enjoy the benefits of living there!
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 05, 2003
Best of the Web Today had this yesterday, based on this original in the American Spectator:
John Kerry may be positively middle-of-the-road when compared with Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean, but The American Spectator Online makes clear that these things are relative. Last night, TASO reports, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam, "appeared on Park Avenue where a former Goldman Sachs partner hosted the likes of grand lefties Robert Downey, Sr. (the one who taught his kid how to smoke pot), Erica Jong, Norman Mailer, George Plimpton, movie director Robert Altman (who has still not moved out of the country), Carly Simon, and Candice Bergen."
So, that's where Bob is these days. Well, it must be better in the States than he thought. He could still move to France -- and I'm sure happily give away about 60 percent or more of his income to the French government. (Although, John Malkovich didn't much like doing that, it seems.)
But why go to all that trouble, really, when you can just prattle on about how evil America is . . . and yet still enjoy the benefits of living there!
¶ by Robert, Thursday, June 05, 2003
Wednesday, June 04, 2003
IRAQI MASS GRAVES V. U.S. DEATH CAMP
The Australian Herald Sun, recently made "world famous" for being the first major journal to label Guantanamo a "death camp" in the making has this to say on a mass children's grave found recently in northern Iraq:
A MASS grave containing the remains of 200 Kurdish children has been discovered in the northern Iraqi province of Kirkuk, the Kurdish newspaper Taakhi reported today.
"Citizens discovered on May 30 a communal grave close to Debs, in Kirkuk. But this is different from other mass graves discovered since the fall of Saddam Hussein's terrorist regime because it contains the remains of 200 child victims of the repression of the Kurdish uprising" in 1991, the paper said.
"Even dolls were buried with the children," it said.
Dozens of mass graves have been uncovered all over Iraq since Saddam's ouster by invading US-led forces on April 9.
Yeh, but those stinking, death camp building Americans are really first-class, oppressing, imperialist slaughterers of women and children, aren't they?
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
The Australian Herald Sun, recently made "world famous" for being the first major journal to label Guantanamo a "death camp" in the making has this to say on a mass children's grave found recently in northern Iraq:
A MASS grave containing the remains of 200 Kurdish children has been discovered in the northern Iraqi province of Kirkuk, the Kurdish newspaper Taakhi reported today.
"Citizens discovered on May 30 a communal grave close to Debs, in Kirkuk. But this is different from other mass graves discovered since the fall of Saddam Hussein's terrorist regime because it contains the remains of 200 child victims of the repression of the Kurdish uprising" in 1991, the paper said.
"Even dolls were buried with the children," it said.
Dozens of mass graves have been uncovered all over Iraq since Saddam's ouster by invading US-led forces on April 9.
Yeh, but those stinking, death camp building Americans are really first-class, oppressing, imperialist slaughterers of women and children, aren't they?
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
AND THEY SAID OUSTING HUSSEIN WOULD CHANGE NOTHING?
General Sharon, always a realist, senses an opportunity here . . . thanks to the U.S. Richard Cohen writes in the Washington Post:
. . .Bush changed the facts on the ground. At one time, the most critical of them was that Israel was surrounded by hostile nations. One by one, though, Arab state after Arab state dropped out of what was once a united front. Now Iraq is gone, too. The facts haven't been changed so much as obliterated.
No one recognized the new situation better than Sharon. He is a keen map reader, and the map has changed. He used to take visiting dignitaries on a helicopter tour of the country to show how exposed it was to foreign invasion -- Tel Aviv being little more than a sniper's shot from the West Bank. For this reason, it was imperative to establish settlements in the West Bank. The pious may have thought they were doing God's bidding, but Sharon -- a secular sort -- was simply looking at the terrain.
The settlements now serve no defensive purpose -- if they ever did. Jordan is not about to attack. Saudi Arabia has internal problems. Egypt has other concerns. Lebanon is a basket case. Syria remains menacing, but by itself it is no dire threat to Israel, and Iraq -- once fearsome -- is now, like the District of Columbia, run by the federal government. All has changed.
The result is that settlements that once were seen as an asset are now a burden -- an occupation. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is an occupation," Sharon told his fellow Likud Party members. "Holding 3.5 million Palestinians is a bad thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and for the Israeli economy."
To the dismay of many, Bush has so far proved effective because he has not shied from using force. He has shown he means what he says. When he said he wouldn't deal with Arafat, he didn't deal with him. When he said he would whack Iraq, he whacked it. When he said he would get involved in the peace process, he did. He not only can bang heads together, he will. His record so far says so. . .
The lesson: Don't mess with America's "Supreme Leader".
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
General Sharon, always a realist, senses an opportunity here . . . thanks to the U.S. Richard Cohen writes in the Washington Post:
. . .Bush changed the facts on the ground. At one time, the most critical of them was that Israel was surrounded by hostile nations. One by one, though, Arab state after Arab state dropped out of what was once a united front. Now Iraq is gone, too. The facts haven't been changed so much as obliterated.
No one recognized the new situation better than Sharon. He is a keen map reader, and the map has changed. He used to take visiting dignitaries on a helicopter tour of the country to show how exposed it was to foreign invasion -- Tel Aviv being little more than a sniper's shot from the West Bank. For this reason, it was imperative to establish settlements in the West Bank. The pious may have thought they were doing God's bidding, but Sharon -- a secular sort -- was simply looking at the terrain.
The settlements now serve no defensive purpose -- if they ever did. Jordan is not about to attack. Saudi Arabia has internal problems. Egypt has other concerns. Lebanon is a basket case. Syria remains menacing, but by itself it is no dire threat to Israel, and Iraq -- once fearsome -- is now, like the District of Columbia, run by the federal government. All has changed.
The result is that settlements that once were seen as an asset are now a burden -- an occupation. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is an occupation," Sharon told his fellow Likud Party members. "Holding 3.5 million Palestinians is a bad thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and for the Israeli economy."
To the dismay of many, Bush has so far proved effective because he has not shied from using force. He has shown he means what he says. When he said he wouldn't deal with Arafat, he didn't deal with him. When he said he would whack Iraq, he whacked it. When he said he would get involved in the peace process, he did. He not only can bang heads together, he will. His record so far says so. . .
The lesson: Don't mess with America's "Supreme Leader".
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
MORE "FAKE" MUSLIMS, OF COURSE
LGF has this originally from MSNBC.
LIVING IN Bridgeview, Ill., a middle-class suburb of Chicago, is a man the U.S. government calls a “designated global terrorist.” His name is Muhammed Salah.
In 1993, Salah confessed in Israel to raising money for Hamas’ suicide bombings and to training recruits in the United States in bomb-making and explosives. He now denies all that, saying he was tortured. But U.S. officials tell NBC News that Salah is one of about two dozen alleged Hamas operatives in the United States now under investigation by the FBI. . .
So these, then, must be some of those examples of Muslims who are making such positive contributions to American life and to the American body politic.
It is certainly good that so much is now coming out about such contributions. After all, being anti-Islamic, blinkered Judeo-Christian-centered bastards, Americans have never been willing to admit to the existence of such wholesome goodness and openness.
Such bigoted fools are we.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
LGF has this originally from MSNBC.
LIVING IN Bridgeview, Ill., a middle-class suburb of Chicago, is a man the U.S. government calls a “designated global terrorist.” His name is Muhammed Salah.
In 1993, Salah confessed in Israel to raising money for Hamas’ suicide bombings and to training recruits in the United States in bomb-making and explosives. He now denies all that, saying he was tortured. But U.S. officials tell NBC News that Salah is one of about two dozen alleged Hamas operatives in the United States now under investigation by the FBI. . .
So these, then, must be some of those examples of Muslims who are making such positive contributions to American life and to the American body politic.
It is certainly good that so much is now coming out about such contributions. After all, being anti-Islamic, blinkered Judeo-Christian-centered bastards, Americans have never been willing to admit to the existence of such wholesome goodness and openness.
Such bigoted fools are we.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
JUST SHUT UP AND TAKE YOUR STUPID NUROFEN, MATE!
Headline on BBC.co.uk: Hospital staff 'need abuse training'
One would hope they don't! ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
Headline on BBC.co.uk: Hospital staff 'need abuse training'
One would hope they don't! ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
BLOWS AGAINST LIBERTY?
Now, let's swing over to the evil, oil-stealing, misbehaving imperialist, occupying soldiers newsfront. Few can do a report like this better than the BBC:
Two British soldiers have been ordered out of Iraq after the alleged beating of Iraqi prisoners of war, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
One of the allegations is that a soldier punched a prisoner in the face and gave him a black eye.
In a separate development two Iraqi deaths which happened in the custody of British soldiers are also being investigated by military police.
It is understood the men were in the custody of soldiers from the Black Watch Regiment in Basra and died in separate incidents on 13 and 18 May.
An investigation is a matter of course for any death in custody and there is no evidence at this stage to suggest the men were mistreated. . .
Of course the BBC is inferring here (not that they ever would ever admit it, mind you) that the circumstances surrounding these events -- all together now! -- "raise questions."
Well, I have a question: Were the dead prisoners forced to watch BBC World at any time in the last hours of their lives?
If they were, that more than explains everything; they probably killed themselves.
One other thing: On two separate occasions in the last couple of years, in the heart of civilized London, my currently 8 year old nephew "fell" into walls at his primary school, and ended up with a black eye and nasty side of the head injuries.
No complete explanation for the "falls" was ever provided. However, there was never a hint that anyone from the Black Watch Regiment or the Royal Irish Regiment was involved.
However, school staff were not subjected to a thorough, public and transparent inquiry, despite my nephew's injuries having occurred while he was in the school staff's, uh, "custody".
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
Now, let's swing over to the evil, oil-stealing, misbehaving imperialist, occupying soldiers newsfront. Few can do a report like this better than the BBC:
Two British soldiers have been ordered out of Iraq after the alleged beating of Iraqi prisoners of war, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
One of the allegations is that a soldier punched a prisoner in the face and gave him a black eye.
In a separate development two Iraqi deaths which happened in the custody of British soldiers are also being investigated by military police.
It is understood the men were in the custody of soldiers from the Black Watch Regiment in Basra and died in separate incidents on 13 and 18 May.
An investigation is a matter of course for any death in custody and there is no evidence at this stage to suggest the men were mistreated. . .
Of course the BBC is inferring here (not that they ever would ever admit it, mind you) that the circumstances surrounding these events -- all together now! -- "raise questions."
Well, I have a question: Were the dead prisoners forced to watch BBC World at any time in the last hours of their lives?
If they were, that more than explains everything; they probably killed themselves.
One other thing: On two separate occasions in the last couple of years, in the heart of civilized London, my currently 8 year old nephew "fell" into walls at his primary school, and ended up with a black eye and nasty side of the head injuries.
No complete explanation for the "falls" was ever provided. However, there was never a hint that anyone from the Black Watch Regiment or the Royal Irish Regiment was involved.
However, school staff were not subjected to a thorough, public and transparent inquiry, despite my nephew's injuries having occurred while he was in the school staff's, uh, "custody".
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
WE ALL JUST NEED A BREAK
In the Weekly Standard, comedian Larry Miller shares something he thinks is going around. And it isn't SARS:
REMEMBER "Short Attention-Span Theater"? I think we're in it, and not on the audience side. I think we're the stars.
I don't believe this is just me, or a third of us, or even half of us. I think it's every American (not counting the fiercest partisans on the left and right, say, ten percent on both sides). What I'm getting at is . . .
Have you found yourself thinking about Iraq these days roughly as much as you think about Afghanistan, which is to say not that much, which is to say, frankly, not at all?
After so much passionate debating, thinking, and maneuvering for so many months, from the supermarkets to the offices to the talk shows, I think most Americans are either taking a breather from the big picture, or have just about had it. I have an image in my head of a stick-thin, all-black-clad writer at the Nation, and a chubby, Brooks Brothers-clad writer at National Review, both getting the latest, daily, thirty-page, small-print, CENTCOM report dropped on their desks, and both shoving it away, muttering, "Oh, Jeez," and then both calling out to the hallway, "Hey, anything new on Laci Peterson?"
And it's not just the pundits, it's all of us, and it happened so quickly, didn't it? One second we were arguing about whether or not the Turks were screwing us up in the North, and watching Baghdad Bob insist the sky was green. Next thing you know, we were all putting the kids to bed, strolling into the bedroom, picking up the remote . . . and not turning on Fox. ("Whatever you want, honey, just not one of those goofy decorating shows. Wait a minute, is this the one with the little Scottish blond? Okay.")
On Friday I got into the car after work and couldn't listen to any of the radio talk shows. I just couldn't. I tried one, then another, then another, then the first one again, and finally just turned the thing off. They all felt so . . . shrill. Redundant. Reaching too hard. Even NPR was so boring I couldn't get angry at it.
I don't even have the strength to get mad about the president going to France. And I would like to, I really would. I would love to fantasize about him giving Chirac a big Bugs Bunny kiss on the nose and saying, "That was from the American girlfriend you said you had 40 years ago." But I just feel so empty about it right now. Isn't that weird?. . .
The other thing that is clear is that it appears that Carol Smillie is making an, urrrrrr, impact on U.S. audiences. Larry is obviously watching.
I take this view -- it isn't so much a "short attention span" attack as a smaller scale version of what started to unfold about a month or so after September 11, 2001.
Everyone is, once again, just a bit worn and wants to laugh and pay attention to some silliness for a time. That's all.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
In the Weekly Standard, comedian Larry Miller shares something he thinks is going around. And it isn't SARS:
REMEMBER "Short Attention-Span Theater"? I think we're in it, and not on the audience side. I think we're the stars.
I don't believe this is just me, or a third of us, or even half of us. I think it's every American (not counting the fiercest partisans on the left and right, say, ten percent on both sides). What I'm getting at is . . .
Have you found yourself thinking about Iraq these days roughly as much as you think about Afghanistan, which is to say not that much, which is to say, frankly, not at all?
After so much passionate debating, thinking, and maneuvering for so many months, from the supermarkets to the offices to the talk shows, I think most Americans are either taking a breather from the big picture, or have just about had it. I have an image in my head of a stick-thin, all-black-clad writer at the Nation, and a chubby, Brooks Brothers-clad writer at National Review, both getting the latest, daily, thirty-page, small-print, CENTCOM report dropped on their desks, and both shoving it away, muttering, "Oh, Jeez," and then both calling out to the hallway, "Hey, anything new on Laci Peterson?"
And it's not just the pundits, it's all of us, and it happened so quickly, didn't it? One second we were arguing about whether or not the Turks were screwing us up in the North, and watching Baghdad Bob insist the sky was green. Next thing you know, we were all putting the kids to bed, strolling into the bedroom, picking up the remote . . . and not turning on Fox. ("Whatever you want, honey, just not one of those goofy decorating shows. Wait a minute, is this the one with the little Scottish blond? Okay.")
On Friday I got into the car after work and couldn't listen to any of the radio talk shows. I just couldn't. I tried one, then another, then another, then the first one again, and finally just turned the thing off. They all felt so . . . shrill. Redundant. Reaching too hard. Even NPR was so boring I couldn't get angry at it.
I don't even have the strength to get mad about the president going to France. And I would like to, I really would. I would love to fantasize about him giving Chirac a big Bugs Bunny kiss on the nose and saying, "That was from the American girlfriend you said you had 40 years ago." But I just feel so empty about it right now. Isn't that weird?. . .
The other thing that is clear is that it appears that Carol Smillie is making an, urrrrrr, impact on U.S. audiences. Larry is obviously watching.
I take this view -- it isn't so much a "short attention span" attack as a smaller scale version of what started to unfold about a month or so after September 11, 2001.
Everyone is, once again, just a bit worn and wants to laugh and pay attention to some silliness for a time. That's all.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
THE WATCHER OF FREEDOM
How's this for a job? The Irish Times reports on Ireland's new Ombudsman and Information Commissioner:
The new Ombudsman and Information Commissioner has said she will closely monitor the operation of the recently restricted Freedom of Information Act to ensure it is not used to bring unjustified secrecy to government and the public service. . .
Don't you just feel the freedom flowing already?
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
How's this for a job? The Irish Times reports on Ireland's new Ombudsman and Information Commissioner:
The new Ombudsman and Information Commissioner has said she will closely monitor the operation of the recently restricted Freedom of Information Act to ensure it is not used to bring unjustified secrecy to government and the public service. . .
Don't you just feel the freedom flowing already?
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
WHEW, WE ALMOST LOST "FIGHTING" JOHN
Australia's "Fighting" John Howard was considering retiring this July. Fortunately, it ain't gonna happen. The New Zealand Herald reports:
Australia's conservative Prime Minister John Howard today ended long-running speculation that he might retire this year, announcing that he intended to stay on as the country's leader.
Howard, who came to power in 1996, said he had given a lot of thought to his future after signalling three years ago that he would review his political career when he
turned 64 in July.
"While ever it remains in the party's best interests and my colleagues want me to, I'd be honoured to continue as leader," Howard said in a four-line statement.
Howard, who is enjoying record popularity after sending troops to the Iraq war and barring asylum seekers from Australian shores, has been in the national parliament for 29 years and been leader of the Liberal Party twice for a total of 12 years. . .
Come on, John. Nowadays, 64 is a spring chicken.
Why our 85 year old senator, Robert Byrd, did a cameo in the film "Gods and Generals." [NOTE: It has not yet been possible to substantiate rumors that Byrd was there in 1862, and was in fact just playing himself in the film.]
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
Australia's "Fighting" John Howard was considering retiring this July. Fortunately, it ain't gonna happen. The New Zealand Herald reports:
Australia's conservative Prime Minister John Howard today ended long-running speculation that he might retire this year, announcing that he intended to stay on as the country's leader.
Howard, who came to power in 1996, said he had given a lot of thought to his future after signalling three years ago that he would review his political career when he
turned 64 in July.
"While ever it remains in the party's best interests and my colleagues want me to, I'd be honoured to continue as leader," Howard said in a four-line statement.
Howard, who is enjoying record popularity after sending troops to the Iraq war and barring asylum seekers from Australian shores, has been in the national parliament for 29 years and been leader of the Liberal Party twice for a total of 12 years. . .
Come on, John. Nowadays, 64 is a spring chicken.
Why our 85 year old senator, Robert Byrd, did a cameo in the film "Gods and Generals." [NOTE: It has not yet been possible to substantiate rumors that Byrd was there in 1862, and was in fact just playing himself in the film.]
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
BUT WHY SHOULD A PASTOR HAVE TO BELIEVE IN GOD ANYWAY?
CNN reports that:
A Lutheran priest was suspended Tuesday after his remarks that God doesn't exist and there is no eternal life rankled many of his peers in Denmark's state church.
Thorkild Grosboel, the pastor of Taarbaek, a town of 51,000 just north of the capital, Copenhagen, said in a recent interview that "there is no heavenly God, there is no eternal life, there is no resurrection."
The claims have mystified church leaders in the Scandinavian country of 5.3 million, where about 85 percent of the population belongs to the state Evangelical Lutheran Church, yet just 5 percent attend church services regularly. . .
. . .[It is] up to the government's Ministry for Ecclesiastic Affairs to decide if Grosboel should be defrocked. In Denmark, Lutheran priests are employed by the state and bishops cannot fire them.
Many priests, including Tove Fergo, the minister for ecclesiastic affairs and a Lutheran priest herself, have said it's not possible to be a pastor without believing in the existence of God and the resurrection of Christ.
Others, however, including Mogens Lindhardt, the leader of Denmark's Theological College of Education, called Grosboel's claims "refreshing". . .
There you have Europe's problems presented in a nutshell.
1) Europe has increasingly given up practicing Christianity. So, why respect Christianity when so few go to church?
2) Perversely, in an increasingly irreligious and even overtly anti-religious Europe, the only religion worthy of respect seems to be Islam. But that's probably only because most people are more fearful of Islamists -- who do seem to attend "their religion's services" very, uh, regularly -- than they are of the increasing number of Christian pastors who make asinine comments, such as how they don't believe in God. (And don't even mention Judaism. Silly you. Jews are just supporters of the imperialist empire of Israel. On the other hand, those who hijack planes and crash them suicidally into skyscrapers represent a "religion of peace," one that is adding such beauty, grace and dignity to the gorgeous mosaic that is multicultural Europe.)
3) With so few regularly attending church, there is still often a state church anyway, providing people like the pastor with a ready platform from which to spout their views. Without an assured salary and such an official position, the likes of that pastor would be reduced to babbling like any screwball on a streetcorner . . . or to starting his own blog like the rest of us normal people.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
CNN reports that:
A Lutheran priest was suspended Tuesday after his remarks that God doesn't exist and there is no eternal life rankled many of his peers in Denmark's state church.
Thorkild Grosboel, the pastor of Taarbaek, a town of 51,000 just north of the capital, Copenhagen, said in a recent interview that "there is no heavenly God, there is no eternal life, there is no resurrection."
The claims have mystified church leaders in the Scandinavian country of 5.3 million, where about 85 percent of the population belongs to the state Evangelical Lutheran Church, yet just 5 percent attend church services regularly. . .
. . .[It is] up to the government's Ministry for Ecclesiastic Affairs to decide if Grosboel should be defrocked. In Denmark, Lutheran priests are employed by the state and bishops cannot fire them.
Many priests, including Tove Fergo, the minister for ecclesiastic affairs and a Lutheran priest herself, have said it's not possible to be a pastor without believing in the existence of God and the resurrection of Christ.
Others, however, including Mogens Lindhardt, the leader of Denmark's Theological College of Education, called Grosboel's claims "refreshing". . .
There you have Europe's problems presented in a nutshell.
1) Europe has increasingly given up practicing Christianity. So, why respect Christianity when so few go to church?
2) Perversely, in an increasingly irreligious and even overtly anti-religious Europe, the only religion worthy of respect seems to be Islam. But that's probably only because most people are more fearful of Islamists -- who do seem to attend "their religion's services" very, uh, regularly -- than they are of the increasing number of Christian pastors who make asinine comments, such as how they don't believe in God. (And don't even mention Judaism. Silly you. Jews are just supporters of the imperialist empire of Israel. On the other hand, those who hijack planes and crash them suicidally into skyscrapers represent a "religion of peace," one that is adding such beauty, grace and dignity to the gorgeous mosaic that is multicultural Europe.)
3) With so few regularly attending church, there is still often a state church anyway, providing people like the pastor with a ready platform from which to spout their views. Without an assured salary and such an official position, the likes of that pastor would be reduced to babbling like any screwball on a streetcorner . . . or to starting his own blog like the rest of us normal people.
¶ by Robert, Wednesday, June 04, 2003
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
AH, SUMMER VACATION
I can't believe I forgot to post this last week.
Where to go this summer? Dave Barry has these helpful suggestions regarding non-U.S. destinations:
Summer vacation season is almost here, and if you have kids, you know what that means! It's time to put them up for adoption.
No, sorry. I mean it's time to start planning your family summer vacation. This is your chance to escape ''the daily grind'' and spend quality time with your children, finding out what's new in their lives, what's on their minds, whether they have been arrested, etc. At night, after they fall asleep, you can check them for tattoos.
But where should you go for your vacation this year? According to the Association of Travel Agents Currently Starving To Death, the two most popular vacation destinations for Americans have historically been: (1) domestic, and (2) foreign. Which is right for you? This year, many Americans are worried about traveling abroad, but the fact is that, statistically, your chances of surviving a foreign vacation are well over 50 percent, as long as you follow the U.S. State Department's Travel Guidelines for U.S. Citizens:
• Avoid risky areas such as Asia, Europe, South America, Africa, Canada and Mexico.
• Do not touch anything.
• Do not breathe too much.
• Do not draw attention to the fact that you are American. Periodically remark in a loud voice: ``Our English is excellent, when you consider the fact that we are not Americans!''
• Try to ''blend in'' with the native population by: (1) weighing as little as possible; (2) smoking cigarettes; (3) not tipping; (4) not standing around frowning in total bafflement at street maps the size of tennis courts; (5) not asking the tour guide questions like: ``Does this museum have a bigger Mona Lisa?''. . .
And do have a nice trip.
Myself? My in-laws rented a house. So, my wife and I will be spending 5 days with them, along with my brother-in-law and sister-in-law and their children -- my niece and nephews (ages 7, 4 and a little more than 1 and a half -- the last one was born on . . . wait for it . . . September 11, 2001; I'll never forget HIS birthday!).
And all in France no less!
Well, at least Americans are this year even more welcome there than usual . . . .
. . .Ha! Just seeing if you are paying rapt attention!
P.S. Dave has been really on target in recent weeks. My wife and I used to pass regularly through Biggleswade and both Offord Cluny and Offord D'Arcy (And no, it was not named after that Darcy!) when we lived in Godmanchester. Yes, indeed, those are real places. Really, they are!
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 03, 2003
I can't believe I forgot to post this last week.
Where to go this summer? Dave Barry has these helpful suggestions regarding non-U.S. destinations:
Summer vacation season is almost here, and if you have kids, you know what that means! It's time to put them up for adoption.
No, sorry. I mean it's time to start planning your family summer vacation. This is your chance to escape ''the daily grind'' and spend quality time with your children, finding out what's new in their lives, what's on their minds, whether they have been arrested, etc. At night, after they fall asleep, you can check them for tattoos.
But where should you go for your vacation this year? According to the Association of Travel Agents Currently Starving To Death, the two most popular vacation destinations for Americans have historically been: (1) domestic, and (2) foreign. Which is right for you? This year, many Americans are worried about traveling abroad, but the fact is that, statistically, your chances of surviving a foreign vacation are well over 50 percent, as long as you follow the U.S. State Department's Travel Guidelines for U.S. Citizens:
• Avoid risky areas such as Asia, Europe, South America, Africa, Canada and Mexico.
• Do not touch anything.
• Do not breathe too much.
• Do not draw attention to the fact that you are American. Periodically remark in a loud voice: ``Our English is excellent, when you consider the fact that we are not Americans!''
• Try to ''blend in'' with the native population by: (1) weighing as little as possible; (2) smoking cigarettes; (3) not tipping; (4) not standing around frowning in total bafflement at street maps the size of tennis courts; (5) not asking the tour guide questions like: ``Does this museum have a bigger Mona Lisa?''. . .
And do have a nice trip.
Myself? My in-laws rented a house. So, my wife and I will be spending 5 days with them, along with my brother-in-law and sister-in-law and their children -- my niece and nephews (ages 7, 4 and a little more than 1 and a half -- the last one was born on . . . wait for it . . . September 11, 2001; I'll never forget HIS birthday!).
And all in France no less!
Well, at least Americans are this year even more welcome there than usual . . . .
. . .Ha! Just seeing if you are paying rapt attention!
P.S. Dave has been really on target in recent weeks. My wife and I used to pass regularly through Biggleswade and both Offord Cluny and Offord D'Arcy (And no, it was not named after that Darcy!) when we lived in Godmanchester. Yes, indeed, those are real places. Really, they are!
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 03, 2003
OH MY, DOES HE FACE A POTENTIAL, BLOODY COUP?
All the carping and sniping in the world does not alter this fact: Blair and Bush did NOT FAIL TO PROVE and do NOT HAVE TO PROVE that Saddam had WMDs. That was never THEIR job. It was SADDAM'S job to satisfy US (and he could have through the U.N.) that he did NOT have them.
Speaking of dictators, in general they tend to like to stay close to home. That has lots to do with the fact that if they travel, and their regime is teetering, they might find that they are no longer dictators when they get back to one of their palaces.
BBC headline: "Blair returns to growing unrest".
Clearly, he'd better watch his back.
You know, Tony being a dictator and all that . . . .
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 03, 2003
All the carping and sniping in the world does not alter this fact: Blair and Bush did NOT FAIL TO PROVE and do NOT HAVE TO PROVE that Saddam had WMDs. That was never THEIR job. It was SADDAM'S job to satisfy US (and he could have through the U.N.) that he did NOT have them.
Speaking of dictators, in general they tend to like to stay close to home. That has lots to do with the fact that if they travel, and their regime is teetering, they might find that they are no longer dictators when they get back to one of their palaces.
BBC headline: "Blair returns to growing unrest".
Clearly, he'd better watch his back.
You know, Tony being a dictator and all that . . . .
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 03, 2003
HE'S FOR REAL
Peter Maass writes that blogger Salam Pax is a real guy, and, yes, he's an Iraqi and lives in Iraq.
Instapundit adds this worthy thought:
. . .my Big Picture take is that when a journalist as good as Peter Maass can have Salam Pax as his interpreter and not figure it out until he's back in the States, we should take all the reporting from Baghdad as, at best, tentative.
Excellent.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 03, 2003
Peter Maass writes that blogger Salam Pax is a real guy, and, yes, he's an Iraqi and lives in Iraq.
Instapundit adds this worthy thought:
. . .my Big Picture take is that when a journalist as good as Peter Maass can have Salam Pax as his interpreter and not figure it out until he's back in the States, we should take all the reporting from Baghdad as, at best, tentative.
Excellent.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 03, 2003
TWO GAMES EACH
This is really getting good. Ducks 1, Devils 0, again in OT! ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 03, 2003
This is really getting good. Ducks 1, Devils 0, again in OT! ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 03, 2003
OKAY, WE KNOW ALREADY
Friends who visit this site regularly probably know that, yes, I am a Democrat who gets all warm and fuzzy at the mere mention of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (A man who died slightly more than 20 years before I was born.)
Of course, Best of the Web Today pointed out -- painfully! -- yesterday what most Democrats feel, although most can't bring themselves to say it. Doing so, brings tears to their eyes.
"One man with courage makes a majority."--Andrew Jackson
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin Roosevelt
"The buck stops here."--Harry Truman
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."--John Kennedy
We've evolved into this:
"I appreciate Sen. Kerry saying we don't need Bush Lite, and we don't. But, Sen. Kerry, we don't want Dean Lite, either."--Howard Dean
"The one thing this country doesn't need is a second Republican Party."--John Kerry
"The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe."--Dennis Kucinich
"What we need in this party is not just people who talk about backbone, but people who have it."--Dean
"When I was in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1968, I learned what it was to work with an aircraft carrier for real."--Kerry
"This administration tells people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and then they take away our boots."--Kucinich
"I can personally say that I am the only person running for the presidency of the United States that knows what it's like to stand up without being able to go to the bathroom for five hours."--Dean
(By the way, I don't care that President Bush is not on the list for some of his verbal malconstructions. That's not the point. We are discussing Democrats here.) At least Joe Lieberman isn't on this list. So there's a faint glimmer of hope.
If not, well, America is a republic. There'll be another election in 2008, even if assorted nutcases actually have convinced themselves that President Bush staged a coup d'etat in 2000.
Anyway, the following man has declared!
. . .Yes, I am running for president. And this time around, I do not intend to be cheated out of victory the way I was in the 2000 election, when the so-called ''U.S. Supreme Court,'' defying the clear wishes of the American people, failed to declare me the winner, on the so-called ''legal grounds'' that I did not receive any so-called ''votes". . .
. . .I know I face an uphill battle. President Bush is a popular leader. He was visibly bulging with leadership recently when he put on that flight suit and landed in a military jet on an aircraft carrier. Oh, sure, the Democrats charged that this was just a publicity stunt and not militarily necessary, because at the time, the carrier was tied to a dock in San Diego. But as White House spokeshuman Ari Fleischer pointed out: ''It was tied loosely, and we didn't want to take chances". . .
. . .I am willing to invade any nation that I suspect might be hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction, real or imaginary, starting with Syria and then moving outward in a gradually expanding radius until we reach Bermuda. So I think we can all agree that, leadershipwise, I stack up pretty well against President Bush.
''But" . . . you are saying, ''what about the Democrats?''
Excuse me for laughing until I drool on your shoes, but have you seen the Democrats? There are something like 375 of them running, including somebody named ''Dennis.'' Like we would ever elect a president named ''Dennis.''
No, the Democrats have a stature problem. While President Bush is striding manfully around aircraft carriers, the Democrats are clustered together in ''candidate forums'' wherein they shout at each other about senior-citizen dental benefits in front of a nationwide TV audience consisting entirely of their spouses.
NOTE TO SENIOR CITIZENS: I'm not suggesting that your dental benefits are unimportant! As your president, I will take care of your teeth personally. You can mail them to me at the White House. . .
America has Dave Barry in the race. All will be well.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 03, 2003
Friends who visit this site regularly probably know that, yes, I am a Democrat who gets all warm and fuzzy at the mere mention of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (A man who died slightly more than 20 years before I was born.)
Of course, Best of the Web Today pointed out -- painfully! -- yesterday what most Democrats feel, although most can't bring themselves to say it. Doing so, brings tears to their eyes.
"One man with courage makes a majority."--Andrew Jackson
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin Roosevelt
"The buck stops here."--Harry Truman
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."--John Kennedy
We've evolved into this:
"I appreciate Sen. Kerry saying we don't need Bush Lite, and we don't. But, Sen. Kerry, we don't want Dean Lite, either."--Howard Dean
"The one thing this country doesn't need is a second Republican Party."--John Kerry
"The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe."--Dennis Kucinich
"What we need in this party is not just people who talk about backbone, but people who have it."--Dean
"When I was in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1968, I learned what it was to work with an aircraft carrier for real."--Kerry
"This administration tells people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and then they take away our boots."--Kucinich
"I can personally say that I am the only person running for the presidency of the United States that knows what it's like to stand up without being able to go to the bathroom for five hours."--Dean
(By the way, I don't care that President Bush is not on the list for some of his verbal malconstructions. That's not the point. We are discussing Democrats here.) At least Joe Lieberman isn't on this list. So there's a faint glimmer of hope.
If not, well, America is a republic. There'll be another election in 2008, even if assorted nutcases actually have convinced themselves that President Bush staged a coup d'etat in 2000.
Anyway, the following man has declared!
. . .Yes, I am running for president. And this time around, I do not intend to be cheated out of victory the way I was in the 2000 election, when the so-called ''U.S. Supreme Court,'' defying the clear wishes of the American people, failed to declare me the winner, on the so-called ''legal grounds'' that I did not receive any so-called ''votes". . .
. . .I know I face an uphill battle. President Bush is a popular leader. He was visibly bulging with leadership recently when he put on that flight suit and landed in a military jet on an aircraft carrier. Oh, sure, the Democrats charged that this was just a publicity stunt and not militarily necessary, because at the time, the carrier was tied to a dock in San Diego. But as White House spokeshuman Ari Fleischer pointed out: ''It was tied loosely, and we didn't want to take chances". . .
. . .I am willing to invade any nation that I suspect might be hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction, real or imaginary, starting with Syria and then moving outward in a gradually expanding radius until we reach Bermuda. So I think we can all agree that, leadershipwise, I stack up pretty well against President Bush.
''But" . . . you are saying, ''what about the Democrats?''
Excuse me for laughing until I drool on your shoes, but have you seen the Democrats? There are something like 375 of them running, including somebody named ''Dennis.'' Like we would ever elect a president named ''Dennis.''
No, the Democrats have a stature problem. While President Bush is striding manfully around aircraft carriers, the Democrats are clustered together in ''candidate forums'' wherein they shout at each other about senior-citizen dental benefits in front of a nationwide TV audience consisting entirely of their spouses.
NOTE TO SENIOR CITIZENS: I'm not suggesting that your dental benefits are unimportant! As your president, I will take care of your teeth personally. You can mail them to me at the White House. . .
America has Dave Barry in the race. All will be well.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, June 03, 2003
Monday, June 02, 2003
NAME THAT ENEMY SUPPORTER
. . .incursions of Israeli forces into the Palestinian areas of jurisdiction directly affects universities, colleges and other educational institutions.
More directly affected are their staff and students, as well as trade unionists, all of whom have been among those killed and injured. . .
. . .We are affiliated to the Trade Union Friends of Palestine, and urge our members and local associations to support the aims of that organisation.
. . .We also urge our local associations to establish links with Palestinian universities, including campaigning for formal twinning arrangements . . . to support colleagues and students there, and resist the narrowing of their opportunities and suppression of their academic freedom by the oppression of the occupation. . .
That masterpiece comes from:
A) the government of Syria
B) the government of Lebanon (which is occupied by Syria, thus meaning that the government of Lebanon is actually found in Damascus, not Beirut)
C) the government of Iran
D) the British Association of University Teachers (AUT)
And the answer is:
D.
That LGF has taken this directly from the British Association of University Teachers union web site is none too surprising. It has been well-known for some time that all major unions (being usually so left wing that communists often look moderate) in Britain are decidedly anti-Israel.
Thus the AUT is just oh, so PROUD to tell us which side they are on.
But I like that bit at the bottom of their page. It seems they don't like being called "anti-Semitic".
Okay, I promise not to call them that. I don't want any hurt feelings.
So how about this?
Enemy-supporting, slugs.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
. . .incursions of Israeli forces into the Palestinian areas of jurisdiction directly affects universities, colleges and other educational institutions.
More directly affected are their staff and students, as well as trade unionists, all of whom have been among those killed and injured. . .
. . .We are affiliated to the Trade Union Friends of Palestine, and urge our members and local associations to support the aims of that organisation.
. . .We also urge our local associations to establish links with Palestinian universities, including campaigning for formal twinning arrangements . . . to support colleagues and students there, and resist the narrowing of their opportunities and suppression of their academic freedom by the oppression of the occupation. . .
That masterpiece comes from:
A) the government of Syria
B) the government of Lebanon (which is occupied by Syria, thus meaning that the government of Lebanon is actually found in Damascus, not Beirut)
C) the government of Iran
D) the British Association of University Teachers (AUT)
And the answer is:
D.
That LGF has taken this directly from the British Association of University Teachers union web site is none too surprising. It has been well-known for some time that all major unions (being usually so left wing that communists often look moderate) in Britain are decidedly anti-Israel.
Thus the AUT is just oh, so PROUD to tell us which side they are on.
But I like that bit at the bottom of their page. It seems they don't like being called "anti-Semitic".
Okay, I promise not to call them that. I don't want any hurt feelings.
So how about this?
Enemy-supporting, slugs.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
SEAN'S BEING IMPERSONATED
Sean Penn needs to know that his name's being used as a cover.
And I thought prison authorities knew never to allow Ted to sit too long at a computer that has Word, Adobe Acrobat AND internet access.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
Sean Penn needs to know that his name's being used as a cover.
And I thought prison authorities knew never to allow Ted to sit too long at a computer that has Word, Adobe Acrobat AND internet access.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
HE'S MADE IT TO IRAQ AT LAST
Mark Steyn is alive and . . . finally got to Iraq. You just know this is gonna be good:
. . .I'm pleased to report, then, that the obscene Oil For Food programme has been radically privatised. In much of Iraq, the government petrol stations have been pillaged and the gas pumps stripped of their metal panels so that they stand on two thin metal pins, their hoses hanging loose, like R2D2 before he goes in for a service. Instead, entrepreneurial Iraqis stand along the roadside with small tanks of mysteriously acquired petrol. Heading back to Jordan, I pulled up in the desert. "How much for a fill-up?" I asked.
"Ten dollars," the man said.
"I've only got a 20," I said.
"That's good," he said. "Bush," he added, pointing to the picture of Andrew Jackson on the bill.
"Close enough," I said. Afterwards, he wanted another 20 for his seven-year-old boy. I'm a softie but not that soft, so I fished out a Canadian 20.
"What this?" he said suspiciously. "American one dollar?" He pointed to the Queen's portrait. "Who this?"
"George Washington," I said.
He'll have a hard job getting rid of the Canadian but that Yankee 20 he'll change in one of the stores back in town and he'll do himself and the local economy more good than the UN's bloated boondoggle ever will.
Of course, this is only one guy's experience of Iraq. But I'd like to think that it's catching on.
In Ramadi, in another cafe, the maitre d', in honour of my presence, flipped the television over to BBC World. Some Beeb type was doing a piece about some Baghdadi who hadn't been paid since March. Now what sort of fellow hasn't been paid since March? A chap who worked for the toppled thug government perhaps? Might be a committed thug ideologue, might be just a go-along-to-get-along type. But, given that the new Iraqi government is never going to be as huge as the old one, maybe that chap should just stop whining to the BBC and look for a gig in the private sector. Ditto for the BBC reporter, come to that.
As usual, the piece wound up with the correspondent standing in the children's ward of the Saddam Hussein Medical Centre predicting more doom and gloom. By contrast, every medical facility I went to in Iraq was well short of capacity. The NGO types concede that Iraqis aren't exactly rushing the hospitals, but say that's because they know that there are no drugs and/or they're worried that they can't afford them. Might be that. Or it might be that they don't want to be stuck on a ward trying to get a moment's sleep under the blazing lights of round-the-clock CNN and BBC camera crews filming their reporter yakking away in front of a telegenic moppet whose acute tonsillitis is somehow all Rumsfeld's fault. These days, I always laugh my head off at BBC World reports. And, in that Ramadi cafe, I was touched to find that, even though most of them hadn't a clue what he was going on about, within half a minute, the rest of the crowd was roaring along with me. . .
All that is towards the end. It makes sense to start at the beginning, of course.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
Mark Steyn is alive and . . . finally got to Iraq. You just know this is gonna be good:
. . .I'm pleased to report, then, that the obscene Oil For Food programme has been radically privatised. In much of Iraq, the government petrol stations have been pillaged and the gas pumps stripped of their metal panels so that they stand on two thin metal pins, their hoses hanging loose, like R2D2 before he goes in for a service. Instead, entrepreneurial Iraqis stand along the roadside with small tanks of mysteriously acquired petrol. Heading back to Jordan, I pulled up in the desert. "How much for a fill-up?" I asked.
"Ten dollars," the man said.
"I've only got a 20," I said.
"That's good," he said. "Bush," he added, pointing to the picture of Andrew Jackson on the bill.
"Close enough," I said. Afterwards, he wanted another 20 for his seven-year-old boy. I'm a softie but not that soft, so I fished out a Canadian 20.
"What this?" he said suspiciously. "American one dollar?" He pointed to the Queen's portrait. "Who this?"
"George Washington," I said.
He'll have a hard job getting rid of the Canadian but that Yankee 20 he'll change in one of the stores back in town and he'll do himself and the local economy more good than the UN's bloated boondoggle ever will.
Of course, this is only one guy's experience of Iraq. But I'd like to think that it's catching on.
In Ramadi, in another cafe, the maitre d', in honour of my presence, flipped the television over to BBC World. Some Beeb type was doing a piece about some Baghdadi who hadn't been paid since March. Now what sort of fellow hasn't been paid since March? A chap who worked for the toppled thug government perhaps? Might be a committed thug ideologue, might be just a go-along-to-get-along type. But, given that the new Iraqi government is never going to be as huge as the old one, maybe that chap should just stop whining to the BBC and look for a gig in the private sector. Ditto for the BBC reporter, come to that.
As usual, the piece wound up with the correspondent standing in the children's ward of the Saddam Hussein Medical Centre predicting more doom and gloom. By contrast, every medical facility I went to in Iraq was well short of capacity. The NGO types concede that Iraqis aren't exactly rushing the hospitals, but say that's because they know that there are no drugs and/or they're worried that they can't afford them. Might be that. Or it might be that they don't want to be stuck on a ward trying to get a moment's sleep under the blazing lights of round-the-clock CNN and BBC camera crews filming their reporter yakking away in front of a telegenic moppet whose acute tonsillitis is somehow all Rumsfeld's fault. These days, I always laugh my head off at BBC World reports. And, in that Ramadi cafe, I was touched to find that, even though most of them hadn't a clue what he was going on about, within half a minute, the rest of the crowd was roaring along with me. . .
All that is towards the end. It makes sense to start at the beginning, of course.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
SURE, THIS WILL CLEAR THE AIR
The BBC reports:
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has rejected the growing calls for an inquiry into government claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Calls for an inquiry were made after ex-cabinet minister Clare Short said Prime Minister Tony Blair had "duped" the country into going to war.
And another former cabinet minister, Robin Cook, who resigned over the war, said the government had clearly sent troops into battle "on the basis of a mistake" and an inquiry should be held.
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said only a special Commons select committee inquiry could end the "rumour and recrimination".
And the Conservatives said they were giving "serious consideration" to whether to call for an independent inquiry. . .
There you have it: Two political has-beens who refuse to leave quietly for consulting jobs, one spokesman for an often loopy third party, which holds as its most consistent position (other than that in favor of the decriminalization of cannabis -- in all seriousness, the Lib Dems themselves tell us that the case is, um, "growing" for reform) endless worries about the administration headed confidently by America's smiling "Supreme Leader," and lastly an official opposition that supported the war even more forcefully than the Blair government did (Blair: We will hit Saddam HARD. Conservative leader Smith responds: Well, if we were in charge, we'd hit Saddam TWICE as hard as Blair wants to!), are all now trying to score political points on the phony WMD issue.
And we are supposed to take these people seriously?
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
The BBC reports:
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has rejected the growing calls for an inquiry into government claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Calls for an inquiry were made after ex-cabinet minister Clare Short said Prime Minister Tony Blair had "duped" the country into going to war.
And another former cabinet minister, Robin Cook, who resigned over the war, said the government had clearly sent troops into battle "on the basis of a mistake" and an inquiry should be held.
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said only a special Commons select committee inquiry could end the "rumour and recrimination".
And the Conservatives said they were giving "serious consideration" to whether to call for an independent inquiry. . .
There you have it: Two political has-beens who refuse to leave quietly for consulting jobs, one spokesman for an often loopy third party, which holds as its most consistent position (other than that in favor of the decriminalization of cannabis -- in all seriousness, the Lib Dems themselves tell us that the case is, um, "growing" for reform) endless worries about the administration headed confidently by America's smiling "Supreme Leader," and lastly an official opposition that supported the war even more forcefully than the Blair government did (Blair: We will hit Saddam HARD. Conservative leader Smith responds: Well, if we were in charge, we'd hit Saddam TWICE as hard as Blair wants to!), are all now trying to score political points on the phony WMD issue.
And we are supposed to take these people seriously?
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
I WENT TO A RIOT AND A CONFERENCE BROKE OUT
We all know by now that all those anti-globalist guys and gals are utterly appalled by the supposed imperialism and oppression that is globalization, etc., yeh, yeh. . .
But it's curious how most of them also love travelling. They are always backpacking or flying somewhere -- anywhere from Portland, Oregon, to backroads Thailand, or central Prague, or wherever.
On BBC News 24's "Gate 24" travel program on Sunday, host Gwenan Edwards reported from the Taj Mahal. (No, not the one in Atlantic City, New Jersey!)
The place is getting overrun with tourists, domestic and foreign alike. Pollution is also causing damage to the structure. What the local authorities have done is introduce a two-tier entrance fee -- for locals it is a pittance, but for "International travelers" it is something more than £ 5. Some of those international travellers don't much like that.
Now I'm not saying there is a direct link between the anti-globalizing rioters over the weekend in Geneva and tourists at the Taj Mahal. But consider this.
If it weren't for globalization, most international travellers would NEVER get to the Taj Mahal. Technology -- mass air travel, cheap land travel, cell phones, etc. -- have made it possible for anyone with a few dollars or sterling in their pockets, and who yearns to "get out there," to do so. (Remember the two Japanese tourists who'd been so out of touch with the news, that in making their way into the historic Bethlehem they wanted to see, they wandered right into the middle of fighting near the Church of the Nativity in April 2002?) We can now venture to distant places our great-grandfather might have gotten to as a sailor, a soldier or a missionary, and maybe our great-grandmother would perhaps been lucky to get the chance to join him. They never imagined being able to click over to Lastminute.com to book a 2 week holiday in the Seychelles. (For most people, for most of human history, "tourism" as we now know it, was only a dream -- if they ever thought about it at all. Most of our great-grandparents were far more concerned with simply, uh, eating.)
Yet in going to the Taj Mahal today, some clearly resent that they -- mostly very well-to-do people from industrial democracies, compared with the mass of Indians -- have to pay more for the privilege of doing so.
Some are probably just cheapskates and don't want to pay a little more. However, it is also likely that some are angry that everyone who yearns to "get out there" nowadays can realistically actually do so. But that is only because globalization has made the world they wish to roam and see and experience increasingly accessible, which in turn naturally means that places like the Taj Mahal will charge more to those who can clearly afford to pay because so many people can get there to see them.
There, in short, is one great snapshot of the inconsistencies that beset the anti-globalization rioters and agitators.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
We all know by now that all those anti-globalist guys and gals are utterly appalled by the supposed imperialism and oppression that is globalization, etc., yeh, yeh. . .
But it's curious how most of them also love travelling. They are always backpacking or flying somewhere -- anywhere from Portland, Oregon, to backroads Thailand, or central Prague, or wherever.
On BBC News 24's "Gate 24" travel program on Sunday, host Gwenan Edwards reported from the Taj Mahal. (No, not the one in Atlantic City, New Jersey!)
The place is getting overrun with tourists, domestic and foreign alike. Pollution is also causing damage to the structure. What the local authorities have done is introduce a two-tier entrance fee -- for locals it is a pittance, but for "International travelers" it is something more than £ 5. Some of those international travellers don't much like that.
Now I'm not saying there is a direct link between the anti-globalizing rioters over the weekend in Geneva and tourists at the Taj Mahal. But consider this.
If it weren't for globalization, most international travellers would NEVER get to the Taj Mahal. Technology -- mass air travel, cheap land travel, cell phones, etc. -- have made it possible for anyone with a few dollars or sterling in their pockets, and who yearns to "get out there," to do so. (Remember the two Japanese tourists who'd been so out of touch with the news, that in making their way into the historic Bethlehem they wanted to see, they wandered right into the middle of fighting near the Church of the Nativity in April 2002?) We can now venture to distant places our great-grandfather might have gotten to as a sailor, a soldier or a missionary, and maybe our great-grandmother would perhaps been lucky to get the chance to join him. They never imagined being able to click over to Lastminute.com to book a 2 week holiday in the Seychelles. (For most people, for most of human history, "tourism" as we now know it, was only a dream -- if they ever thought about it at all. Most of our great-grandparents were far more concerned with simply, uh, eating.)
Yet in going to the Taj Mahal today, some clearly resent that they -- mostly very well-to-do people from industrial democracies, compared with the mass of Indians -- have to pay more for the privilege of doing so.
Some are probably just cheapskates and don't want to pay a little more. However, it is also likely that some are angry that everyone who yearns to "get out there" nowadays can realistically actually do so. But that is only because globalization has made the world they wish to roam and see and experience increasingly accessible, which in turn naturally means that places like the Taj Mahal will charge more to those who can clearly afford to pay because so many people can get there to see them.
There, in short, is one great snapshot of the inconsistencies that beset the anti-globalization rioters and agitators.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
IS IT REALLY TRUE?
A headline on BBC.co.uk announces: "Europe goes to Mars".
Oh, good -- especially if Jacques and Gerhard lead the way.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
A headline on BBC.co.uk announces: "Europe goes to Mars".
Oh, good -- especially if Jacques and Gerhard lead the way.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
NO ONE THREW ANYTHING AT ME, AT LEAST
Yesterday, at my nephew's First Communion at our church here in London, I did a reading, and later also handled the general bidding prayers ("We pray for all world leaders to do the right thing. . . Lord have mercy," etc, and so on.)
My wife joked that the congregation now knows for sure they have an American lurking among them.
Oh my gosh.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
Yesterday, at my nephew's First Communion at our church here in London, I did a reading, and later also handled the general bidding prayers ("We pray for all world leaders to do the right thing. . . Lord have mercy," etc, and so on.)
My wife joked that the congregation now knows for sure they have an American lurking among them.
Oh my gosh.
¶ by Robert, Monday, June 02, 2003
Sunday, June 01, 2003
WE'VE GOT US A GOOD SERIES
Nice game three: Ducks 3, Devils 2 in OT.
Looking forward to game four! ¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 01, 2003
Nice game three: Ducks 3, Devils 2 in OT.
Looking forward to game four! ¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 01, 2003
WE HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE FOLKS
In Britain, there is a direct correlation between the number of a former minister's quotes in the media and their lack of any meaningful influence on government policy. In short -- no pun intended -- the more often a politician is quoted, the less actual influence that politician really has.
Of course, I am speaking here mostly of "His Gnomeness" Robin Cook and, especially, uh, "Her Resignationness" -- Clare Short.
Now, for the 118,438th time: It was never Tony Blair's and George Bush's job to have to convince us that Saddam had WMDs. The reason is this: Saddam used them in the past, and after the 1991 defeat he was supposed to come clean with us under the United Nations' inspection regime.
So it was Saddam who was supposed to convince us that he did not have WMDs.
Yet, Saddam continued to behave as if HE DID have them.
Okay, so, we decided to take HIM at HIS WORD on that.
Now, if he did have loads of them, they will be found eventually. But if he didn't have loads of them, but chose to behave as if HE DID, when a huge army was poised to strike and bring his regime down because WE took HIM at HIS word . . . then he was a rank IDIOT. He played chicken with superpowers and lost.
And after September 11, 2001, no one is going to play chicken with the U.S. again. Civilized people around the world have seen what can happen if such gameplaying is permitted, and if we fail to take our enemies -- the "Kill all Americans!" "Slaughter the Infidels!" "Bring many tears to their Evil American Mothers!" crowd -- at THEIR word.
Call it the "New Realism" policy: If you repeatedly chant about how you want to slaughter us all, we will then realistically assume that you mean to try to do just that.
Moving right along . . . .
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 01, 2003
In Britain, there is a direct correlation between the number of a former minister's quotes in the media and their lack of any meaningful influence on government policy. In short -- no pun intended -- the more often a politician is quoted, the less actual influence that politician really has.
Of course, I am speaking here mostly of "His Gnomeness" Robin Cook and, especially, uh, "Her Resignationness" -- Clare Short.
Now, for the 118,438th time: It was never Tony Blair's and George Bush's job to have to convince us that Saddam had WMDs. The reason is this: Saddam used them in the past, and after the 1991 defeat he was supposed to come clean with us under the United Nations' inspection regime.
So it was Saddam who was supposed to convince us that he did not have WMDs.
Yet, Saddam continued to behave as if HE DID have them.
Okay, so, we decided to take HIM at HIS WORD on that.
Now, if he did have loads of them, they will be found eventually. But if he didn't have loads of them, but chose to behave as if HE DID, when a huge army was poised to strike and bring his regime down because WE took HIM at HIS word . . . then he was a rank IDIOT. He played chicken with superpowers and lost.
And after September 11, 2001, no one is going to play chicken with the U.S. again. Civilized people around the world have seen what can happen if such gameplaying is permitted, and if we fail to take our enemies -- the "Kill all Americans!" "Slaughter the Infidels!" "Bring many tears to their Evil American Mothers!" crowd -- at THEIR word.
Call it the "New Realism" policy: If you repeatedly chant about how you want to slaughter us all, we will then realistically assume that you mean to try to do just that.
Moving right along . . . .
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 01, 2003
SEND IN THE CROWDS
It's been a long time since I last read The Innocents Abroad. But I vaguely remember Mark Twain noting how sparsely populated the Holy Land was. You could travel for miles without seeing anyone at all.
I haven't been to Israel and/or the disputed territories, but I'm told by people who have that nowadays, it's absolutely jammed.
And we are also forever hearing about how all the land was stolen from non-Jews, after Israel was created in 1948-49.
So, according to Twain, in the mid-later 19th century, very few people, Jew or non-Jew alike, actually seemed to be living on most of it. . . .
Hmmmm. . . .
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 01, 2003
It's been a long time since I last read The Innocents Abroad. But I vaguely remember Mark Twain noting how sparsely populated the Holy Land was. You could travel for miles without seeing anyone at all.
I haven't been to Israel and/or the disputed territories, but I'm told by people who have that nowadays, it's absolutely jammed.
And we are also forever hearing about how all the land was stolen from non-Jews, after Israel was created in 1948-49.
So, according to Twain, in the mid-later 19th century, very few people, Jew or non-Jew alike, actually seemed to be living on most of it. . . .
Hmmmm. . . .
¶ by Robert, Sunday, June 01, 2003
