Maybe it's just a slow news day, but there were quite a few inspirational/interesting stories in the Metro section of this morning's Dallas Morning News.
Spat with mom is one for the books - Pre-teen gets mad at her mom, writes a novel about what it would be like to run away and sells several hundred copies. There's a website at www.runawayhotel.com and a portion of the proceeds goes to CITY House, a Plano shelter for teens.
Making sure their cups runneth over too - The Rev. Joel Pulis starts a church specifically to cater to the mentally handicapped who wouldn't normally be welcome in most other churches. (It made me wonder what the Jewish perspective on disruptive people at services is?)
What makes FW safer than Dallas? - Dallas is the 5th most dangerous city and Fort Worth is the 9th safest despite the fact that they are less than an hour apart by car. Is is just a matter of a half-penny tax directed toward fighting crime?
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Saturday, December 31, 2005
The NY Times begins the New Year with more leaks about the "domestic spying" program.
The top deputy to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft refused two years ago to approve important parts of the secret program that allows domestic eavesdropping without warrants, prompting two leading White House aides to try to win the needed approval from Mr. Ashcroft himself while he was hospitalized after a gall bladder operation, according to officials knowledgeable about the episode.
With Mr. Ashcroft recuperating from gall bladder surgery in March 2004, his deputy, James B. Comey, who was then acting as attorney general, was unwilling to give his certification to crucial aspects of the classified program, as required under the procedures set up by the White House, said the officials, who asked for anonymity because the program is classified and they are not authorized to discuss it publicly.
Are they not authorized to discuss it publicly, but authorized to discuss it with newspaper reporters? A more appropriate description would probably be that they are not supposed to divulge this information to anyone. If I were to try that crap with MY employer's confidential information, I'd be in jail faster than you can say Benedict Arnold.
Of course there's also the possibility that as Acting Attorney General, Mr. Comey didn't feel it was his place to make an important decision on the program when the Attorney General was fully capable of making a determination in his stable, non-life threatening condition at the hospital.
I'm a little confused by this story in general in that the program had been in place for about 2 1/2 years at the time, supposedly with the knowldge and frequent review of the Justice Department - yet there is no explanation of why the Justice Department would suddenly be concerned with specific aspects of the program.
The most important aspect of the article for me is this - which in my opinion should have been the headline:
"...The Justice Department...oversaw an audit..on the program.
----------
UPDATE from Newsweek to appear in their January 9th issue:
Also, Newsweek reports that the domestic program targets 500 Americans a day. This is somewhat misleading in that the original December 16 report by the NY Times says that 500 persons in the United States (an unknown number of whom may be Americans) were monitored at any given time.
The top deputy to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft refused two years ago to approve important parts of the secret program that allows domestic eavesdropping without warrants, prompting two leading White House aides to try to win the needed approval from Mr. Ashcroft himself while he was hospitalized after a gall bladder operation, according to officials knowledgeable about the episode.
With Mr. Ashcroft recuperating from gall bladder surgery in March 2004, his deputy, James B. Comey, who was then acting as attorney general, was unwilling to give his certification to crucial aspects of the classified program, as required under the procedures set up by the White House, said the officials, who asked for anonymity because the program is classified and they are not authorized to discuss it publicly.
Are they not authorized to discuss it publicly, but authorized to discuss it with newspaper reporters? A more appropriate description would probably be that they are not supposed to divulge this information to anyone. If I were to try that crap with MY employer's confidential information, I'd be in jail faster than you can say Benedict Arnold.
Of course there's also the possibility that as Acting Attorney General, Mr. Comey didn't feel it was his place to make an important decision on the program when the Attorney General was fully capable of making a determination in his stable, non-life threatening condition at the hospital.
I'm a little confused by this story in general in that the program had been in place for about 2 1/2 years at the time, supposedly with the knowldge and frequent review of the Justice Department - yet there is no explanation of why the Justice Department would suddenly be concerned with specific aspects of the program.
The most important aspect of the article for me is this - which in my opinion should have been the headline:
"...The Justice Department...oversaw an audit..on the program.
The audit examined a selection of cases to see how the N.S.A. went about determining that it had probable cause to believe that someone in the United States, including American citizens, had sufficient ties to Al Qaeda to justify the extraordinary step of eavesdropping on their phone calls and e-mail messages without a court warrant. That review is not known to have found any instances of documented abuses.
You mean with Bush's lust for power, he didn't even target one person by mistake? Not one political enemy? I knew he was incompetent, but this is ridiculous - he doesn't even know how to abuse power correctly!----------
UPDATE from Newsweek to appear in their January 9th issue:
On one day in the spring of 2004, White House chief of staff Andy Card and the then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales made a bedside visit to John Ashcroft, attorney general at the time, who was stricken with a rare and painful pancreatic disease, to try—without success—to get him to reverse his deputy, Acting Attorney General James Comey, who was balking at the warrantless eavesdropping. Miffed that Comey, a straitlaced, by-the-book former U.S. attorney from New York, was not a "team player" on this and other issues, President George W. Bush dubbed him with a derisive nickname, "Cuomo," after Mario Cuomo, the New York governor who vacillated over running for president in the 1980s. (The White House denies this; Comey declined to comment.)"
Also, Newsweek reports that the domestic program targets 500 Americans a day. This is somewhat misleading in that the original December 16 report by the NY Times says that 500 persons in the United States (an unknown number of whom may be Americans) were monitored at any given time.
Freed British hostage to remain in Gaza
A 25-year-old British human rights worker kidnapped and later released by Palestinian gunmen in the Gaza Strip will stay in the region, her family said on Saturday....
“Kate remains committed and passionate about working alongside the Palestinians to improve their external image and alleviate the difficult conditions being suffered by the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.”
I tried for a while to come up with an insightful comment to this story, but I just couldn't. These people have such a different mindset than I do that I can't even begin to fathom what motivates them. You can check out the organization that Kate Burton works for here.
The only comment I will make to those who might go to that link is to please recognize that Israeli actions are presented totally out of context as always being random acts of violence and Palestinian "militants" who are targeted by Israelis are just "citizens", etc.
A 25-year-old British human rights worker kidnapped and later released by Palestinian gunmen in the Gaza Strip will stay in the region, her family said on Saturday....
“Kate remains committed and passionate about working alongside the Palestinians to improve their external image and alleviate the difficult conditions being suffered by the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.”
I tried for a while to come up with an insightful comment to this story, but I just couldn't. These people have such a different mindset than I do that I can't even begin to fathom what motivates them. You can check out the organization that Kate Burton works for here.
The only comment I will make to those who might go to that link is to please recognize that Israeli actions are presented totally out of context as always being random acts of violence and Palestinian "militants" who are targeted by Israelis are just "citizens", etc.
Friday, December 30, 2005
A story by Tom Lasseter of Knight-Ridder informs us (or at least leaves the impression) that all Iraqi army units with Kurdish troops don't care about Iraq at all as a unified nation and are ready to kill their Arab comrades in order to create an independent Kurdistan.
The soldiers said that while they wore Iraqi army uniforms they still considered themselves members of the Peshmerga - the Kurdish militia - and were awaiting orders from Kurdish leaders to break ranks. Many said they wouldn't hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades, especially Arabs, if a fight for an independent Kurdistan erupted... The Kurds have readied their troops not only because they've long yearned to establish an independent state but also because their leaders expect Iraq to disintegrate, senior leaders in the Peshmerga -
literally, "those who face death" - told Knight Ridder... The interviews with Kurdish troops, however, suggested that as the American military transfers more bases and areas of control to Iraqi units, it may be handing the nation to militias that are bent more on
advancing ethnic and religious interests than on defeating the insurgency and preserving national unity.
Iraqi officials denied that the story was representative of Iraqi troops. (Althought my gut feeling so far is to believe the reporter, I find it a little disconcerting that he has the byline on this report that criticizes his own work - needless to say he takes the opportunity to rebut the official's comments).
In October, Lasseter reported a similar story about how Shiites in the Iraqi army are only loyal to their own kind.
A week spent eating, sleeping and going on patrol with a crack unit of the Iraqi army - the 4,500-member 1st Brigade of the 6th Iraqi Division - suggests that (Bush's) strategy is in serious trouble. Instead of rising above the ethnic tension that's tearing their nation apart, the
mostly Shiite troops are preparing for, if not already fighting, a civil war against the minority Sunni population.... Day to day, the Iraqi officers mostly run their own show, carrying out most of the patrols and running checkpoints without help. Increasingly, however, they look and operate less like an Iraqi national army unit and more like a Shiite militia.
It is very hard to counter this kind of first person reporting - the best I could do was to try and find other examples of Lasseter's reporting on Iraq and see if I could detect any type of bias.
I will say that this report from an article he wrote in 2003 disturbed me:
Last Thursday, residents in At Agilia - a village north of Baghdad - said two of their farmers and five others from another village wre killed when U.S. soldiers shot them while they were watering their fields of sunflowers, tomatoes and cucumbers.
I just can't believe that U.S. soldiers would take potshots at farmers watering their crops. Even if I were to belive that this was possible, I am bothered by the uncritical reporting. At least try and get a "no comment" from the military if you believe that your countrymen are massacring innocent civilians. There don't seem to be any corroborating or conflicting reports on the internet regarding this incident. (I wonder if this type of thing counts in the quoted estimates of Iraqis killed in the war, although I couldn;t find it on iraqibodycount.net.)
In July 2004, Lasseter was embedded with U.S. troops and reported on their low morale:
Staff Sgt. A.J. Dean was on the same stretch of road a couple of nights later, and his tone was similar to Tilley’s. "I don’t have any idea of what we’re trying to do out here.
Sure, we need someone to counter happy talk from the Government, but a little balance is in order when reporting appears in the news section and not the editorial section.
The soldiers said that while they wore Iraqi army uniforms they still considered themselves members of the Peshmerga - the Kurdish militia - and were awaiting orders from Kurdish leaders to break ranks. Many said they wouldn't hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades, especially Arabs, if a fight for an independent Kurdistan erupted... The Kurds have readied their troops not only because they've long yearned to establish an independent state but also because their leaders expect Iraq to disintegrate, senior leaders in the Peshmerga -
literally, "those who face death" - told Knight Ridder... The interviews with Kurdish troops, however, suggested that as the American military transfers more bases and areas of control to Iraqi units, it may be handing the nation to militias that are bent more on
advancing ethnic and religious interests than on defeating the insurgency and preserving national unity.
Iraqi officials denied that the story was representative of Iraqi troops. (Althought my gut feeling so far is to believe the reporter, I find it a little disconcerting that he has the byline on this report that criticizes his own work - needless to say he takes the opportunity to rebut the official's comments).
In October, Lasseter reported a similar story about how Shiites in the Iraqi army are only loyal to their own kind.
A week spent eating, sleeping and going on patrol with a crack unit of the Iraqi army - the 4,500-member 1st Brigade of the 6th Iraqi Division - suggests that (Bush's) strategy is in serious trouble. Instead of rising above the ethnic tension that's tearing their nation apart, the
mostly Shiite troops are preparing for, if not already fighting, a civil war against the minority Sunni population.... Day to day, the Iraqi officers mostly run their own show, carrying out most of the patrols and running checkpoints without help. Increasingly, however, they look and operate less like an Iraqi national army unit and more like a Shiite militia.
It is very hard to counter this kind of first person reporting - the best I could do was to try and find other examples of Lasseter's reporting on Iraq and see if I could detect any type of bias.
I will say that this report from an article he wrote in 2003 disturbed me:
Last Thursday, residents in At Agilia - a village north of Baghdad - said two of their farmers and five others from another village wre killed when U.S. soldiers shot them while they were watering their fields of sunflowers, tomatoes and cucumbers.
I just can't believe that U.S. soldiers would take potshots at farmers watering their crops. Even if I were to belive that this was possible, I am bothered by the uncritical reporting. At least try and get a "no comment" from the military if you believe that your countrymen are massacring innocent civilians. There don't seem to be any corroborating or conflicting reports on the internet regarding this incident. (I wonder if this type of thing counts in the quoted estimates of Iraqis killed in the war, although I couldn;t find it on iraqibodycount.net.)
In July 2004, Lasseter was embedded with U.S. troops and reported on their low morale:
Sgt. 1st Class James Tilley was on patrol on the road outside Ramadi later
that afternoon, sitting in his Humvee for an hour or two in one spot - sweating
profusely in the 105-degree heat - before moving a few hundred yards down the
road to another place.
The patrol is designed to ward off insurgents from trying to put bombs in the
road.
Staff Sgt. A.J. Dean was on the same stretch of road a couple of nights later, and his tone was similar to Tilley’s. "I don’t have any idea of what we’re trying to do out here.
I don’t know what the (goal) is, and I don’t think our commanders do either," he said. "I feel deceived personally. I don’t trust anything (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld says, and I think (Deputy Defense Secretary Paul) Wolfowitz is even dirtier."
Lasseter's reporting is extremely interesting in that there is no reason to doubt its veracity, yet when you look at polls regarding Iraqi optimism about their future or U.S. Army re-enlistment rates showing that soldiers believe in what they're doing, it can only make one question whether the reporter has an agenda and seeks out controversial opinions and reports them as universal truths.Sure, we need someone to counter happy talk from the Government, but a little balance is in order when reporting appears in the news section and not the editorial section.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Like most articles I've read against Bush's assumed powers, there's a lot of platitudes about violating the constitution, scare tactics about law-abiding citizens being targted, etc. but little in the way of legal argument. In fact, it is the total lack of scholarship and hyerbole that undermines the seriousness of the piece.
First of all, Schneier claimes that, "The New York Times exposed the most significant violation of federal surveillance law in the post-Watergate era. President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to engage in domestic spying, wiretapping thousands of Americans and bypassing the legal procedures regulating this activity."
Actually what the article claimed was that 500 people are monitored at any given time but that the number "may have reached into the thousands" as names are dropped and added to the list. Notice that Schneier confidently proclaims "thousands of Americans", while the Times spoke about "Americans and others inside the United States" without clarifying what percentage of those persons were actually citizens, resident aliens, etc.
Secondly, Schneier adds the following:
Yoo then says: "The terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, were surely far graver a threat to the national security of the United States than the 1998 attacks. ... The President's power to respond militarily to the later attacks must be correspondingly broader."
This is novel reasoning. It's as if the police would have greater powers when investigating a murder than a burglary.
My first thought was that I would think the police DO have greater powers when investigating a murder - that just seems like common sense to me. I couldn't find anything easily about policing powers within the U.S., perhaps because our policing structure is so complicated. I did find the following from Canada's Department of Justice:
Law enforcement and national security agencies conduct investigations with the aid of certain techniques, one of which is lawful access.
For the police, this involves the lawful interception of communications and the lawful search and seizure of information, including computer data. Lawful access is a specialized tool used to investigate serious crimes, such as drug trafficking, money laundering, smuggling, child pornography, and murder.
So there ARE civilized places in the world where the police are granted stronger powers for serious crimes.
I'm too tired to write anymore, so you'll have to trust me when I say that I saw a similar item relating to police powers in the U.K.
I am still waiting to read a level-headed, factual critique of the Bush policy.
I am what one might call a fan, but not an idolizer of Woody Allen. His new movie Match Point is out, and it's got A.O. Scott of the NY Times saying nice things:
In "Match Point," his most satisfying film in more than a decade, the director once again brings the bad news, delivering it with a light, sure touch. This is a Champagne cocktail laced with strychnine. You would have to go back to the heady, amoral heyday of Ernst Lubitsch or Billy Wilder to find cynicism so deftly turned into superior entertainment.
Now to be honest, even though we were born within a month of each other and both graduated from Ivy League schools, I don't really understand what Mr. Scott is referring to, but it seems like he enjoyed the film. All those familiar with Ernst Lubitsch's work, raise their hand! I think I've heard of Billy Wilder at least.
Anyway, the film stars Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as a former tennis pro with Scarlett Johansson as an American actress. Now, I guess it's not much of a strecth for an actress to play an actress, but since we're talking about the hottest Jewish actress of this nascent century, I am less inclined to care. A.O. Scott continues...
Mr. Rhys-Meyers has an unusual ability to keep the audience guessing, to draw us into sympathetic concord even as we're trying to figure him out. Is he a cipher or a sociopath? A careful social climber or a reckless rake? The first clue that he may be something other than a mild, well-mannered sidekick comes when Chris meets Tom's fiancée, an American actress named Nola Rice (Scarlett Johansson), in a scene that raises the movie's temperature from a polite simmer to a full sexual boil.
----------
“Men think I may be something special,” she tells him, in one of their first flirtatious conversations.
“Well, are you?”
“No one has ever asked for their money back.”
----------
By the way, Roger Ebert also liked it, and he's the only critic who's opinion counts as far as I'm concerned.
“Match Point" has a good chance, I suspect, of being his biggest box office success since "Annie Hall" and "Hannah and Her Sisters."
Opening in New York and L.A., you lucky devils.
In "Match Point," his most satisfying film in more than a decade, the director once again brings the bad news, delivering it with a light, sure touch. This is a Champagne cocktail laced with strychnine. You would have to go back to the heady, amoral heyday of Ernst Lubitsch or Billy Wilder to find cynicism so deftly turned into superior entertainment.
Now to be honest, even though we were born within a month of each other and both graduated from Ivy League schools, I don't really understand what Mr. Scott is referring to, but it seems like he enjoyed the film. All those familiar with Ernst Lubitsch's work, raise their hand! I think I've heard of Billy Wilder at least.
Anyway, the film stars Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as a former tennis pro with Scarlett Johansson as an American actress. Now, I guess it's not much of a strecth for an actress to play an actress, but since we're talking about the hottest Jewish actress of this nascent century, I am less inclined to care. A.O. Scott continues...
Mr. Rhys-Meyers has an unusual ability to keep the audience guessing, to draw us into sympathetic concord even as we're trying to figure him out. Is he a cipher or a sociopath? A careful social climber or a reckless rake? The first clue that he may be something other than a mild, well-mannered sidekick comes when Chris meets Tom's fiancée, an American actress named Nola Rice (Scarlett Johansson), in a scene that raises the movie's temperature from a polite simmer to a full sexual boil.
----------
“Men think I may be something special,” she tells him, in one of their first flirtatious conversations.
“Well, are you?”
“No one has ever asked for their money back.”
----------
By the way, Roger Ebert also liked it, and he's the only critic who's opinion counts as far as I'm concerned.
“Match Point" has a good chance, I suspect, of being his biggest box office success since "Annie Hall" and "Hannah and Her Sisters."
Opening in New York and L.A., you lucky devils.
Monday, December 26, 2005
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
Thanks, Bill Clinton!
Great character actor, Vincent Schaivelli, famous for his role as a subway ghost in the movie Ghost, has passed away at age 57. You may want to start looking up from your paper while riding the E train late at night.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Pasadena Mall Displays XMas Tree, Bans Menorah
Paseo Colorado, the open-air mall in Pasadena, has become the latest battlefield in the nation's culture wars, though this time, it's Jews -- not conservative Christians -- who are crying foul.
To the disappointment of local Jews, the management of Paseo Colorado is banishing an annual Hanukkah menorah display, saying religious symbols are not appropriate at the shopping center, the Pasadena Star-News reported Thursday.
But Paseo will continue to feature its towering Christmas tree, which the management says is not a religious symbol, according to the newspaper.
The mall has displayed the 13-foot-tall menorah for the past three years.
No more Hanukkah menorahs!!!! Everrrrrrr!!!!!!!
Happy Holidays!
Pasadena Mall Displays XMas Tree, Bans Menorah
Paseo Colorado, the open-air mall in Pasadena, has become the latest battlefield in the nation's culture wars, though this time, it's Jews -- not conservative Christians -- who are crying foul.
To the disappointment of local Jews, the management of Paseo Colorado is banishing an annual Hanukkah menorah display, saying religious symbols are not appropriate at the shopping center, the Pasadena Star-News reported Thursday.
But Paseo will continue to feature its towering Christmas tree, which the management says is not a religious symbol, according to the newspaper.
The mall has displayed the 13-foot-tall menorah for the past three years.
No more Hanukkah menorahs!!!! Everrrrrrr!!!!!!!
Happy Holidays!
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
I haven't done a good fisking in a long time. This anti-Bush tirade by former Senator Gary Hart is defintiely worth the time and effort. I will excerpt the parts I find objectionable below. More proof that Democrats and their leaders just aren't to be taken seriously. I am still waiting for an analysis that is heavier on facts than on emotional outbursts.
Intelligence abuse déjà vu
The Senate had impaneled the committee because of increasing reports of abuse of authority by the country's myriad intelligence agencies under the Nixon administration as well as previous administrations.
"As well as previous administrations"? What the hell is that? It must be in the Democrat style manual that one should never put a bad word like "abuse" and "Johnson" or "Kennedy" in the same sentence.
In some cases, the intelligence services even turned violent. The CIA, for instance, conducted the infamous Phoenix program that resulted in the systematic assassination of thousands of Vietnamese villagers accused of collaborating with the Viet Cong. This was the 1970s version of Abu Ghraib.
Wow. Do I even have to even explain how these are not similar? Thousands of governement approved extrajudicial assassinations versus a handful of prisoners that were abused by rogue prison guards? And don't even give me any of that "Rumsfeld atmosphere" crap because 99.9% of our military prison guards have not seen it fit to violently abuse their charges.
Our committee's work resulted in many reforms. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 required special intelligence courts to approve national security wiretaps. The Bush administration, however, has found that statute inconvenient and, predictably, has ignored it.
And the Clinton administration. And the Carter administration. When we were not at war.
Again to support the CIA, our panel laid the groundwork for the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act that prevented identification of CIA operatives. This was the act that now appears to have been violated by at least half of the Bush White House in its demented efforts to punish Ambassador Joe Wilson by "outing" his undercover wife.
A prolonged investigation by a special prosecutor which led to exactly zero indictments for illegally "outing" someone isn't enough to prevent the claim that "half of the White House" was involved in a said "demented" scheme. Um, can you say...slander? And for the last time, she was NOT undercover.
If there was one lesson all of us who served on the Church Committee learned, it was that there are no secrets, that everything comes out and that the sacrifice of liberty is almost never justified by improved security.
Why the use of the modifier "almost" Senator? Is it so impossible to believe that the extremely limited "troublesome" surveillance that took place falls into that category when we're fighting an enemy that we know works inside our own borders, wears no uniforms and needs very few people to kill thousands of your fellow citizens? I'd like to know what exceptions he thinks there are.
It must finally understand that our security cannot be ensured by sacrifice of our own liberties.
The Patriot Act and other presidential directives are meant to provide additional paths for the gathering of intelligence, NOT to restrict anyone's liberties. There's a difference. An analogy (bad perhaps) - giving highway cops radar guns does not take away our liberties - it helps the police to determine if people are breaking the law.
All of these wonderful reforms that Senator Hart worked on took place before the actions of a few dozen men could be a real threat to national security, and before the invention of laptop computers, cell phones, satellite phones, portable phones, e-mail, etc. Congress should be coming up with novel ways to improve our intelligence gathering, not fossilizing reforms from a different era.
The Church Committee that the Senator took part in, did an amazing job in detailing and categorizing abuses that seem absolutely incredible by today's standards. Comentary on the specific policies that he finds offensive, backed up with examples, would have been much more meaningful than painting the Bush administration with such a broad brush. Reading the Church report, Bush still appears like a saint in comparison to his predecessors.
Intelligence abuse déjà vu
The Senate had impaneled the committee because of increasing reports of abuse of authority by the country's myriad intelligence agencies under the Nixon administration as well as previous administrations.
"As well as previous administrations"? What the hell is that? It must be in the Democrat style manual that one should never put a bad word like "abuse" and "Johnson" or "Kennedy" in the same sentence.
In some cases, the intelligence services even turned violent. The CIA, for instance, conducted the infamous Phoenix program that resulted in the systematic assassination of thousands of Vietnamese villagers accused of collaborating with the Viet Cong. This was the 1970s version of Abu Ghraib.
Wow. Do I even have to even explain how these are not similar? Thousands of governement approved extrajudicial assassinations versus a handful of prisoners that were abused by rogue prison guards? And don't even give me any of that "Rumsfeld atmosphere" crap because 99.9% of our military prison guards have not seen it fit to violently abuse their charges.
Our committee's work resulted in many reforms. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 required special intelligence courts to approve national security wiretaps. The Bush administration, however, has found that statute inconvenient and, predictably, has ignored it.
And the Clinton administration. And the Carter administration. When we were not at war.
Again to support the CIA, our panel laid the groundwork for the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act that prevented identification of CIA operatives. This was the act that now appears to have been violated by at least half of the Bush White House in its demented efforts to punish Ambassador Joe Wilson by "outing" his undercover wife.
A prolonged investigation by a special prosecutor which led to exactly zero indictments for illegally "outing" someone isn't enough to prevent the claim that "half of the White House" was involved in a said "demented" scheme. Um, can you say...slander? And for the last time, she was NOT undercover.
If there was one lesson all of us who served on the Church Committee learned, it was that there are no secrets, that everything comes out and that the sacrifice of liberty is almost never justified by improved security.
Why the use of the modifier "almost" Senator? Is it so impossible to believe that the extremely limited "troublesome" surveillance that took place falls into that category when we're fighting an enemy that we know works inside our own borders, wears no uniforms and needs very few people to kill thousands of your fellow citizens? I'd like to know what exceptions he thinks there are.
It must finally understand that our security cannot be ensured by sacrifice of our own liberties.
The Patriot Act and other presidential directives are meant to provide additional paths for the gathering of intelligence, NOT to restrict anyone's liberties. There's a difference. An analogy (bad perhaps) - giving highway cops radar guns does not take away our liberties - it helps the police to determine if people are breaking the law.
All of these wonderful reforms that Senator Hart worked on took place before the actions of a few dozen men could be a real threat to national security, and before the invention of laptop computers, cell phones, satellite phones, portable phones, e-mail, etc. Congress should be coming up with novel ways to improve our intelligence gathering, not fossilizing reforms from a different era.
The Church Committee that the Senator took part in, did an amazing job in detailing and categorizing abuses that seem absolutely incredible by today's standards. Comentary on the specific policies that he finds offensive, backed up with examples, would have been much more meaningful than painting the Bush administration with such a broad brush. Reading the Church report, Bush still appears like a saint in comparison to his predecessors.
If the guys over at B&H Photo (otherwise known as Beards and Hats), can say Merry Christmas, so can you!
A Christmas Mitzvah
The salesman listened to this story, then said he’d see what he could do. He went back to his computer and rechecked the inventory. Sure enough, he found a discounted MP3 player he had overlooked, and even marked it down a notch to $50.
A Christmas Mitzvah
The salesman listened to this story, then said he’d see what he could do. He went back to his computer and rechecked the inventory. Sure enough, he found a discounted MP3 player he had overlooked, and even marked it down a notch to $50.
“Take it to the checkout,” he directed my grateful wife. “And Merry Christmas.”
Via Powerline.
From Bloomberg News:
One of the lawmakers who was briefed on the surveillance program, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, yesterday released a copy of a July 17, 2003, handwritten letter to Vice President Richard Cheney, expressing ``concerns'' after he was first briefed about the program that day. ``Clearly, the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues,'' Rockefeller, a West Virginia lawmaker, wrote in the letter. ``I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.''
--------------------
From the Washington Times:
If Mr. Rockefeller had these concerns, Mr. Roberts (Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence- Senator Pat Roberts) said, he could have raised them with him or other members of Congress who had been briefed on the program. "I have no recollection of Senator Rockefeller objecting to the program at the many briefings he and I attended together," Mr. Roberts said. "In fact, it is my recollection that on many occasions Senator Rockefeller expressed to the vice president his vocal support for the program," most recently, "two weeks ago."
Jay Rockefeller was right in the first place - this is just not that important an issue that everyone has to go around screaming like Chicken Little. It the new practices did indeed represent a whiff of fascism from the White House, he should have done more than scribble a vague CYA memo to Cheney and then present it two and a half years later as some kind of proof that he's a great fighter for civil liberties.
The Jerusalem Post asks it's readers, "Is there no limit to the abuse we as a nation will tolerate in the name of open-mindedness?"
Israeli Arab MK (Member of the Knesset/Parliament) Azmi Bishara told a group of students in Lebanon last week that Israel's founding is the greatest act of thievery in the 20th century.
"I will never recognize Zionism, even if all other Arabs do," he said. "I will never concede Palestine. The battle is still long."
Bishara spoke about the "1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel," who he said "are like all other Arabs, but with Israeli citizenship forced upon them…We are the original residents of Palestine, not those who came from Poland and Russia."
The Israeli Knesset member then addressed the Jews of Israel, saying, "Return Palestine to us and take your democracy with you. We Arabs are not interested in it."
Speaking truth to power, or treason? To me, if you believe Israel has the right to exist, you have to send the guy packing. What he's saying is not that much different that what the President of Iran says when he declares that the Jews should move to Alaska.
"I propose a budget amendment to the State of Israel to pay for a one-way ticket to Alaska for all Jews! I wish I would have thought of that first. Damn."
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
After seeing about half a dozen links to this video on the 'net, I finally gave in and watched it. I haven't watched a complete episode of Saturday Night Live since sometime in the last century, but if the quality today is anything like this, I have to start watching again.
The Chronic - les of Narnia Rap
The Chronic - les of Narnia Rap
Andy Borowitz reports on a misguided effort to appease critics on U.S. war policy.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today acknowledged that the United States often flies terror suspects to foreign countries to be interrogated by means not allowed in the U.S., but said that the government was instituting a new program by which the suspects would receive frequent flier miles for their journeys.
Insiders say that the government’s new Terror Rewards™ program may be intended to make the practice of rendering – by which suspects are shuttled from country to country for the purpose of interrogation and torture – more palatable to the international community.......
He said that due to the volume of former terror suspects calling the customer service helpline to redeem their awards, the wait time is often “interminable.”
“I was put on hold for over forty-five minutes yesterday,” Mr. Hawass said. “Talk about torture.”
Ouch.
From Israellycool, Bill Clinton finds new ways to embarrass himself publicly. After watching this, I really feel his pain.
Click here to see former US President Bill Clinton singing Imagine with 16-year-old Israeli-Swiss singer Liel.
The former leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, singing (badly) John Lennon's "Imagine" in front of a worldwide audience. "Imagine there's no countries...".
Sounds like the Iranian president's credo...Imagine there's no (Jewish/Infidel) countries, it isn't hard to doooo....
Monday, December 19, 2005
It is inexcusable for the United States Senate to let this Patriot Act expire....
It (leaking NSA operations) is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly....
Straight talk like that leads directly to this....
President's Approval Rating Rebounds
Bush's overall approval rating rose to 47 percent, up from 39 percent in early November....A clear majority, 56 percent, said they approve of the way Bush is handling the fight against terrorism...A majority now believes the war has contributed positively to the long-term security of the country....Sixty percent said the United States is making significant progress in restoring civil order in Iraq, a 26 percentage-point increase since November, and 65 percent said the United States is making significant progress in establishing a democratic government there. Almost three in four (71 percent) said last week's election brought the country closer to the day when U.S. forces can be withdrawn.Now consider that this poll was taken before last night's speech and today's press conference, I wouldn't be surprised to see the numbers jump even more.
Iran was already scary place, but there was hope in recent years that the moderates would slowly take over.
Not Anymore. Iran's President Bans Western Music
Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned Western music from Iran's radio and TV stations, reviving one of the harshest cultural decrees from the early days of 1979 Islamic Revolution...The official IRAN Persian daily reported Monday that Ahmadinejad, as head of Iran's Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, ordered the enactment of an October ruling by the council to ban Western music.
Forget about what he thinks he wants to do to us or the Israelis, it's the people of Iran who are suffereing. Look he's giving us the finger, just like the old man in the picture did 25 years ago. Dear G-d, Lord of the Universe, please do not let liberals stand in the way of whichever individual or country decides to take him out first. Someone's going to have to do better than this.
Don't worry liberal American media, just turn up the "Hung Up" single from Madonna's new album on your U2 special edition iPod. That way you can ignore the screams of your colleagues in Iran and still send frown beams to the Iranian president. Mmmm, mmm, love that Abba sample.....
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Much has been said about the "War on Christmas". Whatever your stance, I hope everyone agrees that the following is ridiculous and a potential insult to Christians...I wish I had my camera.
I went to my favorite store this afternoon, Central Market in Plano, to do some food shopping. As you walk in, there's a sign that festively proclaims "8 MORE DAYS TO THE HOLIDAY"! "The Holiday?!?" It's called Christmas! Say "Happy Holidays" or "Whatever you do, this Bud's for you", but using "The Holiday" in place of what is obviously Christmas is horrible. First of all, it's obviously a made up, corporate sentiment - not something that any thinking human being would say to another. "Hey, Tony....Only 8 more days to The Holiday, bought all the presents yet?"
If I were Christian, I'd also be insulted that my holiday (you know the one celebrated by 90% of Central Market's customers) is on par with Voldemort in the pantheon of things so evil that it is not to be named.
I went to my favorite store this afternoon, Central Market in Plano, to do some food shopping. As you walk in, there's a sign that festively proclaims "8 MORE DAYS TO THE HOLIDAY"! "The Holiday?!?" It's called Christmas! Say "Happy Holidays" or "Whatever you do, this Bud's for you", but using "The Holiday" in place of what is obviously Christmas is horrible. First of all, it's obviously a made up, corporate sentiment - not something that any thinking human being would say to another. "Hey, Tony....Only 8 more days to The Holiday, bought all the presents yet?"
If I were Christian, I'd also be insulted that my holiday (you know the one celebrated by 90% of Central Market's customers) is on par with Voldemort in the pantheon of things so evil that it is not to be named.
The Union for Reform Judaism, representing the largest branch of Judaism in the United States, has voted to officially have a critical, anti-war stance and has written President Bush telling him so.
First of all, I don't think any organization pretending to represent a religious organization of Jews has any place making political decisions on behalf of it's dues-paying members. This is what the AJC, ADL, AIPAC and a whole host of other organizations are for.
Secondly, the fact that the URJ's letter to the President states that "no one would claim that Reform Jews across the country are of one view regarding the war (or, frankly, anything else!)", just proves that the egos of the movement's leadership are the driving force in Reform Judaism.
What makes me laugh about all this is that the URJ claims they need to, "...fulfill the responsibility of our prophetic tradition (by) addressing the great moral issues of our day." (So now Rabbi Yoffie is a prophet!) It goes on to criticize the entire war effort, how it was planned, how it is paid for, how it makes people worry. Of course, these are not moral issues, but politics. How can they pretend to be the moral compass of Reform Judaism without addressing the butcher, Saddam Hussein and the fact that tens of millions of his subjects are now free and live in a democracy? How do they not address the fact that we removed a government that sent missles into the heart of Tel Aviv, paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and haboured Jew-killers? I don't care if you're anti-war, but don't tell me this is not at least part of the moral equation - especially for a Jewish organization!
On top of all that, the first moral problem the URJ condemns in it's letter is the President's "lack of transparency". This during the same week that we read in the Torah that Jacob tricked his father into giving him Esau's blessing. Hey, according to my bible, lying is OK as long as it serves a larger purpose or G-d's will. Did G-d lie when he sent Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, knowing that in the end it wouldn't happen? Was that OK? How about a d'var torah on that Rabbi Yoffie?
If the leadership of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (USCJ) ever served up this kind of crap, I would stop attending my synagogue and paying dues right now until they de-affiliated.
Rabbi Marc Gellman chimes in against his own movement which is how I came to find this in the first place.
First of all, I don't think any organization pretending to represent a religious organization of Jews has any place making political decisions on behalf of it's dues-paying members. This is what the AJC, ADL, AIPAC and a whole host of other organizations are for.
Secondly, the fact that the URJ's letter to the President states that "no one would claim that Reform Jews across the country are of one view regarding the war (or, frankly, anything else!)", just proves that the egos of the movement's leadership are the driving force in Reform Judaism.
What makes me laugh about all this is that the URJ claims they need to, "...fulfill the responsibility of our prophetic tradition (by) addressing the great moral issues of our day." (So now Rabbi Yoffie is a prophet!) It goes on to criticize the entire war effort, how it was planned, how it is paid for, how it makes people worry. Of course, these are not moral issues, but politics. How can they pretend to be the moral compass of Reform Judaism without addressing the butcher, Saddam Hussein and the fact that tens of millions of his subjects are now free and live in a democracy? How do they not address the fact that we removed a government that sent missles into the heart of Tel Aviv, paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and haboured Jew-killers? I don't care if you're anti-war, but don't tell me this is not at least part of the moral equation - especially for a Jewish organization!
On top of all that, the first moral problem the URJ condemns in it's letter is the President's "lack of transparency". This during the same week that we read in the Torah that Jacob tricked his father into giving him Esau's blessing. Hey, according to my bible, lying is OK as long as it serves a larger purpose or G-d's will. Did G-d lie when he sent Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, knowing that in the end it wouldn't happen? Was that OK? How about a d'var torah on that Rabbi Yoffie?
If the leadership of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (USCJ) ever served up this kind of crap, I would stop attending my synagogue and paying dues right now until they de-affiliated.
Rabbi Marc Gellman chimes in against his own movement which is how I came to find this in the first place.
Rudy Giuliani - "How quickly we forget."
I am hoping that the Senators who voted to block the Patriot Act revision are doing it just to score political points and that after further debate it will be reinstated. Given the additional tweaking the bill went under to address privacy concerns, I really don't know what they were thinking.
Honestly, I feel sick to my stomach that the NY Times put's it's own interest against the safety of all Americans. Aside from the fact that the "domestic spying" that was done may not have been illegal at all, the questionable timing of the article seems times to have affected the vote on the Patriot Act.
In yesterday's debate, several senators said the New York Times article showed that congressional and judicial curbs are needed on executive branch powers. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he had been unsure Thursday night how he would vote but decided to back the filibuster after reading the Times article. Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said seven other Democrats had not been entirely sure how they would vote until
they saw the news account.
So, a report based on unnamed sources from the publisher of Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, et al. is enough for Democrats to determine our national security policy. Great. I wonder if the Times gives them free subscriptions to Times Select?
I'll make a deal with the Times and others of its ilk. If you think the Bush administration is doing something illegal or immoral and it relates to National Security - tell the Senate - right away of you want to, but don't tell everyone in the frickin' world. That to me is immorality of the highest order. Anytihng for a buck.
-------------------------------------
I've been looking the last couple of days for a photo from 9/11 that gives a good idea of where I was. My office was on the right side of the building with the red umbrella, at the height of the cap of the umbrella, on the side facing the Twin Towers. Of course a picture can't convey the feeling of shock and the boom of the explosion. It was at about this moment that we all dropped everything and evacuated the building. I'm still looking for a good icon to use for my 9/11 posts.
I am hoping that the Senators who voted to block the Patriot Act revision are doing it just to score political points and that after further debate it will be reinstated. Given the additional tweaking the bill went under to address privacy concerns, I really don't know what they were thinking.
Honestly, I feel sick to my stomach that the NY Times put's it's own interest against the safety of all Americans. Aside from the fact that the "domestic spying" that was done may not have been illegal at all, the questionable timing of the article seems times to have affected the vote on the Patriot Act.
In yesterday's debate, several senators said the New York Times article showed that congressional and judicial curbs are needed on executive branch powers. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he had been unsure Thursday night how he would vote but decided to back the filibuster after reading the Times article. Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said seven other Democrats had not been entirely sure how they would vote until
they saw the news account.
So, a report based on unnamed sources from the publisher of Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, et al. is enough for Democrats to determine our national security policy. Great. I wonder if the Times gives them free subscriptions to Times Select?
I'll make a deal with the Times and others of its ilk. If you think the Bush administration is doing something illegal or immoral and it relates to National Security - tell the Senate - right away of you want to, but don't tell everyone in the frickin' world. That to me is immorality of the highest order. Anytihng for a buck.
-------------------------------------
I've been looking the last couple of days for a photo from 9/11 that gives a good idea of where I was. My office was on the right side of the building with the red umbrella, at the height of the cap of the umbrella, on the side facing the Twin Towers. Of course a picture can't convey the feeling of shock and the boom of the explosion. It was at about this moment that we all dropped everything and evacuated the building. I'm still looking for a good icon to use for my 9/11 posts.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent.
---------------------------------
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.
The U.S. is at war and this is the party that wants to provide us with our next Commander-In-Chief? You know, Leader of the Free World and all that? Why would anyone take them seriously?
---------------------------------
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.
The U.S. is at war and this is the party that wants to provide us with our next Commander-In-Chief? You know, Leader of the Free World and all that? Why would anyone take them seriously?
The Brother-In-Law points out a very useful document describing, in detail, the access of the President and Congress to intelligence data. As he notes, the President has claimed several times that Congress has "access to" or "saw" the same intelligence on Iraqi WMDs before the war.
These are of course different words with very different meanings, so I'm curious to know which is the actual truth.
First of all, after reading the above-mentioned document, it appears that Congress has access to all "finished" intelligence. Regarding access to "raw" intelligence, source information and other data usually reserved for the Executive Branch, "it is noteworthy that Congress occasionally has sought and obtained such intelligence information from the executive branch."
What the real question is here is whether Congresspersons used the same or equivalent intelligence as the President did, not whether they had access to it or not. As the Robb-Silberman commission found, the summary information such as Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs) and Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB) that Congress did not have access to were actually more alarmist and less nuanced than what Congress received. In other words, what Congress saw should have caused them to ask more questions about the intelligence, not less. Finally, as the Washington Post reported last year, "The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But . . . no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond
the five-page executive summary."
Factcheck.org, as usual, does a better job than Knight-Ridder (linked to above) and debunks the myth that the Congress did not have sufficient information to question Bush's decision to go to war. Major sections quoted below:
The intelligence to which Bush refers is contained in a top-secret document that was made available to all members of Congress in October 2002, days before the House and Senate
voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq. This so-called National Intelligence Estimate was supposed to be the combined US intelligence community's "most authoritative written judgment concerning a specific national security issue," according to the Senate Intelligence
Committee. The report was titled "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction....."
These are of course different words with very different meanings, so I'm curious to know which is the actual truth.
First of all, after reading the above-mentioned document, it appears that Congress has access to all "finished" intelligence. Regarding access to "raw" intelligence, source information and other data usually reserved for the Executive Branch, "it is noteworthy that Congress occasionally has sought and obtained such intelligence information from the executive branch."
What the real question is here is whether Congresspersons used the same or equivalent intelligence as the President did, not whether they had access to it or not. As the Robb-Silberman commission found, the summary information such as Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs) and Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB) that Congress did not have access to were actually more alarmist and less nuanced than what Congress received. In other words, what Congress saw should have caused them to ask more questions about the intelligence, not less. Finally, as the Washington Post reported last year, "The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But . . . no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond
the five-page executive summary."
Factcheck.org, as usual, does a better job than Knight-Ridder (linked to above) and debunks the myth that the Congress did not have sufficient information to question Bush's decision to go to war. Major sections quoted below:
The intelligence to which Bush refers is contained in a top-secret document that was made available to all members of Congress in October 2002, days before the House and Senate
voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq. This so-called National Intelligence Estimate was supposed to be the combined US intelligence community's "most authoritative written judgment concerning a specific national security issue," according to the Senate Intelligence
Committee. The report was titled "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction....."
On the matter of the tubes, however, the report noted that there was some dissent within the intelligence community. Members of Congress could have read on page 6 of the report that the Department of Energy "assesses that the tubes are probably not" part of a nuclear program.
Some news reports have said this caveat was "buried" deeply in the 92-page report, but this is not so. The "Key Judgments" section begins on page 5, and disagreements by the Department of Energy and also the State Department are noted on pages 5,6,8 and 9, in addition to a reference on page 84.
Though much has been made recently of doubts about the tubes, it should be noted that even the Department of Energy's experts believed Iraq did have an active nuclear program, despite their conclusion that the tubes were not part of it. Even the DOE doubters thought Saddam was working on a nuclear bomb.....
On one important point the National Intelligence Estimate offered little support for Bush's case for war, however. That was the likelihood that Saddam would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists for use against the US....The report assigned "low confidence" to this finding, however.
After years of fighting, millions of dollars spent and vicious campaigning from the Left and the Right, the sounds of freedom can finally be heard from the streets of.....New York?!?
See more of today's events from FanGirl.
Howard Stern farewell rally draws thousands in NY
I bought my Sirius Staellite Radio a year ago waitng for this very moment. F*** the FCC!
We now return you to our Conservative Programming......
See more of today's events from FanGirl.
Howard Stern farewell rally draws thousands in NY
I bought my Sirius Staellite Radio a year ago waitng for this very moment. F*** the FCC!
We now return you to our Conservative Programming......
Thursday, December 15, 2005
The most vile lie regarding President Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina (and there's been a lot of them) has possibly fallen apart. I say possibly becuase I don't totally trust the new source and I could only find documents that would lead to this assumption but could not find the exact figures they used.
Statistics Suggest Race Not a Factor in Katrina Deaths
Statistics released by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals suggest that fewer than half of the victims of Hurricane Katrina were black, and that whites died at the highest rate of all races in New Orleans....According to the 2000 census, whites make up 28 percent of the city's population...but constitute 36.6 percent of the storm's fatalities in the city.
Statistics Suggest Race Not a Factor in Katrina Deaths
Statistics released by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals suggest that fewer than half of the victims of Hurricane Katrina were black, and that whites died at the highest rate of all races in New Orleans....According to the 2000 census, whites make up 28 percent of the city's population...but constitute 36.6 percent of the storm's fatalities in the city.
Boy, talk about it being hard to please some people.
From an MSNBC/WSJ poll this morning - "Approval of Mr. Bush's handling of the economy ticked up to 38% from 34% last month....." (This may be members only, there's a similar article is here.)
Meanwhile.....Prices Drop by Largest Amount in 56 Years
The Labor Department reported Thursday that its closely watched Consumer Price Index dropped by 0.6 percent last month, the biggest monthly decline since a 0.9 percent fall in July 1949....Outside of the volatile food and energy categories, prices were up 0.2 percent, a modest gain that should help relieve fears that this year's surge in energy costs could evolve into more widespread inflation problems.
(Gee, I wonder who stokes those fears?) Could it be, oh I don't know maybe..SaTaN?!? Or is it just the media? :-)
Also, GDP for the most recent quarter was 4.3% and has averaged 4.1% for the last 2 1/2 years (Excel file). During the Clinton "boom" years of the late '90s GDP was avergaing about a 4.3% increase per year. And we all know that was built on WorldCom, Enron, an internet bubble and a bunch of other corporate lies. GDP has increased every year since President Bush has taken office in 2001.
Unemployment ? Despite devastating hurricanes that brought an entire city to a halt and devastated a region the size of England, it's humming along at a historcially healthy 5.0% with steady job growth. Since May 2003, the economy has added nearly 4.5 million new jobs. Again, this takes into account an estimate of 400,000 jobs lost from Katrina alone.
From an MSNBC/WSJ poll this morning - "Approval of Mr. Bush's handling of the economy ticked up to 38% from 34% last month....." (This may be members only, there's a similar article is here.)
Meanwhile.....Prices Drop by Largest Amount in 56 Years
The Labor Department reported Thursday that its closely watched Consumer Price Index dropped by 0.6 percent last month, the biggest monthly decline since a 0.9 percent fall in July 1949....Outside of the volatile food and energy categories, prices were up 0.2 percent, a modest gain that should help relieve fears that this year's surge in energy costs could evolve into more widespread inflation problems.
(Gee, I wonder who stokes those fears?) Could it be, oh I don't know maybe..SaTaN?!? Or is it just the media? :-)
Also, GDP for the most recent quarter was 4.3% and has averaged 4.1% for the last 2 1/2 years (Excel file). During the Clinton "boom" years of the late '90s GDP was avergaing about a 4.3% increase per year. And we all know that was built on WorldCom, Enron, an internet bubble and a bunch of other corporate lies. GDP has increased every year since President Bush has taken office in 2001.
Unemployment ? Despite devastating hurricanes that brought an entire city to a halt and devastated a region the size of England, it's humming along at a historcially healthy 5.0% with steady job growth. Since May 2003, the economy has added nearly 4.5 million new jobs. Again, this takes into account an estimate of 400,000 jobs lost from Katrina alone.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
The Truth on the Ground
Depending on which poll you believe, about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of Iraq.
that the horror stories, however dramatic, do not represent the broader conditions there or the chances for future success. For every vividly portrayed suicide bombing, there are hundreds of thousands of people living quiet, if often uncertain, lives. For every depressing story of unrest and instability there is an untold story of potential and hope. The impression of Iraq as an unfathomable quagmire is false and dangerously misleading.
Depending on which poll you believe, about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of Iraq.
How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work? Why is there such a dramatic divergence between American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men and women doing the fighting?.....
It is difficult for most Americans to rationalize this optimism in the face of the horrific images and depressing stories that have come to symbolize the war in Iraq. Most of the violent news is true; the death and destruction are very real. But experienced military officers knowthat the horror stories, however dramatic, do not represent the broader conditions there or the chances for future success. For every vividly portrayed suicide bombing, there are hundreds of thousands of people living quiet, if often uncertain, lives. For every depressing story of unrest and instability there is an untold story of potential and hope. The impression of Iraq as an unfathomable quagmire is false and dangerously misleading.
Swedish parliament to cut Iran ties
The Swedish parliament ceased all bilateral contacts with the Iranian parliament Tuesday, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
The move follows a letter Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin sent asking parliaments worldwide to express their support for Israel. The letter, which was sent to more than 80 parliaments, called for an international response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call in October to "wipe Israel off the map."
A poll recently conducted -- this is a British poll reported in the Washington Times -- over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces and about 45 percent of Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. - Rep. John Murtha (D - Pa.), November 17, 2005
------------
There's other evidence of the United States' increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most ofthem disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon. Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the
government chosen in this week's election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent). - ABC News Poll, December 13, 2005
-------------
There's a big difference between over 80 percent strongly oppose and 67 percent oppose at any level. Even if you assume that two-thirds of those in the ABC poll that oppose us do so strongly, that's about half the number reported in the Murtha poll. That's not to mention that a majority of Iraqis are opposed to his plan to immediately redeploy (his own words).
The real point here is not to show that John Murtha was overstating the need for us to leave immediately, but simply to show that we shouldn't be making policy based on polls which can be biased either way based on any number of factors. Being in Iraq is either the right thing to
do or the wrong thing to do.
That being said, I have more confidence in the ABC Poll than in the poll Murtha referred to which was a "secret poll" by a an "Iraqi university research team".
------------
There's other evidence of the United States' increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most ofthem disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon. Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the
government chosen in this week's election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent). - ABC News Poll, December 13, 2005
-------------
There's a big difference between over 80 percent strongly oppose and 67 percent oppose at any level. Even if you assume that two-thirds of those in the ABC poll that oppose us do so strongly, that's about half the number reported in the Murtha poll. That's not to mention that a majority of Iraqis are opposed to his plan to immediately redeploy (his own words).
The real point here is not to show that John Murtha was overstating the need for us to leave immediately, but simply to show that we shouldn't be making policy based on polls which can be biased either way based on any number of factors. Being in Iraq is either the right thing to
do or the wrong thing to do.
That being said, I have more confidence in the ABC Poll than in the poll Murtha referred to which was a "secret poll" by a an "Iraqi university research team".
Monday, December 12, 2005
Oy To The World - One Jew's take on the "Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays" debate. I think the author is being a little misleading when he suggests that it's Christians who are trying to eliminate "Merry Christmas" from the public sphere so as not to offend, but this opinion/humor piece still makes some good points.
I get that I live in a Christian nation. And I'm fine with it. I like
you guys. I think it's adorable that you ring giant, white pipe
cleaners around streetlights and make everything taste like peppermint
and thought the world was going to end when the calendar went to three
zeros in a row. It's like living with children.
By the way, I did get a Holiday card from the White House - I didn't even realize it didn't say Merry Christmas until a big brou-ha-ha erupted. Honestly, I did appreciate that the feelings of non-Christians were taken into account, but the holiday that started all of this is Christmas (which is a national holiday) and I don't think I would have taken it as proselytizing if it had said "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year" or something to that effect.
I get that I live in a Christian nation. And I'm fine with it. I like
you guys. I think it's adorable that you ring giant, white pipe
cleaners around streetlights and make everything taste like peppermint
and thought the world was going to end when the calendar went to three
zeros in a row. It's like living with children.
By the way, I did get a Holiday card from the White House - I didn't even realize it didn't say Merry Christmas until a big brou-ha-ha erupted. Honestly, I did appreciate that the feelings of non-Christians were taken into account, but the holiday that started all of this is Christmas (which is a national holiday) and I don't think I would have taken it as proselytizing if it had said "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year" or something to that effect.
Tookie Williams will be put to death shortly after midnight tonight. This is the official denial of clemency from Governor Schwarzenegger's office.
I haven't been following the case very closely, but if we're going to have a death penalty, we need to apply it in the case of people who commit multiple homicides, brag about it, and on top of it all, inspire other people to sensless violence which is what his life had been all about at the time. In any case, there is no one on this Earth who can prove a sincere repentance after they have been sentenced to death. Putting Tookie Williams to death will send a much stronger message to teens thinking of joining murderous gangs than encouraging them to read his books while he gets three hots and a cot for the rest of his life with the occasional visit from celebrities.
All that being said, it's depressing that we need to discuss these things at all. To paraphrase Golda Meir (badly), I don't hate Tookie Williams and others like him, but I do hate what they make us have to do to them.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
I know that all of you are sitting around with nothing better to do than read through 60-year-old Presidential speeches, but after reading a few brief comparisons between Bush's political handling of the Iraq war and FDR's handling of WWII, I decided to read through a few of FDRs "fireside chats". That, and I have a cold which means I personally don't have anything better to do.
Fireside Chats of Franklin D. Roosevelt
The truth is you can't really say the Bush is either exactly like, or not like, FDR. It would probably be very easy to cherry pick quotes and say, "That's exactly what President Bush said and he was laughed at"*, or "You see how open FDR was with the American people, he never deceived the American people!"**.
The best thing to do to get a complete picture is to read through entire speeches.
*"On the road ahead there lies hard work" - December 9, 1941
* "This war is a new kind of war. It is different from all other wars of the past, not only in its methods and weapons but also in its geography. It is warfare in terms of every continent, every island, every sea, every air-lane in the world." - February 23, 1942
** "We have most certainly suffered losses -- from Hitler's U-Boats in the Atlantic as well as from the Japanese in the Pacific -- and we shall suffer more of them before the turn of the tide. But, speaking for the United States of America, let me say once and for all to the people of the world: We Americans have been compelled to yield ground, but we will regain it." - February 23, 1942
**"Several thousand Americans have met death in battle. Other thousands will lose their lives." - September 7, 1942
There's plenty of other interesting details - FDR's constant optimism on the outcome of the war, his calls for sacrifice, praise of the Russians and criticism of the "Japs". Fascinating stuff, especially when you know the outcome in advance.
Fireside Chats of Franklin D. Roosevelt
The truth is you can't really say the Bush is either exactly like, or not like, FDR. It would probably be very easy to cherry pick quotes and say, "That's exactly what President Bush said and he was laughed at"*, or "You see how open FDR was with the American people, he never deceived the American people!"**.
The best thing to do to get a complete picture is to read through entire speeches.
*"On the road ahead there lies hard work" - December 9, 1941
* "This war is a new kind of war. It is different from all other wars of the past, not only in its methods and weapons but also in its geography. It is warfare in terms of every continent, every island, every sea, every air-lane in the world." - February 23, 1942
** "We have most certainly suffered losses -- from Hitler's U-Boats in the Atlantic as well as from the Japanese in the Pacific -- and we shall suffer more of them before the turn of the tide. But, speaking for the United States of America, let me say once and for all to the people of the world: We Americans have been compelled to yield ground, but we will regain it." - February 23, 1942
**"Several thousand Americans have met death in battle. Other thousands will lose their lives." - September 7, 1942
There's plenty of other interesting details - FDR's constant optimism on the outcome of the war, his calls for sacrifice, praise of the Russians and criticism of the "Japs". Fascinating stuff, especially when you know the outcome in advance.
In preparation for the release of Steven Spielberg's "Munich" I wanted to provide some links regarding the events on which the movie is based. After each link, I've put the word used to describe the Palestinians who took the Israeli athletes hostage.
International Olympic Committee - Games of the XX Olympiad - Munich 1972 (terorrists)
Infoplease - Munich Massacre - The worst tragedy in modern Olympic history (terrorists)
Palestine Facts - Who murdered the athletes of the Israeli 1972 Olympic Team in Munich? (terrorists)
TIME magazine archive - Murder at Munich (guerillas)
Sports Illustrtaed - When The Terror Began (commnados/ terrorists)
CBS News - Munich Massacre Remembered (terrorists)
BBC - The Munich Massacre (terrorists)
Compare these articles with those written about recent attacks on Israeli citizens which are committed by "militants", "gunmen", etc.
I'd have put more links, but I have a cold and the Sudafed is making..... me
....drow
.....sy..
International Olympic Committee - Games of the XX Olympiad - Munich 1972 (terorrists)
Infoplease - Munich Massacre - The worst tragedy in modern Olympic history (terrorists)
Palestine Facts - Who murdered the athletes of the Israeli 1972 Olympic Team in Munich? (terrorists)
TIME magazine archive - Murder at Munich (guerillas)
Sports Illustrtaed - When The Terror Began (commnados/ terrorists)
CBS News - Munich Massacre Remembered (terrorists)
BBC - The Munich Massacre (terrorists)
Compare these articles with those written about recent attacks on Israeli citizens which are committed by "militants", "gunmen", etc.
I'd have put more links, but I have a cold and the Sudafed is making..... me
....drow
.....sy..
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.
The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.
Assuming that:
1) The enrichment of uranium could lead to the development of a weapon that could effectively destroy Israel or render it uninhabitable; and
2) The Iranian government has stated plainly that it will be enriching uranium; and
3) It is the stated policy of the Iranian government to destroy the State of Israel and/or remove all it's Jewish inhabitants
then Israel has every right to take all appropriate measures to destroy Iran's capacity to enrich uranium.
At first I thought that Israel should only do this if no civilians would be harmed (as was the case when the bombed the Iraqi facility in Osirak), but if Iran purposefully puts their facilities in civilians neighborhoods - too bad. (Needless to say they should do their best to avoid civilian casualties though).
Israel is denying the reports in the media.
ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.
The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.
Assuming that:
1) The enrichment of uranium could lead to the development of a weapon that could effectively destroy Israel or render it uninhabitable; and
2) The Iranian government has stated plainly that it will be enriching uranium; and
3) It is the stated policy of the Iranian government to destroy the State of Israel and/or remove all it's Jewish inhabitants
then Israel has every right to take all appropriate measures to destroy Iran's capacity to enrich uranium.
At first I thought that Israel should only do this if no civilians would be harmed (as was the case when the bombed the Iraqi facility in Osirak), but if Iran purposefully puts their facilities in civilians neighborhoods - too bad. (Needless to say they should do their best to avoid civilian casualties though).
Israel is denying the reports in the media.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
When the Israelis were in full control of Gaza, the Palestinians built tunnels underneath the Egypt-Gaza border to smuggle people and weapons. Now after Disengagement, the Palestinans have started building tunnels from Gaza into Israel proper.
IDF uncovers Gaza terror tunnel
IDF uncovers Gaza terror tunnel
Soldiers uncovered a Palestinian tunnel Saturday morning while working on a concrete, anti-sniper barrier near the Erez Checkpoint, north of the Gaza Strip...This was the first time since the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005 that Palestinian terrorists have tried to burrow underneath the border fence surrounding the Strip.The one thing I know is that the Israelis will be watching...and waiting.
Friday, December 09, 2005
I'm not a huge soccer fan, but after living in South America for a little while in the late 90's I've picked up an interest in the game and especially love to follow the World Cup. The groupings were announced today for the 2006 World Cup in the host country, Germany, and the US got a pretty rough draw. Unfortunately, so did the Argentines, my wife's team. Well, there's always 2010....
U.S. draws tough group in World Cup
U.S. draws tough group in World Cup
Well, at least the Afghans seem to be happy with Bush's War on Terror.
Poll: Four years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghans optimistic about the future.
77 percent of Afghans say their country is headed in the right
direction — compared with 30 percent in the vastly better-off United
States. Ninety-one percent prefer the current Afghan government to the
Taliban regime, and 87 percent call the U.S.-led overthrow of the
Taliban good for their country. Osama bin Laden, for his part, is as
unpopular as the Taliban; nine in 10 view him unfavorably.
Poll: Four years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghans optimistic about the future.
77 percent of Afghans say their country is headed in the right
direction — compared with 30 percent in the vastly better-off United
States. Ninety-one percent prefer the current Afghan government to the
Taliban regime, and 87 percent call the U.S.-led overthrow of the
Taliban good for their country. Osama bin Laden, for his part, is as
unpopular as the Taliban; nine in 10 view him unfavorably.
Progress fuels these views: Despite the country's continued
problems, 85 percent of Afghans say living conditions there are better
now than they were under the Taliban. Eighty percent cite improved
freedom to express political views. And 75 percent say their security
from crime and violence has improved as well. After decades of
oppression and war, many Afghans see a better life.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Who says the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq can't agree on anything?
A group of Shiite and Sunni parties signed a declaration Thursday condemning terrorism, urging a timetable for the end of the US military presence, and vowing never to normalize relations with Israel.
Well, at least they're not pushing for Israel's disappearance from the face of the earth, like the Iranian president's doing. Must be the positive American influence.
A group of Shiite and Sunni parties signed a declaration Thursday condemning terrorism, urging a timetable for the end of the US military presence, and vowing never to normalize relations with Israel.
Well, at least they're not pushing for Israel's disappearance from the face of the earth, like the Iranian president's doing. Must be the positive American influence.
Whether you're Left or Right, it's always a good idea to Thank a Soldier. Even before they were ordered overseas by the President, they volunteered to serve and defend America. Chances are if you're reading this, you probably didn't (although I know some of you have and for that I thank YOU for your service).
I generally consider myself a good person, but the one moral issue I worry about when I go to meet my maker is how I let my fellow human beings literally fight my battles for me. I don't know how to reconcile the guilt.
I generally consider myself a good person, but the one moral issue I worry about when I go to meet my maker is how I let my fellow human beings literally fight my battles for me. I don't know how to reconcile the guilt.
Via Jewschool here's a worthwhile cause. Children of Abraham is an organization that seeks to bring together Jewish and Muslim teenagers together from all over the world via the internet and through photographs representing the different, yet similar practices of both religions. I'd like to believe that those that participate in programs like that and Seeds of Peace are benefiting not only themselves but future generations.
I'm probably a year behind, but I'm finally hooked on Sudoku. I'm particluar to the online version I found at MSNBC - the soothing Japanese music in the background really helps me to fall asleep at night. It also reminds my wife of some of the places she's gone for birthday massages.
I know a lot of folks think that Israeli Jews have nothing to worry about - they're the most powerful country in the Middle East and oppressors of the worst sort. Let me do some explaining.
We all know that most of Israel's neighbors are hostile to it and have been from before the U.N. agreed to set aside Jewish-majority lands for a state in Palestine. Apart from the periodic suicide bombers, missiles literally rain down on Israeli towns from the north, south and west. Only the sea prevents Israel from being safe from the east. As Americans we may have feared at one time that other powers might have taken over our country, but not even the Nazis or Communists ever thought to wipe us out completely and send us packing. Here's Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, addressing the leaders of Germany and Austria:
"Why did you come to give a piece of Islamic land and the territory of the Palestinian people to them (the Jews)?
"You oppressed them, so give a part of Europe to the Zionist regime so they can establish any government they want. We would support it," he said, according to a transcript of his original Farsi-language comments given to AFP.
Lillte does he know apparently, that a large bloc of Israeli Jews actually come from Arab states where they were treated like crap for centuries as well. He also of course, doesn't really believe the Holocaust happened at all which is the only reason why the UN thought the Jews deserved a unique homeland to begin with.
He also noted that European countries "believe in this so much and are so determined that any researcher who denies it (the Holocaust) with historical evidence is dealt with in a most harsh way and sent to prison."
I am sure he also doesn't believe that Jews ever had any significant ties to the Holy Land. (That's a whole other post on the Muslim Waqf's active effort to destroy historically significant sites associated with the ancient jewish community in Jerusalem.)
Even America's worst enemies only wanted to take over America politically, but did not look to drive us all away. Israel's enemies will stop at nothing except the expulsion of the entire Jewish population of the Middle East - as if there hadn't been Jews in all Arab countires, including "Palestine" for eons. Apparently it's not enough to kick us all out and have us cornered, we must be eliminated altogether.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Zarq is decrying a decision by the Conservative Jewish leadership to push for the conversion of non-Jewish family members of current congregants. My response below.
I don't think this program is quite as heinous as you suggest. To me proselytizing is going after people with no affiliation or connection to the religion whatsoever. The focus here seems to be existing (dues paying?) Jewish congregants who have chosen not to raise their children as Jews and incentivizing them to have their families learn and experience more about the religion. I could be wrong, but I believe that more non-Jewish spouses convert to Judaism as a matter of course than vice-versa.
IMHO, you probably should leave the Conservative Jewish community if you believe it's OK to marry someone not Jewish and raise your children outside the religion. That's what Reform is for. I don't mind if my Christian neighbors invite my kids over for Christmas dinner. I do mind if someone in my synagogue invites my kids over for Christmas dinner.
This doesn't mean I think these are "bad" people (and certainly their non-Jewish spouses/children are not at fault), but they're certainly not doing the Jewish community a service if they have so little regard for the religion that they put their emotional/sexual needs above their belief in the continuity of the religion. Judaism is not a religion of self-fulfillment, it is about following the laws, the bettering of the community, and the future. I would even go as far as to say that intermarrying and raising non-Jewish children is probably one of the worst things a Jew can do (biblically speaking) aside from converting out of the religion themselves.
I want to reiterate that this is not to say that I don't respect other people's religions. This has nothing to do with how or what non-Jews do.
I will agree that Conservatism is in big trouble since it has to deal with the issue of a dwindling membership to begin with.
I don't think this program is quite as heinous as you suggest. To me proselytizing is going after people with no affiliation or connection to the religion whatsoever. The focus here seems to be existing (dues paying?) Jewish congregants who have chosen not to raise their children as Jews and incentivizing them to have their families learn and experience more about the religion. I could be wrong, but I believe that more non-Jewish spouses convert to Judaism as a matter of course than vice-versa.
IMHO, you probably should leave the Conservative Jewish community if you believe it's OK to marry someone not Jewish and raise your children outside the religion. That's what Reform is for. I don't mind if my Christian neighbors invite my kids over for Christmas dinner. I do mind if someone in my synagogue invites my kids over for Christmas dinner.
This doesn't mean I think these are "bad" people (and certainly their non-Jewish spouses/children are not at fault), but they're certainly not doing the Jewish community a service if they have so little regard for the religion that they put their emotional/sexual needs above their belief in the continuity of the religion. Judaism is not a religion of self-fulfillment, it is about following the laws, the bettering of the community, and the future. I would even go as far as to say that intermarrying and raising non-Jewish children is probably one of the worst things a Jew can do (biblically speaking) aside from converting out of the religion themselves.
I want to reiterate that this is not to say that I don't respect other people's religions. This has nothing to do with how or what non-Jews do.
I will agree that Conservatism is in big trouble since it has to deal with the issue of a dwindling membership to begin with.
Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, has a blog. It's absolutely hilarious.
You’ve probably noticed that opinion pollsters go out of their way to include as many morons as possible in surveys. That’s called a representative sample. And what it means is that the opinion of Einstein, for example, counts as much as the opinion of the guy who thinks The Family Circus comic is sending him secret messages via Little Billy.
You might argue that my example is bad because Einstein is dead. But according to physicist Erwin Schrodinger, Einstein is neither dead nor alive until we dig him up and open the casket. If he’s alive, he might want his brain back, which I understand is in a Ziploc bag in some guy’s freezer. And this is a perfect example of why examples always distract from the main point.
Apparently, some Danish Muslims think that jodekager, a traditional Danish Christmas treat, needs to be renamed as the cookies are offensive to Islam. Why? Jodekager is means "Jewish cakes/cookies". As one Jewish community leader puts it, "I think that it would be better to educate Muslims to respect the culture of the majority in Denmark, if they want the majority to
respect their culture". Here is the original article.
Danish Deli Food has a recipe for anyone interested. Yum.
respect their culture". Here is the original article.
Danish Deli Food has a recipe for anyone interested. Yum.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
This is exactly the reason why we can't fight the war on terror in the courts.
4 in Florida Are Cleared on Many Terrorism Charges
With any luck, Sami al-Arian will be deported beased on his falsifying of immigration documents and fraudulently presenting himself as a citizen so that he could vote here.
Here's a timeline from the Tampa Tribune. I was lived in Tampa from 1994-1997 when this was a local story and 9/11 was just an unfulfilled dream among al-Arian's buddies. How we didn't deport him years ago is beyond me.
4 in Florida Are Cleared on Many Terrorism Charges
With any luck, Sami al-Arian will be deported beased on his falsifying of immigration documents and fraudulently presenting himself as a citizen so that he could vote here.
Here's a timeline from the Tampa Tribune. I was lived in Tampa from 1994-1997 when this was a local story and 9/11 was just an unfulfilled dream among al-Arian's buddies. How we didn't deport him years ago is beyond me.
Huh? Israeli Suicide Bomber Kills Five at Mall
"Ah, they're all the same", a Yahoo News staffer was overheard saying....(just kidding)
Actually, perhaps it's the AP's poblem based on a similar headline used in The Evening News of Scotland.
"Ah, they're all the same", a Yahoo News staffer was overheard saying....(just kidding)
Actually, perhaps it's the AP's poblem based on a similar headline used in The Evening News of Scotland.
Thanks to Norm for catching this positive sign from Fallujah of all places.
Earlier this week, a leading cleric in Falluja, Hamza Abbas al-Issawi, 70, considered the city's grand imam, who had urged Sunni Arabs to defy the insurgents and vote in the Dec. 15 elections for a full four-year national government, was shot and killed. He had received insurgent death threats in recent months.
Tensions appeared to be rising ahead of the election, when American and Iraqi officials are hoping for a repeat of the October constitutional referendum, when 170,000 votes were cast in Falluja, the strongest turnout of any Sunni Arab area in Iraq. Iraqi election officials calculated that 80 percent of the votes were against the constitution, but celebrated the fact that the city had chosen to take part in the political process.
In Falluja's mosques, angry residents have vowed in recent days to avenge the clerics' killings by hunting down Islamic extremists loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, America's most-wanted man in Iraq. The anger spread on Friday to fiery condemnations at the main weekly prayers at two of Baghdad's most militant Sunni Arab mosques.
At the Mother of All Battles Mosque in the west of the city, the preacher, Sheik Ali Abu Hassan, called the killers "murderers" and said believers should respond by voting in large numbers. At the Abu Hanifa Mosque in the eastern Adhamiya district, a stronghold of support for Iraq's ousted ruler, Saddam Hussein, the preacher, Sheik Ahmad al-Samarrai, said, "The election is both legitimate and necessary, and your duty to vote is heavier than a mountain."
Monday, December 05, 2005
Zarq is left speechless about a CIA rendition story in the Washington Post.
Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake
He writes: We held a German citizen illegally for 5 months because someone thought he might be an Al Qaeda operative. Then, we returned him. He’s suing the government (ours, not theirs,) alleging torture and abuse. An interesting look at how the CIA handles its own mistakes, when no oversight group exists to make sure they comport themselves appropriately.
I've decided not to spread too much of my devil's advocate view on his journal, but I've put my thoughts here:
Just for the record, Khaled el-Masri is not accusing the US Government of torture. I've read several articles all which talk about "the case", but it seems to be more of an investigation by German prosecutors into what happened as opposed to Mr. Masri suing anyone at this point. At this point they seem most concerned with a potential cover-up by German politicians who were told of the abduction by the US.
What is interesting to me is that this is obviously a co-ordinated attempt by the German prosecutors (and the Washington Post?) to embarrass Secretary of State Rice as she visits Germany tomorrow. This is especially odd since an April article in the NY Times referred to Rice's demands that he be released, over the objections of the CIA and others.
Why do I think this is a vast left-wing conspiracy? Becuase the events took place over a year and a half ago - and they were reported numerous times in the American and German media since at least January of this year. Why all the fuss now?
Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake
He writes: We held a German citizen illegally for 5 months because someone thought he might be an Al Qaeda operative. Then, we returned him. He’s suing the government (ours, not theirs,) alleging torture and abuse. An interesting look at how the CIA handles its own mistakes, when no oversight group exists to make sure they comport themselves appropriately.
I've decided not to spread too much of my devil's advocate view on his journal, but I've put my thoughts here:
Just for the record, Khaled el-Masri is not accusing the US Government of torture. I've read several articles all which talk about "the case", but it seems to be more of an investigation by German prosecutors into what happened as opposed to Mr. Masri suing anyone at this point. At this point they seem most concerned with a potential cover-up by German politicians who were told of the abduction by the US.
What is interesting to me is that this is obviously a co-ordinated attempt by the German prosecutors (and the Washington Post?) to embarrass Secretary of State Rice as she visits Germany tomorrow. This is especially odd since an April article in the NY Times referred to Rice's demands that he be released, over the objections of the CIA and others.
Why do I think this is a vast left-wing conspiracy? Becuase the events took place over a year and a half ago - and they were reported numerous times in the American and German media since at least January of this year. Why all the fuss now?
The Democrats officially declare that Al-Qaeda and Saddam's henchmen have defeated the United States.
Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq
In over two and a half years of war we have not lost even close to the number of soldiers than we lost civilians in two hours on 9/11 and this guys ready to throw in the towel. Nobody even knows how many of the enemy we've killed or wounded (i.e. are we in the least bit successful in our missions) and the media doesn't seem to care. On 9/11 we gained nothing, while since then we have removed Saddam from power, started Iraq on the road to consitutional democracy through a series of free and fair elections, encouraged Lebanon to kick out the Syrians, killed/captured who knows how many Islamofascist thugs. This is not to mention our successes in Afghanistan. Our "broken, hand-to-mouth" military has done a fantastic job. These fights weren't supposed to be "like Vietnam" - they were supposed to BE Vietnam, tens of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, massacres of the innocent.
Howard Dean should have just declared on 9/11 that we had lost. What did he have to lose anyway, a few thousand maple trees and some ski resorts?
Rocky says - f*** you.
There....that felt better. I will never let this country go back to the Jimmy Carter days of sit back and hope for the best and let the Arabs f*** us in the a** becuase we're embarrassed about our success. Actually they used to just f*** us, now they come to kill us by the thousands and all the Democrats want to say is "Thank you sir, may I have another!"
In the immortal words of Howard Dean himself - We will not give up! Yahhhhhh!
Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq
Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.There are no words. Actually, yes there are.
In over two and a half years of war we have not lost even close to the number of soldiers than we lost civilians in two hours on 9/11 and this guys ready to throw in the towel. Nobody even knows how many of the enemy we've killed or wounded (i.e. are we in the least bit successful in our missions) and the media doesn't seem to care. On 9/11 we gained nothing, while since then we have removed Saddam from power, started Iraq on the road to consitutional democracy through a series of free and fair elections, encouraged Lebanon to kick out the Syrians, killed/captured who knows how many Islamofascist thugs. This is not to mention our successes in Afghanistan. Our "broken, hand-to-mouth" military has done a fantastic job. These fights weren't supposed to be "like Vietnam" - they were supposed to BE Vietnam, tens of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, massacres of the innocent.
Howard Dean should have just declared on 9/11 that we had lost. What did he have to lose anyway, a few thousand maple trees and some ski resorts?
Rocky says - f*** you.
There....that felt better. I will never let this country go back to the Jimmy Carter days of sit back and hope for the best and let the Arabs f*** us in the a** becuase we're embarrassed about our success. Actually they used to just f*** us, now they come to kill us by the thousands and all the Democrats want to say is "Thank you sir, may I have another!"
In the immortal words of Howard Dean himself - We will not give up! Yahhhhhh!
Christians - good. Muslims - good. Humanity.
Jews - embarrasing. Accept their money and sweat, but keep them away from the children, please.
A delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC, holds a flag with the new emblem "Red Crystal", during a two-day conference bringing together representatives of the 192 signatory states to the Geneva Convention, at the International Conference Centre, CICG, in Geneva, Switzerland, Monday, Dec. 5, 2005. The conference aims at approving the "Red Crystal" as a third emblem for the international Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The new additional symbol is considered as being devoid of any national, religious and cultural connotation and will be available for use by those national societies which do not wish to use any of the existing emblems - the cross and the crescent.
The only thing that can bring Christians and Muslims closer together - Jew hatred.
Jews - embarrasing. Accept their money and sweat, but keep them away from the children, please.
A delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC, holds a flag with the new emblem "Red Crystal", during a two-day conference bringing together representatives of the 192 signatory states to the Geneva Convention, at the International Conference Centre, CICG, in Geneva, Switzerland, Monday, Dec. 5, 2005. The conference aims at approving the "Red Crystal" as a third emblem for the international Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The new additional symbol is considered as being devoid of any national, religious and cultural connotation and will be available for use by those national societies which do not wish to use any of the existing emblems - the cross and the crescent.
The only thing that can bring Christians and Muslims closer together - Jew hatred.
Howard Stern, Free At Last from New York Magazine.
Howard’s radio world will be a red-light district. “Wouldn’t it be brilliant if my audience could all lie down at night together and come together?” he wonders. “Cum together?” Howard’s idea is “Tissue Time With Heidi Cortez,” a 24-year-old Playboy model and “orgasmer” who will offer phone sex to Howard’s audience. He’s also working on a show called “Confessions From the Bunny Ranch,” a Nevada whorehouse. Howard plans to tape a room 24 hours a day. “You’ve heard of Taxicab Confessions, but that’s bullshit,” he says. “You’ll be right in the prostitute’s room. You’ll hear the negotiation. You’ll hear the screwing. You’ll hear the after-sex conversation. And that fascinates me. I want to be in that room.” Howard hopes to launch a show called “I Want to Fuck a Porn Star,” a send-up of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. “It’s going to be difficult,” cautions Howard. “If you can answer the questions, you will get to fuck a porn star. So many guys from my audience would love that opportunity.”Oh my.
Howard Stern, Free At Last from New York Magazine.
Howard’s radio world will be a red-light district. “Wouldn’t it be brilliant if my audience could all lie down at night together and come together?” he wonders. “Cum together?” Howard’s idea is “Tissue Time With Heidi Cortez,” a 24-year-old Playboy model and “orgasmer” who will offer phone sex to Howard’s audience. He’s also working on a show called “Confessions From the Bunny Ranch,” a Nevada whorehouse. Howard plans to tape a room 24 hours a day. “You’ve heard of Taxicab Confessions, but that’s bullshit,” he says. “You’ll be right in the prostitute’s room. You’ll hear the negotiation. You’ll hear the screwing. You’ll hear the after-sex conversation. And that fascinates me. I want to be in that room.” Howard hopes to launch a show called “I Want to Fuck a Porn Star,” a send-up of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. “It’s going to be difficult,” cautions Howard. “If you can answer the questions, you will get to fuck a porn star. So many guys from my audience would love that opportunity.”Oh my.
The sub-heading of the NY Times article on Saddam Hussein's trial reads as follows:
"The first witness today described torture by Saddam Hussein's security police, including a human grinding machine." (I don't know how long this will be up on their home page so I copied the HTML from their site below - I'm not good at the screen shot thing).
There is no mention of the grinding machine in either the article or the link to excerpts from the trial. Perhaps, we the readers, are too delciate to handle such information?
Hussein Is Fiery Again in Unruly Court Session
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 1:00 PM ET
The first witness today described torture by Saddam Hussein's security police, including a human grinding machine.
"The first witness today described torture by Saddam Hussein's security police, including a human grinding machine." (I don't know how long this will be up on their home page so I copied the HTML from their site below - I'm not good at the screen shot thing).
There is no mention of the grinding machine in either the article or the link to excerpts from the trial. Perhaps, we the readers, are too delciate to handle such information?
Hussein Is Fiery Again in Unruly Court Session
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 1:00 PM ET
The first witness today described torture by Saddam Hussein's security police, including a human grinding machine.
Classic John Kerry. On this Sunday's "Face The Nation", Kerry had this to say...
The main issue of course is that Kerry feels that the image of the American soldier is that of a terrorist in the eyes of Iraqi children, as opposed to a builder of schools, giver of candy, etc. Even the terrorists know that American soldiers often do their best to befriend Iraqi children. That's why they keep setting off bombs in those situations.
KERRY: You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And the is no reason Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the-of-the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...So...Kerry believes that Iraqis should be terrorizing their own women and children. Nice.
SCHIEFFER: Yeah.
KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that.
The main issue of course is that Kerry feels that the image of the American soldier is that of a terrorist in the eyes of Iraqi children, as opposed to a builder of schools, giver of candy, etc. Even the terrorists know that American soldiers often do their best to befriend Iraqi children. That's why they keep setting off bombs in those situations.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
I had no idea that my favorite photogrpahy store, B&H Photo is referred to in some corners as "Beards and Hats" because of the hundreds of Orthodox guys who work there. Pretty funny.
Speaking the day after September 11, President Bush said,
"Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts."
As the banner of my blog says, "So It Shall Be Written, So It Shall Be Done."
Blast in Pakistan Kills Al Qaeda Commander
I am extremely proud of the fact that four years later, we are relentless in our search for these bastards and that not even a house hidden in a mountain range on the other side of the planet is safe for Al-Qaeda.
Good job, Mr, President and thank you for your resolve.
The Washington Post had to dig pretty deep in it's rolodex to find someone with something negative to say. (Did you really doubt that they'd find someone?)
"Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts."
As the banner of my blog says, "So It Shall Be Written, So It Shall Be Done."
Blast in Pakistan Kills Al Qaeda Commander
I am extremely proud of the fact that four years later, we are relentless in our search for these bastards and that not even a house hidden in a mountain range on the other side of the planet is safe for Al-Qaeda.
Good job, Mr, President and thank you for your resolve.
The Washington Post had to dig pretty deep in it's rolodex to find someone with something negative to say. (Did you really doubt that they'd find someone?)
"It's a success story, but al Qaeda has turned into a multi-headed hydra: you chop off one head and another head takes its place," said Magnus Ranstorp, a specialist on al Qaeda at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm. "It's a good thing they got him, but I'm sure there are others in the wings who are ready to play a similar role."OK, seriously...the Swedish National Defense College?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)