Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Vote for Dan Schorr for Westchester County DA
In case any of our readers live in Westchester County, please vote for Dan Schorr for Westchester County DA this November. I usually don't get involved with local politics but in this case I am because I have known Dan personally for 16 years or so, since we were involved in fighting the speech codes at Penn. He started the First Amendment Task Force at Penn and really led the charge against a very PC administration. Conversely he thinks that perpetrators of true crimes (rape, murder etc.) should be punished to the full extent of the law. In other words, he is a law & order libertarian and actually says what he means. He is exactly the type of person you want representing you in government.
Quote of the Day
At the bottom of the interventionist argument there is always the idea that the government or the state is an entity outside and above the social process of production, that it owns something which is not derived from taxing its subjects, and that it can spend this mythical something for definite purposes. This is the Santa Claus fable raised by Lord Keynes to the dignity of an economic doctrine and enthusiastically endorsed by all those who expect personal advantage from government spending. As against these popular fallacies there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens’ spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity.
- Ludwig Von Mises(h/t Samizdata)
Diversity, Not
Swimming Upstream: The Life of a Conservative Professor in Academia
By Ron Lipsman
I have been a faculty member at a major State University for 40 years. Several years after my arrival, I voted for George McGovern. Eight years later, I voted for Ronald Reagan. In those eight years, my family and I experienced several traumas that caused me to reevaluate -- and ultimately, drastically alter -- the political, cultural and economic axioms that had governed my life.
Within months of buying my first home in an excellent neighborhood, within walking distance to the University and, most importantly, located in a district with an outstanding local public elementary school, my five year old son was forcibly bussed to an inferior school, many miles away, in a horrible neighborhood in order to satisfy the utopian vision of a myopic federal judge. This betrayal of my fundamental rights was undoubtedly the greatest shock to my political psyche.
Another was a Sabbatical year spent living and working in Jerusalem, during which time the UN issued time the infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution. I was able to observe firsthand that the standard propaganda about Israel and Zionism that was promulgated in America and elsewhere -- almost exclusively by those on the Left that I had formerly supported -- was nothing more than bald-faced, hateful lies. This and other events in the 1970s caused me to rethink everything that I had taken for granted since adolescence about how the world worked.
I emerged from the exercise as an enthusiastic conservative. Thus I was no longer your average faculty member who adhered to the liberal party line, but instead one of a tiny cadre who completely disagreed with the leftist mentality that dominated the thought of campus faculty and administrators.
The overwhelmingly liberal atmosphere on campus is well known. In the one place in society at which there should be diversity of thought, exploration of conflicting ideas and a propensity to challenge conventional wisdom, we have instead a mind-numbing conformity of opinion and a complete unwillingness to entertain any thought or idea that deviates from the accepted truth. That conformity encompasses:
The legitimacy of virtually any program that promotes the interests of minority and female faculty, staff and students, even if the program is blatantly racist or sexist -- justified by a belief that America's past unjust treatment of blacks, American Indians and Japanese-Americans, and its unfair treatment of women render such discrimination necessary and lawful.
A multicultural mentality, which preaches that America's Eurocentric, white, Christian heritage is responsible for colonialism, imperialism, racism and sexism, and that its replacement by a culture that "celebrates diversity" will transform the US into a more just and humane society.
A distrust of free markets and democratic capitalism, and its severe limitation in favor of a centralized, government-controlled economy that will redistribute the wealth of America more fairly.
A denigration of religious belief and its replacement by the "worship" of secular humanism, with mindless environmentalism occupying a central place in the new religion.
Not being in sync with any of this, how did I cope? Not so well, actually. First of all, it took me a long time to recognize and accept that the university atmosphere I knew as a student was gone. Initially, I was too busy pursuing my career and building my academic resume to notice what a fish out of water I had become.
My epiphany came about 20 years ago at the inauguration of a new campus president. In his acceptance speech, he said many things that seemed bizarre to me, but the comment I recall most vividly was his insistence that he would create a world-class university by building "excellence through diversity." His point seemed to be that by substantially increasing the number of minority and female faculty, staff and students (and consequently decreasing the number of white males), this would of necessity make us a great university.
I always thought that the best way to build a great university was to attract the brightest, most innovative and productive faculty and students -- regardless of their hue -- but I realized at that moment, as the applause for his idea rained down, how out of step I was.
What did I do? To my eternal shame, I ducked. Oh initially, during a painful, but relatively brief period, I contested the new campus consensus. People quickly, but politely, informed me that my ideas were retrograde and that I would be well advised to get with the program. In fact, I was passed over for an administrative position I coveted and for which I was far more qualified than the individual selected. Realizing that my resistance was damaging my reputation on campus, I more or less clammed up and spent more than a decade trying to ignore the poisonous atmosphere.
This less than noble strategy proved effective and eventually I achieved a high administrative position in which I adhered to policies and shepherded programs that were diametrically opposed to my fundamental beliefs. For years I tended to my bleeding tongue because I was constantly biting it during meetings to prevent myself from blurting out my true feelings about the bigoted ideas that constituted the consensus of the folks at the table.
But as I began to near retirement, I decided there was no point in maintaining my forced silence any longer. As I had 15 years earlier, I unburdened myself and let fly my misgivings about the liberal campus hegemony. What happened this time? Here come three novel observations:
1. To my surprise, my "retrograde" conservative opinions were not met with calumny or derision, but rather with smiles and amusement. "Oh, that's just Ron being Ron," it was said. I wasn't viewed as a threat to the campus philosophy, but rather as some kind of queer duck to be tolerated at best, ignored at worst. This was certainly more pleasant for me than being told to shut up and get your head straight as I anticipated. But it was also incredibly frustrating that colleagues didn't take me seriously. The impression I had was that they felt there was no reason to take my ideas seriously because I was so obviously wrong that no right-thinking person could be swayed by my arguments.
2. My second observation is that I was not the only one failing to make waves. In fact, there were no waves whatsoever. There was no debate, no controversy; just the calm serenity of a campus at peace with its almost universally accepted mind set. I attribute this to three things. First, of course, anyone raising an objection was viewed, as I was, as hopelessly out of it and worthy only of being ignored. This has a chilling effect, perhaps even more effective than derision. Second, I suspect that those who believed as I did were still in lockdown mode -- for the same reasons as I was over the years. And third, I believe the liberal brainwash has been so effective on campus -- and in the national educational system in general -- that many in the liberal majority can't even fathom that there is anyone who doubts the legitimacy of their point of view.
3. My final observation is the following. The liberal hegemony exists in many quarters of the country beside academia -- e.g., the mainstream media, major foundations, law schools and the trail lawyers they produce, public school teachers, the Democratic Party, even big corporations. But none of these can maintain the atmosphere as effortlessly as campus profs and administrators. Politicians encounter opposition from their constituents; the media from its readers, listeners and viewers; trail lawyers from their clients; and corporations from their stockholders and consumers. But the educational establishment-both higher and lower-encounters little resistance. The students are ignorant, the parents are cowed, and Boards of Regents are cowardly. The ivory tower is alive and well in America and the intellectual product it presents is completely one-sided. What a tragedy for our nation and especially for its youth.
By Ron Lipsman
I have been a faculty member at a major State University for 40 years. Several years after my arrival, I voted for George McGovern. Eight years later, I voted for Ronald Reagan. In those eight years, my family and I experienced several traumas that caused me to reevaluate -- and ultimately, drastically alter -- the political, cultural and economic axioms that had governed my life.
Within months of buying my first home in an excellent neighborhood, within walking distance to the University and, most importantly, located in a district with an outstanding local public elementary school, my five year old son was forcibly bussed to an inferior school, many miles away, in a horrible neighborhood in order to satisfy the utopian vision of a myopic federal judge. This betrayal of my fundamental rights was undoubtedly the greatest shock to my political psyche.
Another was a Sabbatical year spent living and working in Jerusalem, during which time the UN issued time the infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution. I was able to observe firsthand that the standard propaganda about Israel and Zionism that was promulgated in America and elsewhere -- almost exclusively by those on the Left that I had formerly supported -- was nothing more than bald-faced, hateful lies. This and other events in the 1970s caused me to rethink everything that I had taken for granted since adolescence about how the world worked.
I emerged from the exercise as an enthusiastic conservative. Thus I was no longer your average faculty member who adhered to the liberal party line, but instead one of a tiny cadre who completely disagreed with the leftist mentality that dominated the thought of campus faculty and administrators.
The overwhelmingly liberal atmosphere on campus is well known. In the one place in society at which there should be diversity of thought, exploration of conflicting ideas and a propensity to challenge conventional wisdom, we have instead a mind-numbing conformity of opinion and a complete unwillingness to entertain any thought or idea that deviates from the accepted truth. That conformity encompasses:
The legitimacy of virtually any program that promotes the interests of minority and female faculty, staff and students, even if the program is blatantly racist or sexist -- justified by a belief that America's past unjust treatment of blacks, American Indians and Japanese-Americans, and its unfair treatment of women render such discrimination necessary and lawful.
A multicultural mentality, which preaches that America's Eurocentric, white, Christian heritage is responsible for colonialism, imperialism, racism and sexism, and that its replacement by a culture that "celebrates diversity" will transform the US into a more just and humane society.
A distrust of free markets and democratic capitalism, and its severe limitation in favor of a centralized, government-controlled economy that will redistribute the wealth of America more fairly.
A denigration of religious belief and its replacement by the "worship" of secular humanism, with mindless environmentalism occupying a central place in the new religion.
Not being in sync with any of this, how did I cope? Not so well, actually. First of all, it took me a long time to recognize and accept that the university atmosphere I knew as a student was gone. Initially, I was too busy pursuing my career and building my academic resume to notice what a fish out of water I had become.
My epiphany came about 20 years ago at the inauguration of a new campus president. In his acceptance speech, he said many things that seemed bizarre to me, but the comment I recall most vividly was his insistence that he would create a world-class university by building "excellence through diversity." His point seemed to be that by substantially increasing the number of minority and female faculty, staff and students (and consequently decreasing the number of white males), this would of necessity make us a great university.
I always thought that the best way to build a great university was to attract the brightest, most innovative and productive faculty and students -- regardless of their hue -- but I realized at that moment, as the applause for his idea rained down, how out of step I was.
What did I do? To my eternal shame, I ducked. Oh initially, during a painful, but relatively brief period, I contested the new campus consensus. People quickly, but politely, informed me that my ideas were retrograde and that I would be well advised to get with the program. In fact, I was passed over for an administrative position I coveted and for which I was far more qualified than the individual selected. Realizing that my resistance was damaging my reputation on campus, I more or less clammed up and spent more than a decade trying to ignore the poisonous atmosphere.
This less than noble strategy proved effective and eventually I achieved a high administrative position in which I adhered to policies and shepherded programs that were diametrically opposed to my fundamental beliefs. For years I tended to my bleeding tongue because I was constantly biting it during meetings to prevent myself from blurting out my true feelings about the bigoted ideas that constituted the consensus of the folks at the table.
But as I began to near retirement, I decided there was no point in maintaining my forced silence any longer. As I had 15 years earlier, I unburdened myself and let fly my misgivings about the liberal campus hegemony. What happened this time? Here come three novel observations:
1. To my surprise, my "retrograde" conservative opinions were not met with calumny or derision, but rather with smiles and amusement. "Oh, that's just Ron being Ron," it was said. I wasn't viewed as a threat to the campus philosophy, but rather as some kind of queer duck to be tolerated at best, ignored at worst. This was certainly more pleasant for me than being told to shut up and get your head straight as I anticipated. But it was also incredibly frustrating that colleagues didn't take me seriously. The impression I had was that they felt there was no reason to take my ideas seriously because I was so obviously wrong that no right-thinking person could be swayed by my arguments.
2. My second observation is that I was not the only one failing to make waves. In fact, there were no waves whatsoever. There was no debate, no controversy; just the calm serenity of a campus at peace with its almost universally accepted mind set. I attribute this to three things. First, of course, anyone raising an objection was viewed, as I was, as hopelessly out of it and worthy only of being ignored. This has a chilling effect, perhaps even more effective than derision. Second, I suspect that those who believed as I did were still in lockdown mode -- for the same reasons as I was over the years. And third, I believe the liberal brainwash has been so effective on campus -- and in the national educational system in general -- that many in the liberal majority can't even fathom that there is anyone who doubts the legitimacy of their point of view.
3. My final observation is the following. The liberal hegemony exists in many quarters of the country beside academia -- e.g., the mainstream media, major foundations, law schools and the trail lawyers they produce, public school teachers, the Democratic Party, even big corporations. But none of these can maintain the atmosphere as effortlessly as campus profs and administrators. Politicians encounter opposition from their constituents; the media from its readers, listeners and viewers; trail lawyers from their clients; and corporations from their stockholders and consumers. But the educational establishment-both higher and lower-encounters little resistance. The students are ignorant, the parents are cowed, and Boards of Regents are cowardly. The ivory tower is alive and well in America and the intellectual product it presents is completely one-sided. What a tragedy for our nation and especially for its youth.
Pelosi Looking at VAT
They really are just Tax and Spend liberals:
Another issue with the VAT is that it is a massive hidden tax. The current sales tax is only a tax on final sales. So on your receipt you see how much of what you are paying is taxes. With a VAT, you have no idea how much of your purchase is taxes. And neither does the store owner. He only knows how much VAT he paid to his wholesaler, but not how much VAT that wholesaler paid to his suppliers.
The Heritage Foundation has a nice piece on VAT's here:
Pelosi, appearing on PBS's "The Charlie Rose Show" asserted that "it's fair to look at" the VAT as part of an overhaul of the nation's tax code.It is just amazing that such an idiot is Speaker of the House. Her argument for a VAT makes no practical sense. She says it would "level the playing" field? How would adding taxes to every stage of production level the playing field? If anything it would level the playing field in the favor of foreign manufacturers. As someone who has bought or leased a few cars and has been in the car market, the problem of US car manufacturers is definitely not price. Hondas, Toyotas and all those German manufacturers are usually more expensive than their American counterparts. However the reason I only lease or buy Hondas or Toyotas is because they are higher QUALITY cars, made by non-union labor. Adding a VAT would actually end up making US cars more expensive, and would really kill the American car manufacturers (okay, they are pretty much already dead, but I guess this would make them "deader" if that were a word). And as someone with a passport I have seen how much cars cost outside the US when you add VAT taxes in, as European consumers have to do when they buy cars, they become very expensive.
"I would say, Put everything on the table and subject it to the scrutiny that it deserves," Pelosi told Rose when asked if the VAT has any appeal to her.
The VAT is a tax on manufacturers at each stage of production on the amount of value an additional producer adds to a product.
Pelosi argued that the VAT would level the playing field between U.S. and foreign manufacturers, the latter of which do not have pension and healthcare costs included in the price of their goods because their governments provide those services, financed by similar taxes.
"They get a tax off of that and they use that money to pay the healthcare for their own workers," Pelosi said, using the example of auto manufacturers. "So their cars coming into our country don't have a healthcare component cost.
Another issue with the VAT is that it is a massive hidden tax. The current sales tax is only a tax on final sales. So on your receipt you see how much of what you are paying is taxes. With a VAT, you have no idea how much of your purchase is taxes. And neither does the store owner. He only knows how much VAT he paid to his wholesaler, but not how much VAT that wholesaler paid to his suppliers.
The Heritage Foundation has a nice piece on VAT's here:
If you thought the tea parties were big this summer, just wait until they actually decide to try to get the VAT through.Hidden Tax Increase and More Power to Washington
A VAT piled on top of current income and payroll taxes would suffer from the following additional problems:
Hidden Tax Increase. Sound tax policy requires that taxes be transparent to taxpayers. But taxpayers will not see the portion of the VAT paid by businesses unless Congress requires that businesses show the full VAT paid on receipts. Even then, however, taxpayers could be unaware of the total amount they pay because they are unlikely to keep their receipts and add up the total annually.
Economic Distortion. Taxes impose a cost on society above their explicit price because they reduce economic efficiency. Economists generally agree that VATs are more efficient than most of the taxes currently imposed on U.S. taxpayers. But that is only if they apply to all goods and services in an economy.
Due to political considerations, a VAT in addition to current taxes would likely exempt politically sensitive items like food, clothing, health care, and housing. This would drive the tax rate higher to achieve the same amount of revenue and impose new economic distortions. Industries that get an exemption will be more profitable, compared to taxable industries, than they would have been without the tax. This means more capital will flow to these industries. This will lower economic well-being because capital will not flow to its most efficient market-determined use.
More Economic Power to Washington. A VAT not levied on all goods and services would give Congress even more power over the economy. Industries would lobby heavily for exemptions from the VAT for the economic benefits described above. This would give Congress an even larger roll in picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Success would depend less on ingenuity and hard work and more on the ability to gain political favor.
Bigger Government and VATs
Opponents of a VAT often point to Europe and their bloated government sectors as evidence that VATs cause government spending to grow. They argue that VATs are hidden and less economically damaging than a corporate income tax, for example. So governments are able to raise more revenue at less political risk with a VAT. But the causal direction is unclear: It is just as likely that European nations chose to spend more and relied on VATs to fund their largess.
If so, then this pattern would parallel the pattern President Obama is seeking to establish in the U.S. now with government spending soaring, greatly ratcheting up the pressure for tax hikes. Congress and President Obama have recently increased spending by trillions of dollars. First they passed the ineffective stimulus that cost $787 billion. They then passed an irresponsible budget that increases the debt by $7,500 billion over 10 years. Now they are working to spend trillions more to fund government-run health care and an even more expensive cap-and-tax environmental regulation regime.
What's next from the nanny state?
If this didn't work as planned then then next step must be more of it. It's the leftist way.
Study: NYC calorie postings don't change orders
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Last Updated: 11:47 AM, October 6, 2009
Posted: 11:41 AM, October 6, 2009
New York City's pioneering law requiring restaurant chains to post calories on menus doesn't change the eating habits of people in low-income areas, according to a new study.
The study tracked customers at McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken in poor New York City neighborhoods with high rates of obesity and diabetes. It was conducted by professors at New York and Yale universities a month after the law took effect in July 2008.
Half of the study's customers said they noticed calorie counts. Twenty-eight percent of those said the calorie postings had influenced what they ordered. Nine out of 10 of those said they'd made healthier choices as a result.
But receipts collected after purchases showed people had ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer before the law was put in place, researchers said.
New York City health officials said because the study was conducted right after the law went into effect, it might not have captured gradual changes in people's eating habits. The city plans to release results from its own analysis of 12,000 restaurant receipts in a few months.
Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group in Washington that supports calorie posting, suggested low-income people were more interested in cost than calories.
For example, McDonald's offers a 300-calorie cheeseburger for $1.
New York City was the first in the country to put a calorie posting law in place. Since then, California, Seattle and other places have instituted similar rules.
The study will be published Tuesday in the online version of the journal Health Affairs.
Your freedom is being stolen.
Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online
By: Susan FerrechioChief Congressional CorrespondentOctober 6, 2009
As Congress lurches closer to a decision on an enormous overhaul of the American health care system, pressure is mounting on legislative leaders to make the final bill available online for citizens to read before a vote.
Lawmakers were given just hours to examine the $789 billion stimulus plan, sweeping climate-change legislation and a $700 billion bailout package before final votes.
While most Americans normally ignore parliamentary detail, with health care looming, voters are suddenly paying attention. The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill in the weeks to come, representing months of work and stretching to hundreds of pages. And as of now, there is no assurance that members of the public, or even the senators themselves, will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.
"The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work," said Michael Franc, president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
At town hall meetings across the country this past summer, the main topic was health care, but there was a strong undercurrent of anger over the way Congress rushed through passage of the stimulus, global warming and bank bailout bills without seeming to understand the consequences. The stimulus bill, for example, was 1,100 pages long and made available to Congress and the public just 13 hours before lawmakers voted on it. The bill has failed to provide the promised help to the job market, and there was outrage when it was discovered that the legislation included an amendment allowing American International Group, a bailout recipient, to give out millions in employee bonuses.
"If someone had a chance to look at the bill, they would have found that out," said Lisa Rosenberg, who lobbies Congress on behalf of the Sunlight Foundation to bring more transparency to government.
The foundation has begun an effort to get Congress to post bills online, for all to see, 72 hours before lawmakers vote on them.
"It would give the public a chance to really digest and understand what is in the bill," Rosenberg said, "and communicate whether that is a good or a bad thing while there is still time to fix it."
What you don't know can hurt you:
» House energy and global warming bill, passed June 26, 2009. 1,200 pages. Available online 15 hours before vote.
» $789 billion stimulus bill, passed Feb. 14, 2009. 1,100 pages. Available online 13 hours before debate.
» $700 billion financial sector rescue package, passed Oct. 3, 2008. 169 pages. Available online 29 hours before vote.
» USA Patriot domestic surveillance bill, passed Oct. 23, 2001. Unavailable to the public before debate.
A similar effort is under way in Congress. Reps. Brian Baird, D-Wash., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., are circulating a petition among House lawmakers that would force a vote on the 72-hour rule.
Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. Senate Democrats voted down a similar measure last week for the health care bill.
The reluctance to implement a three-day rule is not unique to the Democrats.
The Republican majority rushed through the controversial Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as well as a massive Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.
For the majority party, legislative timing plays a big role in whether a bill will pass because support can be fleeting.
"The leaders use it as a tool to get votes or to keep amendments off a bill," said one top Senate Democratic aide.
But Baird warned of public backlash.
"Democrats know politically it's difficult to defend not doing this," he said. "The public gets this. They say we entrust you with the profound responsibility of making decisions that affect our lives, and we expect you to exercise due diligence in carrying out that responsibility."
By: Susan FerrechioChief Congressional CorrespondentOctober 6, 2009
As Congress lurches closer to a decision on an enormous overhaul of the American health care system, pressure is mounting on legislative leaders to make the final bill available online for citizens to read before a vote.
Lawmakers were given just hours to examine the $789 billion stimulus plan, sweeping climate-change legislation and a $700 billion bailout package before final votes.
While most Americans normally ignore parliamentary detail, with health care looming, voters are suddenly paying attention. The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill in the weeks to come, representing months of work and stretching to hundreds of pages. And as of now, there is no assurance that members of the public, or even the senators themselves, will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.
"The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work," said Michael Franc, president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
At town hall meetings across the country this past summer, the main topic was health care, but there was a strong undercurrent of anger over the way Congress rushed through passage of the stimulus, global warming and bank bailout bills without seeming to understand the consequences. The stimulus bill, for example, was 1,100 pages long and made available to Congress and the public just 13 hours before lawmakers voted on it. The bill has failed to provide the promised help to the job market, and there was outrage when it was discovered that the legislation included an amendment allowing American International Group, a bailout recipient, to give out millions in employee bonuses.
"If someone had a chance to look at the bill, they would have found that out," said Lisa Rosenberg, who lobbies Congress on behalf of the Sunlight Foundation to bring more transparency to government.
The foundation has begun an effort to get Congress to post bills online, for all to see, 72 hours before lawmakers vote on them.
"It would give the public a chance to really digest and understand what is in the bill," Rosenberg said, "and communicate whether that is a good or a bad thing while there is still time to fix it."
What you don't know can hurt you:
» House energy and global warming bill, passed June 26, 2009. 1,200 pages. Available online 15 hours before vote.
» $789 billion stimulus bill, passed Feb. 14, 2009. 1,100 pages. Available online 13 hours before debate.
» $700 billion financial sector rescue package, passed Oct. 3, 2008. 169 pages. Available online 29 hours before vote.
» USA Patriot domestic surveillance bill, passed Oct. 23, 2001. Unavailable to the public before debate.
A similar effort is under way in Congress. Reps. Brian Baird, D-Wash., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., are circulating a petition among House lawmakers that would force a vote on the 72-hour rule.
Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. Senate Democrats voted down a similar measure last week for the health care bill.
The reluctance to implement a three-day rule is not unique to the Democrats.
The Republican majority rushed through the controversial Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as well as a massive Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.
For the majority party, legislative timing plays a big role in whether a bill will pass because support can be fleeting.
"The leaders use it as a tool to get votes or to keep amendments off a bill," said one top Senate Democratic aide.
But Baird warned of public backlash.
"Democrats know politically it's difficult to defend not doing this," he said. "The public gets this. They say we entrust you with the profound responsibility of making decisions that affect our lives, and we expect you to exercise due diligence in carrying out that responsibility."
Defending McChrystal
There have been quite a few op-eds that have come out saying that McChrystal should just "shut up and salute" and not make his opinions public, especially when it embarrasses Obama. It seems to me that the people who write this have no concept of the fact that American lives are at stake here. This isn't some undersecretary of Health and Human Services having an issue with a public housing bill. This is a General who leads Americans into battle. He should be allowed, by the nature of his job, some leeway on protocol. And honestly, given that he has had almost no time to actually speak to the President, it is pretty clear he felt like he was being brushed aside and ignored. So I really don't see how anyone can blame him for speaking up in public. Michael O'Hanlon from Brookings has a pretty nice defense of the General today in the WaPo:
Some might agree with all this yet say that McChrystal still had no business wading into policy waters at this moment. It is true that commanders, as a rule, should not do so. But when truly bad ideas or those already tried and discredited are debated as serious proposals, they do not deserve intellectual sanctuary. McChrystal is personally responsible for the lives of 100,000 NATO troops who are suffering severe losses partially as a result of eight years of a failed counterterrorism strategy under a different name. He has a right to speak if a policy debate becomes too removed from reality. Put another way, we need to hear from him because he understands this reality far better than most in Washington.
Many of those criticizing McChrystal wish, in retrospect, that our military command in 2002-03 had been more vocal in opposing Donald Rumsfeld's planning for the Iraq invasion that assumed a minimal need for post-invasion stabilization forces. This was an unusually bad idea that military leadership went along with, at least publicly, partly out of a sense that they had no prerogative to intercede. The result was one of the most botched operations in U.S. military history until the 2007 surge partially salvaged things.
Obama Cuts Off Funding for Iran Human Rights Monitor
I don't think hear no evil, see no evil is a viable foreign policy:
For the past five years, researchers in a modest office overlooking the New Haven green have carefully documented cases of assassination and torture of democracy activists in Iran. With more than $3 million in grants from the US State Department, they have pored over thousands of documents and Persian-language press reports and interviewed scores of witnesses and survivors to build dossiers on those they say are Iran’s most infamous human-rights abusers.But just as the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center was ramping up to investigate abuses of protesters after this summer’s disputed presidential election, the group received word that - for the first time since it was formed - its federal funding request had been denied.
“If there is one time that I expected to get funding, this was it,’’ said Rene Redman, the group’s executive director, who had asked for $2.7 million in funding for the next two years. “I was sur prised, because the world was watching human rights violations right there on television.’’
Many see the sudden, unexplained cutoff of funding as a shift by the Obama administration away from high-profile democracy promotion in Iran, which had become a signature issue for President Bush. But the timing has alarmed some on Capitol Hill.
“The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center is at the forefront of pioneering and vitally important work,’’ said Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, in a statement yesterday. “It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most.’’
Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington-based think tank, said, “It is a shock that they did not get funding.’’ A reason, he asserted, may be that “the Obama administration is so focused on engaging Iran that they don’t want this information to get in the way.’’
Jews: beware of Obama's friends
Revolutionary Anti-Semitism
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
Sometimes I ask myself if Hitler wasn't right when he wanted to finish with that race, through the famous holocaust, because if there are people that are harmful to this country, they are the Jews, the Israelites.
David Romero Ellner,
Executive Director,
Radio Globo, Honduras, Sept. 25, 2009
Meet one of Honduras's most vocal advocates for the return of deposed president Manuel Zelaya to office. He's not your average radio jock. He started in Honduran politics as a radical activist and was one of the founders of the hard-left People's Revolutionary Union, which had links to Honduran terrorists in 1980s. A few years ago he was convicted and served time in prison for raping his own daughter.
Today Mr. Romero Ellner is pure zelayista, hungry for power and not ashamed to say so. This explains why he has joined Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Mr. Zelaya in targeting Jews. Mr. Chávez has allied himself with Iran to further his ability to rule unchecked in the hemisphere. He hosts Hezbollah terrorists and seeks Iranian help to become a nuclear power. He and his acolytes cement their ties to Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by echoing his anti-Semitic rants.
The Honduras debate is not really about Honduras. It is about whether it is possible to stop the spread of chavismo and all it implies, including nuclear proliferation and terrorism in Latin America. Most troubling is the unflinching support for Mr. Zelaya from President Barack Obama and Democratic Sen. John Kerry—despite the Law Library of Congress review that shows that Mr. Zelaya's removal from office was legal, and the clear evidence that he is Mr. Chávez's man in Tegucigalpa. On Thursday, Mr. Kerry took the unprecedented step of trying to block a fact-finding mission to Honduras by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who is resisting Mr. Obama's efforts to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.
Mr. Zelaya, recall, was arrested, deposed and deported on June 28 because he violated the Honduran Constitution. He snuck back into the country on Sept. 21 and found refuge at the Brazilian Embassy in the capital. Mr. Romero Ellner's calumny against Jews was a follow-up to Mr. Zelaya's claim that he was being "subjected to high-frequency radiation" from outside the embassy and that he thought "Israeli mercenaries" were behind it.
The verbal attack on Jews from a zelayista is consistent with a pattern emerging in the region. Take what's been going on in Venezuela. In the earliest years of Chávez rule, a Venezuelan friend, who is a Christian, confessed his fears to me. "In his speech, he always tries to create hate between groups of people," my friend told me. "He loves hate speech."
For a decade, Venezuelans have been force-fed the strongman's view of economic nationalism laced with this divisive language. Venezuelans are encouraged to seek revenge against their neighbors. Crime has skyrocketed.
The Jewish community has been targeted as Mr. Chávez's relationship with Mr. Ahmadinejad has blossomed. In 2004, I reported on a police raid at a Jewish school for young children in Caracas. The pretext was a "tip" that the school was storing weapons. No weapons were found, but the community was terrorized.
In recent years, Venezuela and Iran have signed joint ventures estimated to be worth $20 billion. There are similar pacts, estimated at $10 billion, between Iran and Venezuelan satellite, Bolivia. Both South American countries accused Israel of genocide in Gaza in 2008 and cut diplomatic ties. Mr. Chávez's tirades against Israel during that time emboldened his street thugs. In January 2009, vandals broke into a temple in Caracas and desecrated the sacred space with graffiti calling for the death of Jews.
New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau recently gave a speech to the Brookings Institution in which he said "Iran and Venezuela are beyond the courting phase. We know they are creating a cozy financial, political and military partnership, and that both countries have strong ties to Hezbollah and Hamas."
Iran has courted Honduras as well. When Mr. Zelaya was still in power, the Honduran press reported that his foreign minister Patricia Rodas met with high-ranking Iranian officials in Mexico City. That raised plenty of eyebrows in Central America.
Neither Venezuela nor Honduras has any history of anti-Semitism. But with Mr. Chávez importing Mr. Ahmadinejad's despicable ideology and methods, an assault on the Jewish community goes with the territory.
Honduras recognizes that it was a mistake to deport Mr. Zelaya after he was arrested. But it argues that fears of zelayista extremism and use of violence as a political tool in the months leading up to June 28 provoked desperation. Mr. Romero Ellner—whose radio station was closed down by the government last week—provided exhibit A with his remarks. If the U.S. State Department is opposed to the exile, let it call for Mr. Zelaya to be put on trial now that he is back in Honduras. It has no grounds to demand that democratic Honduras restore an anti-Semitic rabble rouser to power.
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
Sometimes I ask myself if Hitler wasn't right when he wanted to finish with that race, through the famous holocaust, because if there are people that are harmful to this country, they are the Jews, the Israelites.
David Romero Ellner,
Executive Director,
Radio Globo, Honduras, Sept. 25, 2009
Meet one of Honduras's most vocal advocates for the return of deposed president Manuel Zelaya to office. He's not your average radio jock. He started in Honduran politics as a radical activist and was one of the founders of the hard-left People's Revolutionary Union, which had links to Honduran terrorists in 1980s. A few years ago he was convicted and served time in prison for raping his own daughter.
Today Mr. Romero Ellner is pure zelayista, hungry for power and not ashamed to say so. This explains why he has joined Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Mr. Zelaya in targeting Jews. Mr. Chávez has allied himself with Iran to further his ability to rule unchecked in the hemisphere. He hosts Hezbollah terrorists and seeks Iranian help to become a nuclear power. He and his acolytes cement their ties to Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by echoing his anti-Semitic rants.
The Honduras debate is not really about Honduras. It is about whether it is possible to stop the spread of chavismo and all it implies, including nuclear proliferation and terrorism in Latin America. Most troubling is the unflinching support for Mr. Zelaya from President Barack Obama and Democratic Sen. John Kerry—despite the Law Library of Congress review that shows that Mr. Zelaya's removal from office was legal, and the clear evidence that he is Mr. Chávez's man in Tegucigalpa. On Thursday, Mr. Kerry took the unprecedented step of trying to block a fact-finding mission to Honduras by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who is resisting Mr. Obama's efforts to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.
Mr. Zelaya, recall, was arrested, deposed and deported on June 28 because he violated the Honduran Constitution. He snuck back into the country on Sept. 21 and found refuge at the Brazilian Embassy in the capital. Mr. Romero Ellner's calumny against Jews was a follow-up to Mr. Zelaya's claim that he was being "subjected to high-frequency radiation" from outside the embassy and that he thought "Israeli mercenaries" were behind it.
The verbal attack on Jews from a zelayista is consistent with a pattern emerging in the region. Take what's been going on in Venezuela. In the earliest years of Chávez rule, a Venezuelan friend, who is a Christian, confessed his fears to me. "In his speech, he always tries to create hate between groups of people," my friend told me. "He loves hate speech."
For a decade, Venezuelans have been force-fed the strongman's view of economic nationalism laced with this divisive language. Venezuelans are encouraged to seek revenge against their neighbors. Crime has skyrocketed.
The Jewish community has been targeted as Mr. Chávez's relationship with Mr. Ahmadinejad has blossomed. In 2004, I reported on a police raid at a Jewish school for young children in Caracas. The pretext was a "tip" that the school was storing weapons. No weapons were found, but the community was terrorized.
In recent years, Venezuela and Iran have signed joint ventures estimated to be worth $20 billion. There are similar pacts, estimated at $10 billion, between Iran and Venezuelan satellite, Bolivia. Both South American countries accused Israel of genocide in Gaza in 2008 and cut diplomatic ties. Mr. Chávez's tirades against Israel during that time emboldened his street thugs. In January 2009, vandals broke into a temple in Caracas and desecrated the sacred space with graffiti calling for the death of Jews.
New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau recently gave a speech to the Brookings Institution in which he said "Iran and Venezuela are beyond the courting phase. We know they are creating a cozy financial, political and military partnership, and that both countries have strong ties to Hezbollah and Hamas."
Iran has courted Honduras as well. When Mr. Zelaya was still in power, the Honduran press reported that his foreign minister Patricia Rodas met with high-ranking Iranian officials in Mexico City. That raised plenty of eyebrows in Central America.
Neither Venezuela nor Honduras has any history of anti-Semitism. But with Mr. Chávez importing Mr. Ahmadinejad's despicable ideology and methods, an assault on the Jewish community goes with the territory.
Honduras recognizes that it was a mistake to deport Mr. Zelaya after he was arrested. But it argues that fears of zelayista extremism and use of violence as a political tool in the months leading up to June 28 provoked desperation. Mr. Romero Ellner—whose radio station was closed down by the government last week—provided exhibit A with his remarks. If the U.S. State Department is opposed to the exile, let it call for Mr. Zelaya to be put on trial now that he is back in Honduras. It has no grounds to demand that democratic Honduras restore an anti-Semitic rabble rouser to power.
Spy on Your Neighbors! Win Cash Prizes!
Good Lord! Does anyone in England still read 1984? I'm sure this idea will be making its way to the US in a few years, starting in California.
Britain, already one of the most snooped-upon nations on Earth, is about to become a nation of snoopers.
A network of citizen crimewatchers will be given the chance of winning up to £1,000 by monitoring CCTV security cameras over the internet.
The cameras’ owners will pay a fee to have users watch the footage. The scheme, Internet Eyes, is being promoted as a game and is expected to go “live” next month with a test run in Stratford-upon-Avon.
Subscribers will be able to register free and will be given up to four cameras to monitor.
Eventually the consortium behind the idea hopes to have internet users around the world focused on Britain’s 4.2 million security cameras, waiting to see and report a crime in return for cash prizes.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Yes, we did!
Did We Elect a Beta Male As President?
By Greg Lewis
We're all somewhat familiar with the body language dogs display when they greet each other. The dominant alpha male approaches directly, asserting his authority, while the beta male genuflects, crouches, tucks his tail, and may even end up on his back, exposing his neck in acquiescence, making sure the alpha male knows he has no intention of challenging him. With his "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist" opening to the world's dictators, the President is exhibiting classic beta male behavior, in essence rolling over on his back and exposing his throat to them to make sure they know he has no intention of challenging their authority.
Of course, the problem is that he's not simply exposing his throat, he's exposing America's collective throat, sending the message that he's a typical beta male intent on submitting to all the alpha male leaders around the world, and damn the consequences. His response to the discovery of Iran's newest, and heretofore "secret," nuclear facility was, as Daniel Henninger (Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2009) points out, to have our State Department offer to start a direct dialogue with the tyrannical Burmese regime.
The Obama administration has also offered conciliatory gestures to the genocidal Sudanese leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir, and it has dispatched none other than John Kerry to meet with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. This, of course, is not to mention his somewhat more visible overtures to the world's alpha male thugs: Obama has consorted jovially with Hugo Chavez and his counterpart Daniel Ortega, he's bowed down to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, he's agreed to halt plans to install a missile defense system in eastern Europe to placate Vladimir Putin, and he's offered the aforementioned hand to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite the latter's expressed unwillingness to even agree to acknowledge the truly important issue of Iran's nuclear weapons in our talks, all quintessential beta male behaviors.
While we've all been seeking a political rationale for the president's actions, his behavior goes beyond the political to something deeper and more personal: like all beta males, Barack Obama simply does not have the temperament to confront tyrannical alpha males around the globe. In this light, even his inability to work with American allies Gordon Brown and Nikolas Sarkozy is a function of his being incapable of facing down the world's tyrants: to cooperate with our allies would require Obama to display alpha male behaviors, including demonstrating courage, something he's simply not capable of doing. The president's beta-male proclivities are arguably putting the safety of his constituents, the citizens of our country, in serious jeopardy.
Another cue to this unfortunate character trait of the president's can be found in the lack of assertiveness of his oratorical style. While many people insist that Barack Obama is a wonderful speaker, in fact, he exhibits less emotional range when he addresses a crowd than his predecessor, George W. Bush, did. He may have better speechwriters than W, but his delivery is monotonic and his cadences clipped, both signs of a beta male, unsure of himself, putting his words out there more for the purpose of seeking approval than of providing leadership.
The president's characteristic head tilt when he's speaking to an audience or having to deal with a tough question when he's being interviewed (although there are certainly very few instances of his having to do this) is another sign of submissive behavior. It crops up less than a minute in during an interview with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly (YouTube - Barack Obama Interview With Bill O'Reilly Sept 4, 2008 - FNC ) in answer to O'Reilly's question, "Do you believe we're in a war on terror?" After an initial "Absolutely," the Candidate begins to hedge, his head tilts as he explains the difficulty in sorting out the good guys from the bad guys in the Middle East. Like beta males everywhere, Obama is not about to commit to words that he might have to back up with assertive action.
Being a beta male is all about developing strategies for deflecting aggression, and for this reason, beta males do have an important place in society. Within the confines of a social unit, beta-male behavior can help to defuse aggression and maintain domestic peace. But in a world where other nations' alpha-male leaders are constantly probing for even the smallest signs of weakness, having a beta male president has thrown into stark relief the dangers to which this president's unfortunate character trait is exposing his country.
To return to the canine metaphor: It's the height of folly to think that other nations won't be doing everything they can to make President Obama their bitch.Greg Lewis is the co-author of End Your Addiction Now, recently released by Square One Books. His next book is The Politics of Anger: How Barack Obama and Marxism's Heirs Are Redefining Liberalism in America Today.
By Greg Lewis
We're all somewhat familiar with the body language dogs display when they greet each other. The dominant alpha male approaches directly, asserting his authority, while the beta male genuflects, crouches, tucks his tail, and may even end up on his back, exposing his neck in acquiescence, making sure the alpha male knows he has no intention of challenging him. With his "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist" opening to the world's dictators, the President is exhibiting classic beta male behavior, in essence rolling over on his back and exposing his throat to them to make sure they know he has no intention of challenging their authority.
Of course, the problem is that he's not simply exposing his throat, he's exposing America's collective throat, sending the message that he's a typical beta male intent on submitting to all the alpha male leaders around the world, and damn the consequences. His response to the discovery of Iran's newest, and heretofore "secret," nuclear facility was, as Daniel Henninger (Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2009) points out, to have our State Department offer to start a direct dialogue with the tyrannical Burmese regime.
The Obama administration has also offered conciliatory gestures to the genocidal Sudanese leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir, and it has dispatched none other than John Kerry to meet with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. This, of course, is not to mention his somewhat more visible overtures to the world's alpha male thugs: Obama has consorted jovially with Hugo Chavez and his counterpart Daniel Ortega, he's bowed down to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, he's agreed to halt plans to install a missile defense system in eastern Europe to placate Vladimir Putin, and he's offered the aforementioned hand to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite the latter's expressed unwillingness to even agree to acknowledge the truly important issue of Iran's nuclear weapons in our talks, all quintessential beta male behaviors.
While we've all been seeking a political rationale for the president's actions, his behavior goes beyond the political to something deeper and more personal: like all beta males, Barack Obama simply does not have the temperament to confront tyrannical alpha males around the globe. In this light, even his inability to work with American allies Gordon Brown and Nikolas Sarkozy is a function of his being incapable of facing down the world's tyrants: to cooperate with our allies would require Obama to display alpha male behaviors, including demonstrating courage, something he's simply not capable of doing. The president's beta-male proclivities are arguably putting the safety of his constituents, the citizens of our country, in serious jeopardy.
Another cue to this unfortunate character trait of the president's can be found in the lack of assertiveness of his oratorical style. While many people insist that Barack Obama is a wonderful speaker, in fact, he exhibits less emotional range when he addresses a crowd than his predecessor, George W. Bush, did. He may have better speechwriters than W, but his delivery is monotonic and his cadences clipped, both signs of a beta male, unsure of himself, putting his words out there more for the purpose of seeking approval than of providing leadership.
The president's characteristic head tilt when he's speaking to an audience or having to deal with a tough question when he's being interviewed (although there are certainly very few instances of his having to do this) is another sign of submissive behavior. It crops up less than a minute in during an interview with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly (YouTube - Barack Obama Interview With Bill O'Reilly Sept 4, 2008 - FNC ) in answer to O'Reilly's question, "Do you believe we're in a war on terror?" After an initial "Absolutely," the Candidate begins to hedge, his head tilts as he explains the difficulty in sorting out the good guys from the bad guys in the Middle East. Like beta males everywhere, Obama is not about to commit to words that he might have to back up with assertive action.
Being a beta male is all about developing strategies for deflecting aggression, and for this reason, beta males do have an important place in society. Within the confines of a social unit, beta-male behavior can help to defuse aggression and maintain domestic peace. But in a world where other nations' alpha-male leaders are constantly probing for even the smallest signs of weakness, having a beta male president has thrown into stark relief the dangers to which this president's unfortunate character trait is exposing his country.
To return to the canine metaphor: It's the height of folly to think that other nations won't be doing everything they can to make President Obama their bitch.Greg Lewis is the co-author of End Your Addiction Now, recently released by Square One Books. His next book is The Politics of Anger: How Barack Obama and Marxism's Heirs Are Redefining Liberalism in America Today.
Mind numbing capitulation
Do you need more proof he has no use for the Constitution? He will not defend free speech or freedom. Everything is a matter of expediency.
You Can't Say That At the UN, the Obama administration backs limits on free speech.
by Anne Bayefsky 10/05/2009 12:00:00 AM
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.
For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the "reformed" Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN's lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an "abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination."
The Obama administration decided that a revamped freedom of expression resolution, extracted from Canadian hands, would be an ideal emblem for its new engagement policy. So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt--a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression.
Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs. In introducing the resolution on Thursday, October 1--adopted by consensus the following day--the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d'Affaires Douglas Griffiths, crowed:
"The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration's commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
His Egyptian counterpart, Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased--for all the wrong reasons. He praised the development by telling the Council that "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused," insisting on limits consistent with the "true nature of this right" and demanding that the "the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner."
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."
Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it.
Even the normally feeble European Union tried to salvage the American capitulation by expressing the hope that the resolution might be read a different way. Speaking on behalf of the EU following the resolution's adoption, French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattéi declared that "human rights law does not, and should not, protect religions or belief systems, hence the language on stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals . . . and not of ideologies, religions or abstract values. The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religions." The EU also distanced itself from the American compromise on the media, declaring that "the notion of a moral and social responsibility of the media" goes "well beyond" existing international law and "the EU cannot subscribe to this concept in such general terms."
In 1992 when the United States ratified the main international law treaty which addresses freedom of expression, the government carefully attached reservations to ensure that the treaty could not "restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
The Obama administration's debut at the Human Rights Council laid bare its very different priorities. Threatening freedom of expression is a price for engagement with the Islamic world that it is evidently prepared to pay.
Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a professor at Touro College, and the editor of EYEontheUN.org.
The guy always had a pro Islam/arab agenda...
He never finds a threat in the Arab or Muslim world. He didn't know about Libya, Iran, Pakistan, etc. I've never trusted him and his UN buddies.
ElBaradei says nuclear Israel number one threat to Mideast: report
http://www.chinaview.cn/index.htm 2009-10-04 22:44:00
TEHRAN, Oct. 4 (Xinhua) -- Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday that "Israel is number one threat to Middle East" with its nuclear arms, the official IRNA news agency reported.
At a joint press conference with Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30years, the report said.
"Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses," ElBaradei was quoted as saying.
Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear capabilities, although it refuses to confirm or deny the allegation.
"This (possession of nuclear arms) was the cause for some proper measures to gain access to its (Israel's) power plants ... and the U.S. president has done some positive measures for the inspections to happen," said ElBaradei.
ElBaradei arrived in Iran Saturday for talks with Iranian officials over Tehran's nuclear program.
Leaders of the United States, France and Britain have condemned Iran's alleged deception to the international community involving covert activities in its new underground nuclear site.
Last month, Iran confirmed that it is building a new nuclear fuel enrichment plant near its northwestern city of Qom. In reaction, the IAEA asked Tehran to provide detailed information and access to the new nuclear facility as soon as possible.
On Sunday, ElBaradei said the UN nuclear watchdog would inspect Iran's new uranium plant near Qom on Oct. 25.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
A Democrat and a Communist, how very Obamaesque
From CNN: ‘Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh... communism still can win’
By FRANK MIELE 9 comments
Reporter Carol Costello had a report on CNN's "American Morning" Friday asking whether the time was ripe for a third party in the United States.
That's certainly an interesting topic, and one well worth featuring in a news report, but what was really interesting was that the third party Costello chose to feature was communism.
That seems to tell us more about CNN than about American politics.
No, I don't think that CNN stands for Communist News Network like some people do, but that cable news channel does sometimes seem to have a left-leaning slant (not into Stalin territory like MSNBC, but well over into the Gorbachev range at least).
And if you don't think they lean left, would you do me a favor? Please explain why they picked a communist out as an example of how the country is "ripe" for a third party? Do any of you really believe that communism is about to become a viable grass-roots alternative in Cleveland or anywhere else in America? I don't.
And nobody I know, whether Republican or Democrat, would ever consider voting for a communist for city council, let alone for Senate or president. So how exactly is this a proper focus for a story about Americans being receptive to the idea of a third party?
Oh sure, the story also mentioned Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party, and had a quote from political analyst John Avlon saying, "Voters are getting more and more frustrated with politics as usual," but that's a far cry from saying Americans are ready to cast off centuries of capitalist tradition and adopt the failed dogmas of Eastern Europe.
Yet CNN focused their story on the "little communist candidate who could," Rick Nagin. There was not even the hint of any skepticism from the CNN reporter about touting communism as a viable alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. Indeed, if you watched Costello's report, you got the idea that communism was as American as apple pie. Kind of like Nagin's concluding quote: "I consider myself to be a very patriotic American. I love this country."
That's nice. Swell. I bet Stalin liked his country too even though he killed 30 million of his fellow citizens. And I'm sure Chairman Mao was a big fan of China even though about 80 million Chinese are estimated to have perished "unexpectedly" during his reign.
But that could never happen here, right?
Well, probably not. At least, not as long as Americans continue to be told the truth, and can make informed decisions for themselves.
But what if we don't get the truth? What if we are fed an endless diet of anti-American propaganda from major news networks and major political parties? Isn't it possible then that we might fall prey to opportunistic charlatans who will pounce on the uninformed electorate like wolves in sheep's clothing?
The weird thing is that this Rick Nagin is indeed a serious candidate for the Cleveland City Council. That's certainly worth reporting. Flukes like this happen from time to time, such as socialist Bernie Sanders being elected to the Senate from Vermont.
And people ought to hear about Nagin. He is an intriguing candidate, who raises some interesting questions. According to Costello, he is both a registered Democrat AND a member of the Communist Party. He was quoted in the report on CNN's "American Morning" as saying, "I believe that corporate greed is the source of the problems in this country and we'd all be a lot better off if working people and their organizations were running things instead of big business."
Reporter Costello did not identify whether this quote was made by the "registered Democrat" side of Nagin, or the "member of the Communist Party," but the question is how many other Democrats, including elected officials, feel the same way about capitalism? Is disdain for free enterprise the "dirty little secret" of Democrats? I certainly hope not.
But when you read the glowing reviews for Michael Moore's latest film, you have to wonder. Moore, at least, comes right out and admits that he thinks the economic system that made our country great is "evil." In his new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story," he blames people like you and me who value the American dream for the troubles of people who are struggling to make it in 21st-century America.
Oh sure, he singles out rich CEOs as the "great Satans" of America, but you know behind every "great Satan" with a Ferrari, there are a thousand "little Satans" driving Fords and thinking about Ferraris. Those wannabe CEOs are you and me, folks -- scrambling for our place on the ladder of success, trying to get ahead, and making Michael Moore see red as he thinks about how one man's success is another's "exploitation."
Heck, when you think about it, the problem all starts with the "teeny-tiny Satans" hawking lemonade from roadside stands to the "little Satans" driving by in their big bad Fords. Those kids are small-scale capitalists, and unless they are giving half their earnings to the kid down the street who didn't have the ambition to run a lemonade stand of his own but still wants to buy himself candy and a soda pop, they are also "evil." Share the wealth, dudes.
Of course, Michael Moore is smart enough not to attack your kids. If he did that, you wouldn't go see the capitalist-funded movies that have turned him into a multi-millionaire. Oh yeah, and did I say that I didn't know anyone who would vote for a communist for city council? I was wrong. I forgot about Michael Moore.
n Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com
By FRANK MIELE 9 comments
Reporter Carol Costello had a report on CNN's "American Morning" Friday asking whether the time was ripe for a third party in the United States.
That's certainly an interesting topic, and one well worth featuring in a news report, but what was really interesting was that the third party Costello chose to feature was communism.
That seems to tell us more about CNN than about American politics.
No, I don't think that CNN stands for Communist News Network like some people do, but that cable news channel does sometimes seem to have a left-leaning slant (not into Stalin territory like MSNBC, but well over into the Gorbachev range at least).
And if you don't think they lean left, would you do me a favor? Please explain why they picked a communist out as an example of how the country is "ripe" for a third party? Do any of you really believe that communism is about to become a viable grass-roots alternative in Cleveland or anywhere else in America? I don't.
And nobody I know, whether Republican or Democrat, would ever consider voting for a communist for city council, let alone for Senate or president. So how exactly is this a proper focus for a story about Americans being receptive to the idea of a third party?
Oh sure, the story also mentioned Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party, and had a quote from political analyst John Avlon saying, "Voters are getting more and more frustrated with politics as usual," but that's a far cry from saying Americans are ready to cast off centuries of capitalist tradition and adopt the failed dogmas of Eastern Europe.
Yet CNN focused their story on the "little communist candidate who could," Rick Nagin. There was not even the hint of any skepticism from the CNN reporter about touting communism as a viable alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. Indeed, if you watched Costello's report, you got the idea that communism was as American as apple pie. Kind of like Nagin's concluding quote: "I consider myself to be a very patriotic American. I love this country."
That's nice. Swell. I bet Stalin liked his country too even though he killed 30 million of his fellow citizens. And I'm sure Chairman Mao was a big fan of China even though about 80 million Chinese are estimated to have perished "unexpectedly" during his reign.
But that could never happen here, right?
Well, probably not. At least, not as long as Americans continue to be told the truth, and can make informed decisions for themselves.
But what if we don't get the truth? What if we are fed an endless diet of anti-American propaganda from major news networks and major political parties? Isn't it possible then that we might fall prey to opportunistic charlatans who will pounce on the uninformed electorate like wolves in sheep's clothing?
The weird thing is that this Rick Nagin is indeed a serious candidate for the Cleveland City Council. That's certainly worth reporting. Flukes like this happen from time to time, such as socialist Bernie Sanders being elected to the Senate from Vermont.
And people ought to hear about Nagin. He is an intriguing candidate, who raises some interesting questions. According to Costello, he is both a registered Democrat AND a member of the Communist Party. He was quoted in the report on CNN's "American Morning" as saying, "I believe that corporate greed is the source of the problems in this country and we'd all be a lot better off if working people and their organizations were running things instead of big business."
Reporter Costello did not identify whether this quote was made by the "registered Democrat" side of Nagin, or the "member of the Communist Party," but the question is how many other Democrats, including elected officials, feel the same way about capitalism? Is disdain for free enterprise the "dirty little secret" of Democrats? I certainly hope not.
But when you read the glowing reviews for Michael Moore's latest film, you have to wonder. Moore, at least, comes right out and admits that he thinks the economic system that made our country great is "evil." In his new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story," he blames people like you and me who value the American dream for the troubles of people who are struggling to make it in 21st-century America.
Oh sure, he singles out rich CEOs as the "great Satans" of America, but you know behind every "great Satan" with a Ferrari, there are a thousand "little Satans" driving Fords and thinking about Ferraris. Those wannabe CEOs are you and me, folks -- scrambling for our place on the ladder of success, trying to get ahead, and making Michael Moore see red as he thinks about how one man's success is another's "exploitation."
Heck, when you think about it, the problem all starts with the "teeny-tiny Satans" hawking lemonade from roadside stands to the "little Satans" driving by in their big bad Fords. Those kids are small-scale capitalists, and unless they are giving half their earnings to the kid down the street who didn't have the ambition to run a lemonade stand of his own but still wants to buy himself candy and a soda pop, they are also "evil." Share the wealth, dudes.
Of course, Michael Moore is smart enough not to attack your kids. If he did that, you wouldn't go see the capitalist-funded movies that have turned him into a multi-millionaire. Oh yeah, and did I say that I didn't know anyone who would vote for a communist for city council? I was wrong. I forgot about Michael Moore.
n Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com
Saturday, October 3, 2009
I knew it. It's all a Zionist plot...duct tape time
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vitriolic attacks on the Jewish world hide an astonishing secret, evidence uncovered by The Daily Telegraph shows.
By Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat Published: 7:30AM BST 03 Oct 2009
Ahmadinejad showing papers during election. It shows that his family's previous name was Jewish
A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.
A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.
The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.
The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.
Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past.
Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, said: "This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him.
"Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith.
"By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society."
A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said that "jian" ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews.
"He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his parents had," said the Iranian-born Jew living in London. "Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran."
A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said it would not be drawn on Mr Ahmadinejad's background. "It's not something we'd talk about," said Ron Gidor, a spokesman.
The Iranian leader has not denied his name was changed when his family moved to Tehran in the 1950s. But he has never revealed what it was change from or directly addressed the reason for the switch.
Relatives have previously said a mixture of religious reasons and economic pressures forced his blacksmith father Ahmad to change when Mr Ahmadinejad was aged four.
The Iranian president grew up to be a qualified engineer with a doctorate in traffic management. He served in the Revolutionary Guards militia before going on to make his name in hardline politics in the capital.
During this year's presidential debate on television he was goaded to admit that his name had changed but he ignored the jibe.
However Mehdi Khazali, an internet blogger, who called for an investigation of Mr Ahmadinejad's roots was arrested this summer.
Mr Ahmadinejad has regularly levelled bitter criticism at Israel, questioned its right to exist and denied the Holocaust. British diplomats walked out of a UN meeting last month after the Iranian president denounced Israel's 'genocide, barbarism and racism.'
Benjamin Netanyahu made an impassioned denunciation of the Iranian leader at the same UN summit. "Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium," he said. "A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies the murder of six million Jews while promising to wipe out the State of Israel, the State of the Jews. What a disgrace. What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations."
Mr Ahmadinejad has been consistently outspoken about the Nazi attempt to wipe out the Jewish race. "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he declared at a conference on the holocaust staged in Tehran in 2006.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vitriolic attacks on the Jewish world hide an astonishing secret, evidence uncovered by The Daily Telegraph shows.
By Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat Published: 7:30AM BST 03 Oct 2009
Ahmadinejad showing papers during election. It shows that his family's previous name was Jewish
A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.
A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.
The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.
The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.
Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past.
Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, said: "This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him.
"Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith.
"By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society."
A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said that "jian" ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews.
"He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his parents had," said the Iranian-born Jew living in London. "Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran."
A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said it would not be drawn on Mr Ahmadinejad's background. "It's not something we'd talk about," said Ron Gidor, a spokesman.
The Iranian leader has not denied his name was changed when his family moved to Tehran in the 1950s. But he has never revealed what it was change from or directly addressed the reason for the switch.
Relatives have previously said a mixture of religious reasons and economic pressures forced his blacksmith father Ahmad to change when Mr Ahmadinejad was aged four.
The Iranian president grew up to be a qualified engineer with a doctorate in traffic management. He served in the Revolutionary Guards militia before going on to make his name in hardline politics in the capital.
During this year's presidential debate on television he was goaded to admit that his name had changed but he ignored the jibe.
However Mehdi Khazali, an internet blogger, who called for an investigation of Mr Ahmadinejad's roots was arrested this summer.
Mr Ahmadinejad has regularly levelled bitter criticism at Israel, questioned its right to exist and denied the Holocaust. British diplomats walked out of a UN meeting last month after the Iranian president denounced Israel's 'genocide, barbarism and racism.'
Benjamin Netanyahu made an impassioned denunciation of the Iranian leader at the same UN summit. "Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium," he said. "A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies the murder of six million Jews while promising to wipe out the State of Israel, the State of the Jews. What a disgrace. What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations."
Mr Ahmadinejad has been consistently outspoken about the Nazi attempt to wipe out the Jewish race. "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he declared at a conference on the holocaust staged in Tehran in 2006.
America's Clockwork Orange
Come See the Blood in the Streets
George Joyce
Chicago’s vitriolic West Side Catholic leader and one time Obama spiritual mentor Father Michael Pfleger is known by some as the “white” Jeremiah Wright. Pfleger, who has called Louis Farrakhan a “great man” and Rev. Wright “one of the greatest Biblical scholars this nation has,” earlier this year thundered about the hypocrisy of fighting a war in Iraq “when we have innocent children dying on the streets right here at home.”At home, meaning Chicago.In 2008 for example, America lost 314 fighting men and women in Iraq while 509 unfortunate citizens were murdered in Chicago. The case this year of nine year old Chastity Turner is illustrative of a city in serious trouble. According to reporter Monica Land:
“In June, Chastity was visiting her grandmother on the city's South Side. While washing the family's dog outside with her father, a van pulled up and at least twenty shots rang out. Chastity was shot in the back while running for cover. She was only nine years old. Two men, aged 17 and 19, have since been charged with her murder and police are searching for a third suspect.”Land also reports that many of Chicago’s children are having nightmares about the recent carnage:
“Many Chicago parents have kept their children inside this summer for fear they will be killed playing on the street, particularly in Englewood, which is statistically Chicago's most dangerous neighborhood. Children have nightmares about being killed or beaten coming from school. Sadly, for many of them balloons and stuffed animals have come to symbolize death, not joy and celebration.”Barely a week after the young honor student Derrion Albert was beaten to death in Englewood, a 14 year old high school boy was chased down a few days ago and beaten by three assailants in the North Side Edgewater area of Chicago. The boy suffered a fractured skull and barely survived the vicious attack. According to one witness:
“He was covered in blood. Blood was all over the street.”On the day after last year’s presidential election AT editor Thomas Lifson received a disturbing communication from a Chicago waitress named “Tina” who was working the late night shift at an area bar on election night. The bar’s patrons included a table of six African-Americans who, instead of leaving Tina a tip, graced her with the following note:
“Tip 4 the Day – Blacks Run the New Black House Bitch!!!!”We’ll probably never hear about the real reason the International Olympic Committee dumped Chicago from the shortlist of host cities in 2016, but it would be naïve to omit the committee’s concerns about the safety of thousands of foreign tourists. Many of those tourists would have been sampling the Chicago bar scene too.Writing about the brutality during the Spanish Civil War the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda distilled the essence of his experiences into the following lines:
Come and see the blood in the streets.Come and seeThe blood in the streets.Come and see the bloodIn the streets!Many of Chicago’s kids are having nightmares about being killed, yet Chicago’s most notable son skipped town for a Copenhagen adventure. Maybe this disturbed someone at the IOC too.
George Joyce
Chicago’s vitriolic West Side Catholic leader and one time Obama spiritual mentor Father Michael Pfleger is known by some as the “white” Jeremiah Wright. Pfleger, who has called Louis Farrakhan a “great man” and Rev. Wright “one of the greatest Biblical scholars this nation has,” earlier this year thundered about the hypocrisy of fighting a war in Iraq “when we have innocent children dying on the streets right here at home.”At home, meaning Chicago.In 2008 for example, America lost 314 fighting men and women in Iraq while 509 unfortunate citizens were murdered in Chicago. The case this year of nine year old Chastity Turner is illustrative of a city in serious trouble. According to reporter Monica Land:
“In June, Chastity was visiting her grandmother on the city's South Side. While washing the family's dog outside with her father, a van pulled up and at least twenty shots rang out. Chastity was shot in the back while running for cover. She was only nine years old. Two men, aged 17 and 19, have since been charged with her murder and police are searching for a third suspect.”Land also reports that many of Chicago’s children are having nightmares about the recent carnage:
“Many Chicago parents have kept their children inside this summer for fear they will be killed playing on the street, particularly in Englewood, which is statistically Chicago's most dangerous neighborhood. Children have nightmares about being killed or beaten coming from school. Sadly, for many of them balloons and stuffed animals have come to symbolize death, not joy and celebration.”Barely a week after the young honor student Derrion Albert was beaten to death in Englewood, a 14 year old high school boy was chased down a few days ago and beaten by three assailants in the North Side Edgewater area of Chicago. The boy suffered a fractured skull and barely survived the vicious attack. According to one witness:
“He was covered in blood. Blood was all over the street.”On the day after last year’s presidential election AT editor Thomas Lifson received a disturbing communication from a Chicago waitress named “Tina” who was working the late night shift at an area bar on election night. The bar’s patrons included a table of six African-Americans who, instead of leaving Tina a tip, graced her with the following note:
“Tip 4 the Day – Blacks Run the New Black House Bitch!!!!”We’ll probably never hear about the real reason the International Olympic Committee dumped Chicago from the shortlist of host cities in 2016, but it would be naïve to omit the committee’s concerns about the safety of thousands of foreign tourists. Many of those tourists would have been sampling the Chicago bar scene too.Writing about the brutality during the Spanish Civil War the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda distilled the essence of his experiences into the following lines:
Come and see the blood in the streets.Come and seeThe blood in the streets.Come and see the bloodIn the streets!Many of Chicago’s kids are having nightmares about being killed, yet Chicago’s most notable son skipped town for a Copenhagen adventure. Maybe this disturbed someone at the IOC too.
Friday, October 2, 2009
The Nonexistent Breakthrough
It looks like the deal "in principle" with Iran over sending uranium to Russia wasn't even discussed at the meeting:
I wonder if Obama was lying in order to give the "image of success".Western officials at the session said the Islamic republic had also agreed to allow Russia to take some of its enriched uranium and enrich it to higher levels to fuel its research reactor in Tehran, a potentially significant move that would show greater flexibility by both sides.
President Barack Obama noted the deal in comments on the meeting. But Mehdi Saffare, Iran's ambassador to Britain, and a member of the Iranian delegation at the talks told The Associated Press the issue had "not been discussed yet." Asked if Iran had accepted, he replied: "No, no!"
What the blazes is going on in Britain?
Disabled widow, 71 charged with assault after she prodded teenager
By Jaya Narain
A disabled pensioner was hauled before the courts and charged with assault after she prodded a teenage 'hoodie' in the chest with her finger.
Renate Bowling, 71, confronted the 17-year-old youth in the street after stones were thrown at her home.
During the conversation the frail widow, who fled to Britain from Communist East Germany and walks with a steel frame, prodded the youth in the chest with her finger.
Renate Bowling, 71, who uses a walking frame, pleaded guilty to assault after prodding a teenager in the chest for throwing stones at her windows
Police officers were called to the quiet residential street and the teenager told them he had been assaulted.
Yesterday Mrs Bowling admitted a charge of assault when she appeared before magistrates in Blackpool.
Magistrates gave her a conditional discharge for six months and ordered her to pay £50 costs.
Afterwards the great-grandmother said anti-social youths were left to run riot while she was hauled into court.
She said: 'What justice is there? There are a group of youths who throw gravel at my window and use foul language against me.
'I saw one of them throw the stones against my window from my bedroom. I went out and found him hiding behind a wall.
I poked my finger out at him and told him what I thought of him. He called me "some ****ing German woman".
'Then the police arrested me - I thought "What a joke. What is going on?"
'That lad had held my wrists and bruised them and he had the gall to call it self-defence.
'The police put me in the back of their van like a sack of spuds and took me to the station where they questioned me. Then a few days later I was told I was being prosecuted. I could not believe it, neither could my family.
'I had to borrow £20 from a friend to pay the court costs as I only had £30 on me. It has all been a nightmare.'
The court was told Mrs Bowling survived the Second World War in Berlin but was later trapped in East Germany.
She managed to escape and then fell in love with a British Army sergeant from the Royal Engineers.
The couple made a home in Britain and Mrs Bowling worked as a furrier. She has three sons, ten grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.
But recently youths have made her life a misery.
On May 12 this year stones were thrown at her home in Thornton Cleveleys and comments were made by youths towards her in the street.
Julie Reilly, prosecuting, told magistrates: 'This defendant says he was playing football in the street when there was an incident between himself and the defendant.
'Had the defendant accepted her criminality in prodding the aggrieved in the chest there and then, this could well have been dealt with in a different way.'
Nigel Beeson, defending, said Mrs Bowling had given the defendant 'a piece of her mind and addressed him frankly'.
He added: This is a very sad case for those concerned - a 71-year-old granny charged with assaulting a 17-year-old boy. It was a prod, there were no injuries.'
Originally Mrs Bowling had intended to deny the offence but after a long deliberation between the Crown Prosecution Service and her defence, Mrs Bowling admitted the charge of assault.
By Jaya Narain
A disabled pensioner was hauled before the courts and charged with assault after she prodded a teenage 'hoodie' in the chest with her finger.
Renate Bowling, 71, confronted the 17-year-old youth in the street after stones were thrown at her home.
During the conversation the frail widow, who fled to Britain from Communist East Germany and walks with a steel frame, prodded the youth in the chest with her finger.
Renate Bowling, 71, who uses a walking frame, pleaded guilty to assault after prodding a teenager in the chest for throwing stones at her windows
Police officers were called to the quiet residential street and the teenager told them he had been assaulted.
Yesterday Mrs Bowling admitted a charge of assault when she appeared before magistrates in Blackpool.
Magistrates gave her a conditional discharge for six months and ordered her to pay £50 costs.
Afterwards the great-grandmother said anti-social youths were left to run riot while she was hauled into court.
She said: 'What justice is there? There are a group of youths who throw gravel at my window and use foul language against me.
'I saw one of them throw the stones against my window from my bedroom. I went out and found him hiding behind a wall.
I poked my finger out at him and told him what I thought of him. He called me "some ****ing German woman".
'Then the police arrested me - I thought "What a joke. What is going on?"
'That lad had held my wrists and bruised them and he had the gall to call it self-defence.
'The police put me in the back of their van like a sack of spuds and took me to the station where they questioned me. Then a few days later I was told I was being prosecuted. I could not believe it, neither could my family.
'I had to borrow £20 from a friend to pay the court costs as I only had £30 on me. It has all been a nightmare.'
The court was told Mrs Bowling survived the Second World War in Berlin but was later trapped in East Germany.
She managed to escape and then fell in love with a British Army sergeant from the Royal Engineers.
The couple made a home in Britain and Mrs Bowling worked as a furrier. She has three sons, ten grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.
But recently youths have made her life a misery.
On May 12 this year stones were thrown at her home in Thornton Cleveleys and comments were made by youths towards her in the street.
Julie Reilly, prosecuting, told magistrates: 'This defendant says he was playing football in the street when there was an incident between himself and the defendant.
'Had the defendant accepted her criminality in prodding the aggrieved in the chest there and then, this could well have been dealt with in a different way.'
Nigel Beeson, defending, said Mrs Bowling had given the defendant 'a piece of her mind and addressed him frankly'.
He added: This is a very sad case for those concerned - a 71-year-old granny charged with assaulting a 17-year-old boy. It was a prod, there were no injuries.'
Originally Mrs Bowling had intended to deny the offence but after a long deliberation between the Crown Prosecution Service and her defence, Mrs Bowling admitted the charge of assault.
Obama and the IOC
As John has already posted, Chicago has lost its olympics bid. I'm wondering if the trip by the Obamas may have actually hurt. Check out what Michelle "I'm only proud of my country when my husband is running it" Obama said at her presentation to the IOC:
I do understand that as cities go, Chicago doesn't really have much going for it. It's a corrupt cesspool in one of the most scenically boring parts of the country (Rio might be a corrupt cesspool but at least it will look nice on TV). But to blather on about your father being sick for a very large segment of your speech, I know that would have grated on my nerves. After all, I'm sure there are daughters in Rio who would really want the olympics there for their sick fathers. I guess this was her way of saying "I deserve this" because of who she is, but I guess the IOC had other ideas.
The Times of London thinks this escapade turned out to be a disaster:
I'm also asking as a daughter.
See, my dad would have been so proud to witness these Games in Chicago. And I know they would have meant something much more to him, too.
You see, in my dad's early thirties, he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. And as he got sicker, it became harder for him to walk, let alone play his favorite sports. But my dad was determined that sports continue to be a vital lifeline -- not just to the rest of the world, but to me and my brother.
And even as we watched my dad struggle to hold himself up on crutches, he never stopped playing with us. And he refused to let us take our abilities for granted. He believed that his little girl should be taught no less than his son. So he taught me how to throw a ball and a mean right hook better than any boy in my neighborhood. But more importantly, my dad taught us the fundamental rules of the game, rules that continue to guide our lives today: to engage with honor, with dignity, and fair play.
My dad was my hero.
I do understand that as cities go, Chicago doesn't really have much going for it. It's a corrupt cesspool in one of the most scenically boring parts of the country (Rio might be a corrupt cesspool but at least it will look nice on TV). But to blather on about your father being sick for a very large segment of your speech, I know that would have grated on my nerves. After all, I'm sure there are daughters in Rio who would really want the olympics there for their sick fathers. I guess this was her way of saying "I deserve this" because of who she is, but I guess the IOC had other ideas.
The Times of London thinks this escapade turned out to be a disaster:
There has been a growing narrative taking hold about Barack Obama’s presidency in recent weeks: that he is loved by many, but feared by none; that he is full of lofty vision, but is actually achieving nothing with his grandiloquence.
Chicago’s dismal showing today, after Mr Obama’s personal, impassioned last-minute pitch, is a stunning humiliation for this President. It cannot be emphasised enough how this will feed the perception that on the world stage he looks good — but carries no heft.
It was only the Olympic Games, the White House will argue — not a high-stakes diplomatic gamble with North Korea. It is always worthwhile when Mr Obama sells America to the rest of the world, David Axelrod, his chief political adviser, said today. But that argument will fall on deaf ears in the US. Americans want their presidents to be winners.
Mr Obama was greeted — as usual — like a rock star by the IOC delegates in Copenhagen — then humiliated by them. Perception is reality. A narrow defeat for Chicago would have been acceptable — but the sheer scale of the defeat was a bombshell, and is a major blow for Mr Obama at a time when questions are being asked about his style of governance.
...Abroad, Mr Obama promised in his Inauguration address to engage America’s enemies, and he has done just that. He has very little to show for it. Yes, Iran took part in bilateral talks with the US this week over its nuclear weapons programme — but that is something Tehran has wanted for years. There is still a very good chance that the meetings will prove to be an exercise in futility and a time-wasting ploy by Tehran.
Mr Obama also scrapped a plan for a missile defence shield in the Czech Republic and Poland, hoping to get in return Russian co-operation behind new sanctions against Tehran. There was optimism when President Medvedev said “sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable”. Yet Vladimir Putin, and the Chinese, remain fiercely opposed to sanctions.
Meanwhile, America and its allies are being forced to witness a very public agonising by Mr Obama and his advisers over his Afghan strategy — six months after he announced that strategy.
Jimmy Carter and Iran
Iran under the Shah was one of the most pro-Israel countries in the middle east. Could Carter's anti Semitism been a factor in abandoning the Shah in favor of the Mullahs?
Letterman
Can you say "sexual harassment" suit...
It is apparent he's a martinet and having sex with a subordinate is ripe grounds for a legal action.
His lack of remorse or respect for his wife and child is disgraceful.
He's another example of the narcissistic and morally bankrupt stance of the Democrat left. I wonder if he signed the petition in favor of Polanski?
Letterman was making fun of the Palin family while committing incest with his staff.
Olympics in Brazil
Obama, who had no time to focus on ACORN because of the other pressing problems we face, did find a few days to go and shill for his Chicago buds in a bid for the Olympics. Well, despite all the sacrifice, the One wasn't able to wangle the big bag of cash for his old cronies back in Chicago. Great negotiating skills there Barack, good luck with Iran and North Korea.
In a vote of high drama, the bustling Brazilian carnival city of beaches, mountains and samba beat surprise finalist Madrid, which got a big helping hand from a very influential friend.
Chicago was knocked out in the first round — in one of the most shocking defeats ever in International Olympic Committee voting. Even Tokyo, which had trailed throughout the race, did better — eliminated after Chicago in the second round.
The Virtue of Doing Nothing
Daniel Hannan, in addition to his great YouTube series, is now posting at Zero Hedge. Here he explains the virtues of doing nothing. I am reminded of P.J. O'Rourke's great quote about Calvin Coolidge, after Ronald Reagan my favorite President of the 20th century: "He was President when nothing much needed to be done and he had the good sense not to do it." Sadly so few current politicians have any good sense.
Is there anything - anything at all - that might convince world leaders that they shouldn't respond to the credit crunch by spending more? It may seem common sense that you can't borrow your way out of debt: we all apply that principle to our household budgets. But, since the financial crisis began, states increased their spending despite the plain evidence that stimulus packages have done nothing to ward off the recession.
On most measures, it hasn't worked: the downturn has happened anyway, but we are now drifting into it with an additional debt burden. The trouble is that, politically, stimulus packages take on their own momentum. Leaders cannot go back to their voters and sheepishly admit that the money has been wasted. They have to pretend that they are almost there, that another billion dollars will do the trick. And so, like rogue traders, they end up doubling and doubling in an attempt to move the market.
What's the alternative to spending more? How about this: not spending more. The phrase "doing nothing is not an option" is one of the most pernicious in the political lexicon, and is almost never true. By way of illustration, ponder the way in which New Zealand dealt with an earlier banking crisis two decades ago.
New Zealand was the first major country to withdraw all subsidies from its agricultural sector - a reform that was hugely controversial at the time, but that almost no one now wants to reverse. When the grants were terminated, land values fell, and many Kiwi farmers found themselves in negative equity. The bankers approached the government to demand a bail-out. The government declined to involve itself. The bankers tried again, insisting that, if the state didn't step in, there would be a financial collapse. Ministers politely told them that this was their problem.
Result? The bankers realised that it was their problem. Well aware that the last thing they needed was a series of repossessions and auctions, they allowed farmers to reschedule their mortgage payments. The crisis was averted and, sooner than expected, land prices recovered. It's what economists call "spontaneous order".
The point is that, had the government given in to pressure, it would almost certainly have triggered the collapse that it hoped to avert.
Sadly, it's a brave politician who argues, in a crisis, against state activity. The natural advantage will always lie with the Something Must Be Done crowd. But there are few crises so severe that they cannot be exacerbated by government intervention. I leave you with the words of that most conservative of Conservatives, the third Marquess of Salisbury, spoken about the Bulgarian Crisis of the 1880s, but capable of much wider application: "If anything happens, it will be for the worse, and it is therefore in our interest that as little should happen as possible."
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Iran Is Really An A+ Adversary
Unfortunately the Iranians aren't stupid and are doing a great job in delaying the US. They have just agreed:
in principle to send "most" of its known stockpile of enriched uranium for processing abroad to make fuel rods for a medical research reactor, in what U.S. and European officials said Thursday after day long talks in Geneva would be a significant move that would delay Iran's potential to build a nuclear weapon.With an opening gambit like that, the end of year deadlines that Obama has been touting are now out the window (as have the rest of his deadlines). This also gives ammo to the US and EU to pressure Israel not to do anything, even if there is no actual cooperation by Iran (they can still hide uranium and weapons capabilities). On top of that, Iran is looking to get some quid pro quo:
...
U.S. and European officials also said Iran had agreed to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the newly revealed uranium enrichment facility that Iran's has been building in secret at Qom, in north central Iran. The officials said they expected Iran to comply fully with the IAEA within two weeks. The two sides agreed to meet for further talks by the end of the month.
In turn, Mr. Jalili raised issues that Iran has said it wants future talks to focus on, including regional security, the disarmament of nuclear armed states, and the global economic crisis. Mr. Jalili said a press conference later that it was these issues Iran wants to discuss when the negotiators meet again.Regional security probably refers to the Israel-Palestinian issue. Disarmament of nuclear armed states means forcing Israel to give up their nukes. And the reference to the global economic crisis is the Iranian way of looking for a bribe, oh sorry, I meant aid. So instead of the Iranians getting all the pressure, watch the pressure ratchet up on Israel, with the Iranians gliding by the next several months. Don't be surprised if after several months of diplomatic "progress" the Iranians kick out inspectors and announce a nuclear weapon. That would only come though after the aid check has been written. Didn't the North Koreans do exactly the same thing back in 1994?
How many fraudulent votes did Obama get?
Pimping for Al Franken
EVEN the Democrats in Minnesota now realize their new US Sen. Al Franken was elected with the help of ACORN chicanery. The disgraced, pimp-friendly community organizing group claims it registered 43,000 new Minnesota voters. If just 1 percent were fraudulent but survived the recount process, that's 430 votes, almost all cast for Franken, who won by just 312 votes. Asks Katherine Kersten in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, "Did ACORN folks pull some fast ones to help get their favorite son Franken elected -- a win that handed Democrats the 60-vote, veto-proof majority that they needed to enact their liberal agenda?"
EVEN the Democrats in Minnesota now realize their new US Sen. Al Franken was elected with the help of ACORN chicanery. The disgraced, pimp-friendly community organizing group claims it registered 43,000 new Minnesota voters. If just 1 percent were fraudulent but survived the recount process, that's 430 votes, almost all cast for Franken, who won by just 312 votes. Asks Katherine Kersten in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, "Did ACORN folks pull some fast ones to help get their favorite son Franken elected -- a win that handed Democrats the 60-vote, veto-proof majority that they needed to enact their liberal agenda?"
Joe Wilson was right...
So illegals have more rights then citizens.
Senators turn back ID requirement for immigrant healthcare
By Jeffrey Young - 09/30/09 01:03 PM ET
Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed a requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs.Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.Grassley's amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.The bill, authored by committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), would require applicants to verify their names, places of birth and Social Security numbers. In addition, legal immigrants would have to wait five years, as under current law, after obtaining citizenship or legal residency to access federal healthcare benefits such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program or receive tax credits or purchase insurance through the exchange created by the legislation.But the would not require them to show a photo ID, such as a drivers license. Without that requirement, the bill "remains dearly lacking when it comes to identification," Grassley said. "Frankly, I'm very perplexed as to why anyone would oppose this amendment," he said.But Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who represents the border state of New Mexico, said that the type of fraud Grassley said he wants to prevent is highly uncommon. "The way I see the amendment, it's a solution without a problem," Bingaman said.
From Stratfor
Nancy Pelosi is worried about violence from the right but completely ignores ongoing violence from the left. In the past year ELF/ALF have started fires, destroyed housing developments, at least one large car dealership along with the vehicles on their lot, two radio broadcast towers in Everett, Washington about ten days ago, radio towers in the Los Angeles area, and research facilities in the silicon valley.
I believe that these groups have been emboldened by the election of President Obama. Whether he supports the actions of these groups is unknown to me but his wink, wink, nod, nod to leftist groups in general created an atmosphere more agreeable to the actions of the far left.
The legacy of Kropotkin, Red Emma, Bakunin and Noam Chomsky lives and grows. Want to know who they are go here: link
Mexico: Emergence of an Unexpected Threat
September 30, 2009 1745 GMT
By Scott Stewart
At approximately 2 a.m. on Sept. 25, a small improvised explosive device (IED) consisting of three or four butane canisters was used to attack a Banamex bank branch in the Milpa Alta delegation of Mexico City. The device damaged an ATM and shattered the bank’s front windows. It was not an isolated event. The bombing was the seventh recorded IED attack in the Federal District — and the fifth such attack against a local bank branch — since the beginning of September.
The attack was claimed in a communique posted to a Spanish-language anarchist Web site by a group calling itself the Subversive Alliance for the Liberation of the Earth, Animals and Humans (ASLTAH). The note said, “Once again we have proven who our enemies are,” indicating that the organization’s “cells for the dissolution of civilization” were behind the other, similar attacks. The communique noted that the organization had attacked Banamex because it was a “business that promotes torture, destruction and slavery” and vowed that ASLTAH would not stop attacking “until we see your ashes.” The group closed its communique by sending greetings to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the “eco-pyromaniacs for the liberation of the earth in this place.” Communiques have also claimed some of the other recent IED attacks in the name of ASLTAH.
On Sept. 22, authorities also discovered and disabled a small IED left outside of a MetLife insurance office in Guadalajara, Jalisco state. A message spray-painted on a wall near where the device was found read, “Novartis stop torturing animals,” a reference to the multinational pharmaceutical company, which has an office near where the IED was found and which has been heavily targeted by the group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). Novartis is a large customer of Huntingdon Life Sciences, the research company SHAC was formed to destroy because Huntingdon uses animals in its testing for harmful side effects of drugs, chemicals and consumer items. A second message spray-painted on a wall near where the device was found on Sept. 22 read, “Novartis break with HLS.” Two other IEDs were detonated at banks in Mexico City on the same day.
These IED attacks are the most recent incidents in a wave of anarchist, animal rights, and eco-protest attacks that have swept across Mexico this year. Activists have conducted literally hundreds of incidents of vandalism, arson and, in more recent months, IED attacks in various locations across the country. The most active cells are in Mexico City and Guadalajara.
For a country in the midst of a bloody cartel war in which thousands of people are killed every year — and where serious crimes like kidnapping terrorize nearly every segment of society — direct-action attacks by militant activists are hardly the biggest threat faced by the Mexican government. However, the escalation of direct-action attacks in Mexico that has resulted in the more frequent use of IEDs shows no sign of abating, and these attacks are likely to grow more frequent, spectacular and deadly.
The Wave
Precisely quantifying the wave of direct-action attacks in Mexico is difficult for a number of reasons. One is that the reporting of such incidents is spotty and the police, the press and the activists themselves are often not consistent in what they report and how. Moreover, is often hard to separate direct-action vandalism from incidents of plain old non-political vandalism or tell the difference between an anarchist IED attack against a bank and an IED attack against a bank conducted by a Marxist group such as the Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR). Then there is the issue of counting. Should a series of five Molotov cocktail attacks against ATMs or the destruction of 20 Telmex phone booths in one night be counted as one attack or as separate incidents?
If we count conservatively — e.g., consider a series of like incidents as one — we can say there have been around 200 direct-action attacks to date in 2009. But if we count each incident separately, we can easily claim there have been more than 400 such attacks. For example, by our count, there have been more than 350 Telmex phone booths smashed, burned or otherwise vandalized so far this year. (Activists will do things like glue metal shavings into the calling-card and coin slots.) However, for the sake of this analysis we’ll go with the conservative number of about 200 attacks.
Now, Telmex seems to be the most popular target so far for direct-action attacks. In addition to hitting phone booths, activists also have attacked Telmex vehicles and offices and have cut Telmex cables. From their statements, the activists appear to hold a special hatred for Carlos Slim, one of the richest men in the world and the chairman of Telmex and several other companies. In many ways, Slim — a patriarchal billionaire industrialist — is the personification of almost everything that the anarchistic activists hate. In addition to Telmex and banks, the activists also have attacked other targets such as restaurants (including McDonald’s and KFC), meat shops, pet shops, fur and leather stores, luxury vehicles, and construction equipment.
The activists’ most common tactics tend to be on the lower end of the violence scale and include graffiti and paint (frequently red to symbolize the blood of animals) to vandalize a target. They also frequently release captive birds or animals as well as use superglue and pieces of metal to obstruct locks, pay phones and ATM card readers. Moving up the violence continuum, activists less frequently will break windows, burn buildings and vehicles, and make bomb threats — there have been at least 157 incidents involving arson or incendiary devices so far in 2009. To help put this into perspective, these activists have conducted more arson attacks in Mexico to date in 2009 than their American counterparts have conducted in the United States since 2001.
At the high end of the violence spectrum are the IED attacks, and this is where there has really been an increase in activity in recent weeks. In the first six months of 2009, there were several bomb threats and hoaxes and a few acid bombs, but only two real IEDs were used. In June, July and August there was one IED attack per month — and so far in September there have been seven IED attacks in Mexico City alone and one successful attack and one attempted attack in Guadalajara. Again, by way of comparison, these eight IED attacks by Mexican activists in September are more than American activists have conducted in the United States since 2001.
Proliferation of IEDs
There are several factors that can explain this trend toward the activists’ increasing use of IEDs. The first is, quite simply, that IEDs generate more attention than graffiti, glue or even an arson attack — indeed, here we are devoting a weekly security report to activist IED attacks in Mexico. In light of the overall level of violence in Mexico, most observers have ignored the past lower-level activity by these activist groups, and IEDs help cut through the noise and bring attention to the activists’ causes. The scope and frequency of IED attacks this month ensured that they could not be overlooked.
The second factor is the learning curve of the cells’ bombmakers. As a bombmaker becomes more proficient in his tradecraft, the devices he crafts tend to become both more reliable and more powerful. The improvement in tradecraft also means that the bombmaker is able to increase his operational tempo and deploy devices more frequently. It is quite possible that the few IEDs that were reported as hoaxes in March, April and May could have been IEDs that did not function properly — a common occurrence for new bombmakers who do not extensively test their devices.
The third factor is thrill and ego. In many past cases, militant activists have launched progressively larger attacks. One reason for this is that after a series of direct-action attacks, the activists get bored doing lower-level things like gluing locks or paint-stripping cars and they move to more destructive and spectacular attacks, such as those using timed incendiary devices. For many activists, there is a thrill associated with getting increased attention for the cause, in causing more damage to their targets and in getting away with increasingly brazen attacks.
Finally, in recent years, we have noted a shift among activist groups away from a strict concern for human life. Many activists are becoming convinced that less violent tactics have been ineffective, and if they really want to save the Earth and animals, they need to take more aggressive action. There is a small but growing fringe of hard-core activists who believe that, to paraphrase Lenin, you have to break eggs to make an omelet.
The Ruckus Society, a direct-action activist training organization, explains it this way in a training document: “There is a law against breaking into a house. However, if you break into a house as part of a greater good, such as rushing into the house to save a child from a fire, it is permissible to break that law. In fact, you can say that there is even a moral obligation to break that law. In the same way then, it is permissible to break minor laws to save the Earth.” In general, activists do not condone violent action directed at humans, but neither do they always condemn it in very strong terms — they often explain that the anger that prompts such violence is “understandable” in light of what they perceive as ecological injustice and cruelty to animals.
In recent years there has been a polarization in the animal rights and environmental movements, with fringe activists becoming increasingly isolated and violent — and more likely to use potentially deadly tools like IEDs in their attacks.
Confluences
The very name of ASLTAH — the Subversive Alliance for the Liberation of the Earth, Animals and Humans — illustrates the interesting confluence of animal rights, ecological activism and anti-imperialism/anarchism that inhabit the radical fringe. It is not uncommon for one cell of independent activists to claim it carried out its attacks under the banner of “organizations” such as ELF, ALF or SHAC. In true anarchistic style, however, these organizations are amorphous and nonhierarchical — there is no single ELF, ALF or SHAC. Rather, the individual activists and cells who act on behalf of the organizations control their own activities while adhering to guidelines circulated in meetings and conferences, via the Internet, and in various magazines, newsletters and other publications. These individual activists and cells are driven only by their consciences, or by group decisions within the cell. This results in a level of operational security that can be hard for law enforcement and security officials to breach.
As noted above, these activists have been far more active in Mexico than they have in the United States. One reason for this is that the operating environment north of the border is markedly different than it is in Mexico. In the United States, the FBI and local and state police agencies have focused hard on these activists, and groups like ELF and ALF have been branded as domestic terrorists. There have been several major investigations into these groups in recent years.
South of the border it is a different matter. Mexican authorities are plagued with problems ranging from drug cartels to Marxist terrorist/insurgent groups like the EPR to rampant police and government corruption. Simply put, there is a vacuum of law and order in Mexico and that vacuum is clearly reflected in statistics such as the number of kidnappings inside the country every year. The overall level of violence in Mexico and this vacuum of authority provide room for the activists to operate, and the host of other crime and violence issues plaguing the country works to ensure that the authorities are simply too busy to place much emphasis on investigating activist attacks and catching those responsible for them. Therefore, the activists operate boldly and with a sense of impunity that often leads to an increase in violence — especially within the context of a very violent place, which Mexico is at the present time.
This atmosphere means that the activist cells behind the increase in IED attacks will be able to continue their campaigns against assorted capitalist, animal and ecological targets with very little chance of being seriously pursued. Consequently, as the IED campaign continues, the attacks will likely become more frequent and more destructive. And given Mexico’s densely populated cities and the activists’ target sets, this escalation will ensure that the attacks will eventually turn deadly.
I believe that these groups have been emboldened by the election of President Obama. Whether he supports the actions of these groups is unknown to me but his wink, wink, nod, nod to leftist groups in general created an atmosphere more agreeable to the actions of the far left.
The legacy of Kropotkin, Red Emma, Bakunin and Noam Chomsky lives and grows. Want to know who they are go here: link
Mexico: Emergence of an Unexpected Threat
September 30, 2009 1745 GMT
By Scott Stewart
At approximately 2 a.m. on Sept. 25, a small improvised explosive device (IED) consisting of three or four butane canisters was used to attack a Banamex bank branch in the Milpa Alta delegation of Mexico City. The device damaged an ATM and shattered the bank’s front windows. It was not an isolated event. The bombing was the seventh recorded IED attack in the Federal District — and the fifth such attack against a local bank branch — since the beginning of September.
The attack was claimed in a communique posted to a Spanish-language anarchist Web site by a group calling itself the Subversive Alliance for the Liberation of the Earth, Animals and Humans (ASLTAH). The note said, “Once again we have proven who our enemies are,” indicating that the organization’s “cells for the dissolution of civilization” were behind the other, similar attacks. The communique noted that the organization had attacked Banamex because it was a “business that promotes torture, destruction and slavery” and vowed that ASLTAH would not stop attacking “until we see your ashes.” The group closed its communique by sending greetings to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the “eco-pyromaniacs for the liberation of the earth in this place.” Communiques have also claimed some of the other recent IED attacks in the name of ASLTAH.
On Sept. 22, authorities also discovered and disabled a small IED left outside of a MetLife insurance office in Guadalajara, Jalisco state. A message spray-painted on a wall near where the device was found read, “Novartis stop torturing animals,” a reference to the multinational pharmaceutical company, which has an office near where the IED was found and which has been heavily targeted by the group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). Novartis is a large customer of Huntingdon Life Sciences, the research company SHAC was formed to destroy because Huntingdon uses animals in its testing for harmful side effects of drugs, chemicals and consumer items. A second message spray-painted on a wall near where the device was found on Sept. 22 read, “Novartis break with HLS.” Two other IEDs were detonated at banks in Mexico City on the same day.
These IED attacks are the most recent incidents in a wave of anarchist, animal rights, and eco-protest attacks that have swept across Mexico this year. Activists have conducted literally hundreds of incidents of vandalism, arson and, in more recent months, IED attacks in various locations across the country. The most active cells are in Mexico City and Guadalajara.
For a country in the midst of a bloody cartel war in which thousands of people are killed every year — and where serious crimes like kidnapping terrorize nearly every segment of society — direct-action attacks by militant activists are hardly the biggest threat faced by the Mexican government. However, the escalation of direct-action attacks in Mexico that has resulted in the more frequent use of IEDs shows no sign of abating, and these attacks are likely to grow more frequent, spectacular and deadly.
The Wave
Precisely quantifying the wave of direct-action attacks in Mexico is difficult for a number of reasons. One is that the reporting of such incidents is spotty and the police, the press and the activists themselves are often not consistent in what they report and how. Moreover, is often hard to separate direct-action vandalism from incidents of plain old non-political vandalism or tell the difference between an anarchist IED attack against a bank and an IED attack against a bank conducted by a Marxist group such as the Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR). Then there is the issue of counting. Should a series of five Molotov cocktail attacks against ATMs or the destruction of 20 Telmex phone booths in one night be counted as one attack or as separate incidents?
If we count conservatively — e.g., consider a series of like incidents as one — we can say there have been around 200 direct-action attacks to date in 2009. But if we count each incident separately, we can easily claim there have been more than 400 such attacks. For example, by our count, there have been more than 350 Telmex phone booths smashed, burned or otherwise vandalized so far this year. (Activists will do things like glue metal shavings into the calling-card and coin slots.) However, for the sake of this analysis we’ll go with the conservative number of about 200 attacks.
Now, Telmex seems to be the most popular target so far for direct-action attacks. In addition to hitting phone booths, activists also have attacked Telmex vehicles and offices and have cut Telmex cables. From their statements, the activists appear to hold a special hatred for Carlos Slim, one of the richest men in the world and the chairman of Telmex and several other companies. In many ways, Slim — a patriarchal billionaire industrialist — is the personification of almost everything that the anarchistic activists hate. In addition to Telmex and banks, the activists also have attacked other targets such as restaurants (including McDonald’s and KFC), meat shops, pet shops, fur and leather stores, luxury vehicles, and construction equipment.
The activists’ most common tactics tend to be on the lower end of the violence scale and include graffiti and paint (frequently red to symbolize the blood of animals) to vandalize a target. They also frequently release captive birds or animals as well as use superglue and pieces of metal to obstruct locks, pay phones and ATM card readers. Moving up the violence continuum, activists less frequently will break windows, burn buildings and vehicles, and make bomb threats — there have been at least 157 incidents involving arson or incendiary devices so far in 2009. To help put this into perspective, these activists have conducted more arson attacks in Mexico to date in 2009 than their American counterparts have conducted in the United States since 2001.
At the high end of the violence spectrum are the IED attacks, and this is where there has really been an increase in activity in recent weeks. In the first six months of 2009, there were several bomb threats and hoaxes and a few acid bombs, but only two real IEDs were used. In June, July and August there was one IED attack per month — and so far in September there have been seven IED attacks in Mexico City alone and one successful attack and one attempted attack in Guadalajara. Again, by way of comparison, these eight IED attacks by Mexican activists in September are more than American activists have conducted in the United States since 2001.
Proliferation of IEDs
There are several factors that can explain this trend toward the activists’ increasing use of IEDs. The first is, quite simply, that IEDs generate more attention than graffiti, glue or even an arson attack — indeed, here we are devoting a weekly security report to activist IED attacks in Mexico. In light of the overall level of violence in Mexico, most observers have ignored the past lower-level activity by these activist groups, and IEDs help cut through the noise and bring attention to the activists’ causes. The scope and frequency of IED attacks this month ensured that they could not be overlooked.
The second factor is the learning curve of the cells’ bombmakers. As a bombmaker becomes more proficient in his tradecraft, the devices he crafts tend to become both more reliable and more powerful. The improvement in tradecraft also means that the bombmaker is able to increase his operational tempo and deploy devices more frequently. It is quite possible that the few IEDs that were reported as hoaxes in March, April and May could have been IEDs that did not function properly — a common occurrence for new bombmakers who do not extensively test their devices.
The third factor is thrill and ego. In many past cases, militant activists have launched progressively larger attacks. One reason for this is that after a series of direct-action attacks, the activists get bored doing lower-level things like gluing locks or paint-stripping cars and they move to more destructive and spectacular attacks, such as those using timed incendiary devices. For many activists, there is a thrill associated with getting increased attention for the cause, in causing more damage to their targets and in getting away with increasingly brazen attacks.
Finally, in recent years, we have noted a shift among activist groups away from a strict concern for human life. Many activists are becoming convinced that less violent tactics have been ineffective, and if they really want to save the Earth and animals, they need to take more aggressive action. There is a small but growing fringe of hard-core activists who believe that, to paraphrase Lenin, you have to break eggs to make an omelet.
The Ruckus Society, a direct-action activist training organization, explains it this way in a training document: “There is a law against breaking into a house. However, if you break into a house as part of a greater good, such as rushing into the house to save a child from a fire, it is permissible to break that law. In fact, you can say that there is even a moral obligation to break that law. In the same way then, it is permissible to break minor laws to save the Earth.” In general, activists do not condone violent action directed at humans, but neither do they always condemn it in very strong terms — they often explain that the anger that prompts such violence is “understandable” in light of what they perceive as ecological injustice and cruelty to animals.
In recent years there has been a polarization in the animal rights and environmental movements, with fringe activists becoming increasingly isolated and violent — and more likely to use potentially deadly tools like IEDs in their attacks.
Confluences
The very name of ASLTAH — the Subversive Alliance for the Liberation of the Earth, Animals and Humans — illustrates the interesting confluence of animal rights, ecological activism and anti-imperialism/anarchism that inhabit the radical fringe. It is not uncommon for one cell of independent activists to claim it carried out its attacks under the banner of “organizations” such as ELF, ALF or SHAC. In true anarchistic style, however, these organizations are amorphous and nonhierarchical — there is no single ELF, ALF or SHAC. Rather, the individual activists and cells who act on behalf of the organizations control their own activities while adhering to guidelines circulated in meetings and conferences, via the Internet, and in various magazines, newsletters and other publications. These individual activists and cells are driven only by their consciences, or by group decisions within the cell. This results in a level of operational security that can be hard for law enforcement and security officials to breach.
As noted above, these activists have been far more active in Mexico than they have in the United States. One reason for this is that the operating environment north of the border is markedly different than it is in Mexico. In the United States, the FBI and local and state police agencies have focused hard on these activists, and groups like ELF and ALF have been branded as domestic terrorists. There have been several major investigations into these groups in recent years.
South of the border it is a different matter. Mexican authorities are plagued with problems ranging from drug cartels to Marxist terrorist/insurgent groups like the EPR to rampant police and government corruption. Simply put, there is a vacuum of law and order in Mexico and that vacuum is clearly reflected in statistics such as the number of kidnappings inside the country every year. The overall level of violence in Mexico and this vacuum of authority provide room for the activists to operate, and the host of other crime and violence issues plaguing the country works to ensure that the authorities are simply too busy to place much emphasis on investigating activist attacks and catching those responsible for them. Therefore, the activists operate boldly and with a sense of impunity that often leads to an increase in violence — especially within the context of a very violent place, which Mexico is at the present time.
This atmosphere means that the activist cells behind the increase in IED attacks will be able to continue their campaigns against assorted capitalist, animal and ecological targets with very little chance of being seriously pursued. Consequently, as the IED campaign continues, the attacks will likely become more frequent and more destructive. And given Mexico’s densely populated cities and the activists’ target sets, this escalation will ensure that the attacks will eventually turn deadly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
