In 1990, the New Jersey courts declared that the science was settled, the debate was over: breath analysis is a reliable and accurate means by which to determine blood alcohol content (BAC). This proclamation is known as the "Downie decision."
The lead witness, who held the most sway in the courts opinion, was Dr. Dubowski, a forensic scientist with a history of research experience dealing with Breathalyzers and alcohol breath analysis. A study he published in 1985 was considered the pre-eminent work in this field.
The Downie case revolved around the accuracy of breath analysis in terms of serving as a surrogate for actual BAC. One aspect would be of particular importance from the defendants perspective; how often does the alcohol breath analysis regimen overstate actual BAC?
Dr. Dubowski testified that his research determined that in only 2.3 percent of the tests did the breath reading overstate the actual BAC. This was the first time this number was made publicly available; it had not been presented in his 1985 report.
Another witness in the Downie case, Dr. Gerald Simpson, a physical chemist also testified, and attempted to describe the variables that could render a Breathalyzer reading inaccurate. The court largely disregarded his testimony in favor of the assured endorsement of breath analysis offered by Dr. Dubowski.
The court determined that the use of breath alcohol was scientifically valid for the purpose of determining BAC. Was that the end of the story? Not quite.
After the Downie trial, Dr. Simpson obtained the actual data from Dr. Dubowskis 1985 report. In applying the same analysis to the data that Dr. Dubowski used, Dr. Simpson discovered a major error. The incidences when breath analysis overstated actual BAC were not 2.3 percent of the tests, as Dr. Dubowski had testified to in the Downie case, but rather 23 percent of the tests a wandering decimal point!
Dr. Simpson then published his findings in a respected scientific journal. They were never rebutted and Dr. Dubowski remained silent on the subject.
Attorneys across the country have taken note of the breathalyzers failings. This has lead authorities to resort to more invasive measures, including letting officers perform blood draws with very little training.
Recent research proves that measuring breath to determine actual BAC is a horrendously flawed concept. Errors can approach 50 percent! Still, even 15 years ago it was known and could be proven that in almost one quarter of Breathalyzer tests the readings were higher than the actual BAC.
How many thousands of people had their lives turned upside down, suffered major financial losses, lost jobs, and had their reputations destroyed by a system that used junk science to push its agenda?
A conservative columnist chides those who chided Laura Bush
There's no substitute for being there, as has been illustrated by the reaction to an image of Laura Bush's alleged abaya-wearing incident during her recent visit to the Middle East. Unlike most who have commented, I was there one of three members of the American media invited to accompany Bush on her journey. The others were Greta Van Susteren of Fox News' "On the Record" and Robin Roberts of ABC's "Good Morning America."
The controversial photo shows Bush donning a black head scarf decorated with the iconic pink bows signifying breast cancer awareness. It was the only time Bush covered her head during the trip and the episode lasted perhaps a minute.
The scarf in question was a gift to Bush from a dozen Saudi women who shared their experiences fighting breast cancer with the first lady. The morning meeting was touching and intimate, the sort of bonding experience that opens hearts and minds in diplomatically useful ways. Upon receiving the gift, Bush did what any decent, well-mannered person would do. She demonstrated her appreciation by placing the scarf on her head. In Saudi Arabia, it was a sweet, wordless gesture of friendship and mutual respect.
Yet to read and hear remarks over the past few days, you'd think Bush had organized a pilgrimage to the stoning fields. Remind me: When did rudeness work as a diplomatic strategy?
Not only were the facts concerning the scarf incorrectly stated in some cases, but also in at least one instance, the alleged image was a retread. Sunday morning, when Chris Wallace interviewed Bush on Fox News, the cable program featured a photo of the first lady that the White House says was taken in 2005 at Israel's Western Wall.
On Monday, a column posted on The Jerusalem Post's Web site carried the headline, "Our World: Laura Bush's embrace of tyranny." Huh? Columnist Caroline Glick wrote that Bush's donning of the scarf and her visit in general were symbolically "deeply disturbing." Glick's point, reiterated elsewhere throughout the blogosphere, was that Bush was effectively endorsing the subjugation of Saudi women by wearing the scarf.
First lady Laura Bush came to the Middle East this week to raise breast cancer awareness, but her mission has been couched in a gracious plea for mutual understanding and world peace.
At each stop along her journey, which by week's end will have included the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan, Bush has managed a quiet coup of diplomacy.
Bush's visit as part of the U.S.-Middle East Partnership for Breast Cancer Awareness and Research, initially launched in 2006 has been historic on several fronts. Bush has moved easily from country to country, charming audiences along the way with her sincerity and gentle touch.
Most important, she has helped women in this part of the world say the C-word cancer without shame. That isn't only a recent development, but one that will save lives and, perhaps, help build and fortify bridges between nations. As Bush told a roundtable of young female students:
"We have many things in common. ... What we all find out when we meet people from around the world is that human beings all have the same emotions, desires, dreams and frustrations."
At one especially poignant stop in Abu Dhabi, Bush met with breast cancer survivors at a "Pink Majlis" a circular pink tent situated within a hospital where women can come to talk freely about a subject that has been considered too embarrassing and frightening to mention.
The consequence of silence has been that many women are diagnosed in later stages of cancer when a cure isn't usually possible. In the Middle East, 70 percent of women with breast cancer have been diagnosed late. In the U.S., 80 percent are diagnosed early; of those, 96 percent survive.
Other cultural taboos and traditions in this part of the world are further inhibiting. Some women are still uncomfortable with self-examination, or reluctant to see a male doctor about so intimate a concern.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
11/02/2007 0:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The morning meeting was touching and intimate, the sort of bonding experience that opens hearts and minds in diplomatically useful ways. Upon receiving the gift, Bush did what any decent, well-mannered person would do. She demonstrated her appreciation by placing the scarf on her head. In Saudi Arabia, it was a sweet, wordless gesture of friendship and mutual respect.
How quickly we forget. Too bad she didn't have time to visit Dhahran and the site where building 131, Khobar Towers used to stand. Extending my very own "wordless gesture" to the worthless buggers.
#5
Laura Bush has spread international goodwill through her mission to raise awareness of breast cancer as a taboo health issue, but wearing an abaya is taking diplomacy a step too far.
We can find values and common ground which we share with Muslim countries, but it is unacceptable for our leaders to embrace or even tolerate Islamic fundamentalism in any form.
Perhaps seeing her in a burka would have driven the point home a little bit more clearly.
#6
Saudi humans don't share wishes and desires with the rest of the world. The controlling Wahabi sect prescribes hate for outsiders, especially Christians and Jews. A sign of respect from one of this is taken as piecemeal surrender.
The tribal base of the House of Saud, is nowhere near the oil patch. They were handed sovereignty on condition that they serve Anglo-American interests. Instead they use oil wealth as a means to the end of the overthrow of Western liberty and democracy.
#8
When the Saudis next visit our country I would expect them to be polite and understanding and partake of the Baby Back Ribs and beer which are part of our culture.
#9
Saudi humans don't share wishes and desires with the rest of the world.
Sorry, I call BS on this sort of over-generalization. Not all Saudis are committed Wahabists, not every wearing of the abaya is forced, not every Islamic woman is struggling in defeat against violence, rape and degradation.
Do I like their culture? Hell no. I did business with the Saudis a while back and you don't see me rushing to repeat the experience any time soon.
Are those Saudis who are pushing/funding/spreading Wahabism a threat? Damn straight they are. But the picture is a bit more complicated than "all Saudis are Wahabist terrorists except for the oppressed women".
Nayyaf is a committed Wahabist. So are some of the royal family loyal or aligned with him. But others, like the king, see Wahabism as a way to extend Arab dominance more than as a religious crusade. There are subtleties in the internicine royal family struggles that are mindboggling.
As for the women, some truly are oppressed, some are so socialized into submission they are frightened of change. Others move quite freely between skiing the slopes of Switzerland and wearing the abaya and more at home. Especially among the royal women, there is real power and independent wealth, exercised within limits not too different from those of a duchess or princess or queen in Europe a couple centuries back.
The kingdom is a threat to the West - no doubt about it. Many of the senior royals are duplicitious, murderous and scheming - and that's just how they treat one another, not to mention us.
The photo of Laura Bush in the headscarf is a powerful visual symbol. But it cuts both ways. To many people at Rantburg it equates to Pelosi's dhimmitude. Thoughtful people might question giving that photo op to the Islamicists.
But the flip side is the message that many ordinary Muslims will take from it: that Laura isn't afraid of Muslims, that she can laugh and share a 'womens circle' moment with veiled women without anger or defensiveness. My take is that that will resonate with women who aren't fanatics and will pay off in quiet ways over time. But whether it does or not, it's worth noting the fact that a conservative woman columnist who was there when it happened says the heated blogosphere got this one wrong.
#10
No doubt some of the immediate negative reaction in the war-blogosphere was due to the desire to pre-emptively derail accusations of hypocrisy and double-standards from the left. However, most fair-minded people should be able to see a difference between this and being led around Syria by the Butcher of Beirut in a farcical attempt to play alternative State Department.
Try and picture, if you will, Elenor Roosevelt, Bess Truman, or Mamie Eisenhower wearing a Kimono.
Ha ha, good point. I'm still trying to rid my mind of the image of Dubya in that silky polka-dotted outfit in China.
#11
So if Laura Bush was handed a kafiya she should have put that on too? It is disappointing to read apologetics for this islamic Klan mask even here at Rantburg. She was given the abaya precisely so she would put it on; a gift from arab slave bitches meant to turn the wife of the most powerful man in the West into a slave bitch in turn (please pardon my strong language). As for the needs of diplomacy: President Bush should not have been there in the first place. The oil ticks are the enemy. Until our elites decide they can live without their oil bribes we none of us shall be safe.
I will be dead before any woman I care for is forced into a bin bag for the entertainment of enemy rapists. It will be a cold day in hell before I excuse the Presidential entourage for permitting this desecration of liberty to be celebrated.
#12
I've been hanging around here too long. It was easy to recognize JoeM's posts before getting to the signature line, then I started recognizing Zenster's, now I recognize lotp's. Another informative, detailed, and reasoned discussion, with which I agree. Good manners, especially from a not officially public person dealing with other not officially public people, is appropriate. Just because your brother came to my house and p*ssed on the kitchen floor does not mean I SHOULD squat on your living room floor when I am invited to your house.
#13
She was given the abaya precisely so she would put it on; a gift from arab slave bitches meant to turn the wife of the most powerful man in the West into a slave bitch in turn (please pardon my strong language).
Maybe. or maybe it was a gift from a few brave women to a lovely gracious visitor in a culture that values visible hospitality.
#15
Laura Bush has spread international goodwill through her mission to raise awareness of breast cancer as a taboo health issue, but wearing an abaya is taking diplomacy a step too far.
Agreed, GP0723. Right now, we most certainly do not need America's first family going native on us.
We can find values and common ground which we share with Muslim countries, but it is unacceptable for our leaders to embrace or even tolerate Islamic fundamentalism in any form.
Le bingo. The abaya is a symbol of shari'a law that has been the death of many more Muslim women than breast cancer has ever killed. A long history of "honor killings", stonings, lashes and female infanticide have claimed countless Muslim womens' lives. May their ghosts haunt Laura Bush.
Perhaps seeing her in a burka would have driven the point home a little bit more clearly.
L'autre bingo.
But the flip side is the message that many ordinary Muslims will take from it: that Laura isn't afraid of Muslims
lotp, the problem is that one can just as easily interpret Laura Bush's not being "afraid of Muslims" as blithe ignorance of the threat that Islam poses. While her act may have played well out in the styx, in downtown Riyadh it will just as easily be seen as yet another act of kowtowing to Islamic eminence by the Saudis' lapdogs in Washington.
Laura Bush, especially as a woman, should know damn well that tolerating something so intolerable as shari'a law is the road to suicide Hell.
So if Laura Bush was handed a kafiya she should have put that on too? It is disappointing to read apologetics for this islamic Klan mask even here at Rantburg. She was given the abaya precisely so she would put it on
Please note how they didn't present Ms. Bush with a Bible.
; a gift from arab slave bitches meant to turn the wife of the most powerful man in the West into a slave bitch in turn (please pardon my strong language). As for the needs of diplomacy: President Bush should not have been there in the first place. The oil ticks are the enemy. Until our elites decide they can live without their oil bribes we none of us shall be safe.
I will be dead before any woman I care for is forced into a bin bag for the entertainment of enemy rapists. It will be a cold day in hell before I excuse the Presidential entourage for permitting this desecration of liberty to be celebrated.
While a bit piquant in flavor, this summation is not far from the mark. To court our enemies in their own house is not just absurd, it is a devaluing of what America stands for. You do not treat with genocidal barbaric savages as equals. You do not give those who embrace terrorism the least shred of credibility and legitimacy. You do not glorify symbols of repression and servitude, especially in front of those who want nothing more than to violently impose them upon you.
A few years back I recall seeing pics of my president holding hands w/ a Saudi POS at the ranch in Crawford, Texas. I found that pic was disgusting.
Last week I saw a pic of Laura (who I like very much) in Kuwait sitting with a group of women. She wasn't wearing a symbol of oppression.
Next day or so I see a pic of Laura in the Kingdom wearing a symbol of oppression surrounded by women who have no known concept of freedom except to say to a westerner that "our freedom comes from being covered in the eyes of Allah".
Excuse me while I spit.
Next day or so I see Laura on tv (Fox?) and she is basically being an apologist for the Saudi women, echoing their indoctrination (I'm paraphrasing): "The women is SA don't feel oppressed by having to wear the abaya. Its' their choice".
I almost came out of my chair screaming at the tv: bullsh*t Lauara, bullsh*t....
Lauara is now a pod person having spent waaaay to much time with Karen Hughes( well known to RB folk as being a first class apologist for the muzzies and islam is the ROP crowd).
Laura could have taken the "gift" of the abaya and with a smile thanked her black bag hosts (where all of the black bags women...how can you tell for sure?). Did Peggy noonan wear the bag? Did Robin Roberts? If not, why not? Didn't they want to share their soildarity w/ the women from the Kingdom?
Laura could have told the women in the Kingdom...you know...where I come from... in my culture...women can LEAVE the house w/o a male companion. We can DRIVE a car to see a doctor w/o getting arrested...we can be EXAMINED by a MALE doctor of OUR choosing....we're FREE to feel the sun on our face anywhere in the country w/o permission from a husband, father, or brother. And we like it that way....
Lauara could have told her kind hosts that where she comes from she is FREE not to cover herself: THAT is the message that should have been given to the black bags in the Kingdom and to all other freaking muslim women and their apologists throughout the world.
Here I stand. Bring it.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/02/2007 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Zenster said it better than me.
Bring it lotp and Glenmore...you're both as wrong as the apology article from Peggy Noonan.
I'm shocked...shocked you can't see that.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/02/2007 14:52 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Laura could have told the women in the Kingdom...you know...where I come from... in my culture...women can LEAVE the house w/o a male companion. We can DRIVE a car to see a doctor w/o getting arrested...we can be EXAMINED by a MALE doctor of OUR choosing....we're FREE to feel the sun on our face anywhere in the country w/o permission from a husband, father, or brother. And we like it that way
Are you assuming Saudi women don't know that?
Bashing and shaming women in their own country is scarcely the way to empower them. You're really missing the context and the point of this IMO. Read Parker's articles again:
The scarf in question was a gift to Bush from a dozen Saudi women who shared their experiences fighting breast cancer with the first lady.
Big deal, you say. Well it IS a big deal for Saudi women to talk about an intimate subject like this with anyone outside their immediate circle of female relatives.
Note that the abaya given to Mrs. Bush wasn't the standard black - it was one specially decorated with the pink symbol for breast cancer awareness.
With that TV / newspaper shot she reached a huge audience of Muslim women around the world with the message that talking about breast cancer is okay. That getting early screening and especially performing monthly self-exams isn't whorish but sensible and consistent with modesty.
Now, modesty is not a virtue with which many in American today are deeply familiar. But my stepmother grew up in a Plain Sect family, one step closer to modernity than the Amish. She was a bible-believing Christian -- and SHE was never comfortable with monthly breast self-examinations or with mammograms. No amount of ridicule or bashing would have made her more comfortable with her body -- and by extension more comfortable with wielding power over her own life in other ways as well.
It's telling that the men here are bashing Laura Bush while many conservative women, from Parker the Townhall columnist to those who've commented today, understand what she was doing and communicating.
#20
lotp: I thank you for responding. I intend to answer you. But I'm off to see the new Denzel Washington- Russ Crowe movie this afternoon. Will respond in due course. Thanks for getting back so soon.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/02/2007 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Lauara could have told her kind hosts that where she comes from she is FREE not to cover herself
Of course she is - and those women knew that perfectly well, having just seen her on TV with no head covering.
The point is, she is just as free to give a gracious thank-you for a gift, then take it off again after a brief moment.
Laura Bush is not threatened by the abayas those women wore. Many of the men here seem to be.
Let's be clear, just for the record:
* I know a bit about the Saudis from personal interactions.
* I am a long time supporter of women as free and equal members of adult society. I've broken more than one glass ceiling over my 56 years to date.
* I am an NRA member. I will shoot the first SOB who attempts to force me to wear the abaya or the veil.
Capiche? Understand? AND I also know that in a culture which values personal modesty - whether Muslim or otherwise - that bashing women on the issue of covering themselves is Just Plain Stupid.
#22
It's telling that the men here are bashing Laura Bush while many conservative women, from Parker the Townhall columnist to those who've commented today, understand what she was doing and communicating.
I also "understand" that many of the murdering genocidal maniacs reponsible for the killing throughout Africa in the past decade probably grew up eating victuals out of CARE packages. We must be very careful how we deal with these people and weigh carefully the generosity we extend them.
#24
I know lots of women who cover their hair out of religious obligation, who aint one bit muslim (at least one of whom was a defender of Baruch Goldstein)
#25
Note that the abaya given to Mrs. Bush wasn't the standard black - it was one specially decorated with the pink symbol for breast cancer awareness.
Well, that certainly changes everything, now doesn't it?
With that TV / newspaper shot she reached a huge audience of Muslim women around the world with the message that talking about breast cancer is okay. That getting early screening and especially performing monthly self-exams isn't whorish but sensible and consistent with modesty.
I am currently writing a historical novel that deals with this exact issue. Overly modest women in many different cultures are perishing from preventable causes every day. lotp, do you even understand why the vast majority of Muslim women are forced to cover themselves?
The covering of women is a direct byproduct of Islamic doctrine. It blames Hawwa (Eve)and by extensionall women for mankind's expulsion from Paradise with all the sexual connotations of early Biblical portrayals. Islamic women are forced to cover themselves not only in order that they do not inflame lust in Muslim men but as a sign of eternal shame for their role in mankind's downfall.
One simple question: Could Laura Bush have gotten her point across without having donned an abaya? The fact remains that she could have. Albeit with some lesser degree of impact but the point stands that her actand it was most certainly an act as she would never wear an abaya on a regular basiswas totally self-defeating.
lotp, you say how her message was that "performing monthly self-exams isn't whorish but sensible and consistent with modesty". Yet, by donning an abaya, Laura Bush concretely helped to entrench that filthy garment's role as a symbol of Islamic womankind's eternal shame and unworthiness because of their supposed role in forfeiting Paradise. That historically unmerited shame directly translates into the inappropriate and unhealthy modesty that is killing Muslim women in droves. The abaya is nothing less than a symbol of unwarranted modesty and shame perpetuated by shari'a law that Laura Bush's gesture only served to validate, thereby legitimizing the continuing oppression of Muslim women.
Shari'a is the much larger threat to both women and allmankind alike. Laura Bush's willingness to disregard that fact in pursuit of an ostensibly worthy but much less significant agenda indicts her as an ignoramus at best andat worsta facilitator of Islam's continued wholesale murder of women in all of its vile forms. Wiping out shari'a law will save the lives of many more Muslim women than even the most frank discussion of breast cancer awareness. Wiping out shari'a law will also save untold millions of lives that stand to be lost in the ongoing battle against Islam's establishment of a global caliphate. We cannot let our eyes slip from the big picture, no matter how juicy the photo-op might be.
#27
All those who are so adamant in their bashing of the first lady, let me ask you what was the impact of all the pictures taken of her WITHOUT any headscarf? Don't all those pictures send a strong message that in our country and in our culture such restrictive gear is not required? Sorry, LOTP has it spot on IMO. This was an act of courtesy, nothing more. And a trip focusing on breastcancer awareness is one that empowers the women of the region. There are more ways than just blowing shit up to get a point across. Sometimes it works better that way. Just ask General Patreaus.
#29
Laura Bush is one of the most beautiful, charming, and intelligent women ever to grace the White House.
Polite, too. And she doesn't back down to anyone, including her husband.
So if she accepts an abbayah and puts it on her head, that's fine with me, the only statement that I perceive is that Texas gals are gracious at all times, except when they're not.
And it wasn't that long ago when the Catholic Church required women to cover their hair when entering a church sanctuary.
You have got to be kidding, Liberalhawk. Just the simple fact that shari'a law discourages Muslim women from being examined by male doctors is sufficient proof that it is the larger contributor to unnecessarily higher death rates, be it due to breast cancer, cervical cancer, TB or whatever. Couple that with honor killings, stonings, executions and female infanticide and shari'a outpaces breast cancer by a huge margin with respect to Muslim female mortality rates. Online resources do not break out the specific indices for Muslim versus regular women nor do I think it will be any easier to obtain accurate reporting for all the shari'a related executions. But you can bet the farm that shari'a is the real killer.
#32
Zenster, what Mrs. Bush's trip did may help break down sharia by a little bit. It is a step in getting the women who live under sharia to say "Enough!". Obviously lots more has to be done, but I firmly believe that the criticism of the First Lady is both misplaced and overwrought.
It wasn't shari'a law that 'forced' my stepmother to avoid breast exams and pap smears. (Actually, she did go, but was always uneasy and never could bring herself to do monthly palpations.)
It was a deeply ingrained sense of modesty. That modesty came from several factors that reinforced one another: culture and religious belief - in her case CHRISTIAN belief - combined with a distinct distaste for the IMmodesty she saw in the culture around her.
You keep not hearing what others have posted here. There are many Orthodox Jewish women who cover their heads for religious reasons. There is a large town near me filled with women who do so. Some shave their heads and wear wigs in public.
My amish friends from home never were seen without at least a token head covering. One can leave the amish community at any time one wishes, not only legally but also according to their doctrine and teachings.
Shari'a when imposed is a wretched abuse. But not everything you see in a Muslim culture is due to Shari'a. And not every woman who dresses with strong modesty is oppressed.
#34
Zenster, back it down several notches. Some of your post #25 directly insults a lady who not only is directly involved in supporting the War on Terror, but has also spent time working in the society under discussion, as you and I have not. What Mrs. Bush did was much the same as holding up a gift sweater in front of herself for the others to see, before putting it back in the box. I know every single Rantburger has done such a thing at Christmas or a birthday, smiling and thanking the giver for his/her generosity while inwardly resolving to exchange the horrid thing as soon as possible.
Not to mention that Sharia Law is more threatened by Muslim women starting to think independently about little things like comfort with dealing with breast cancer than it is by our determination to end it.
Let's spend our emotional resources on something more important than this.
#35
After reading all the great posts on both sides of the topic, let me offer this (God Bless the Burgers). Was she wrong to do what she did? Sounds like it but how many of us think that fast on our feet?
On the other hand she should have known better.
By the way if Jewish women and other non-muslims don't wear their scarfs and don't get beaten.
#36
Someone mentioned seeing President Bush in Japanese garb. If my memory is right, leaders of the APEC group have a custom of appearing in traditional local clothing in group photos at conferences. In contrast, Laura Bush acted in abject compliance with Wahabi Shariah. She signalled US surrender to aggressive Islam.
By the way, Islam's phony "prophet," didn't devise modesty garb. His senior military commander, Khalid al-Walid proposed covering women to prevent soldier' lust. The policy was militated by the need for resolution of internal strife. Islam is the only nominal religion that has a nominal holy book that prescribes division of "booty." I despise Islam as a slaver/plunderer ideology, and if someone put a gun at my temple I would not express respect for any aspect of that perverse murder mill.
#37
trailing wife, nowhere have I intentionally attempted to insult lotp. You are reading that into my posts.
What Mrs. Bush did was much the same as holding up a gift sweater in front of herself for the others to see, before putting it back in the box.
Let's try a little thought experiment, shall we? Do you also suggest that if Laura Bush were presented a sweater emblazoned with "HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008", she should try it on in front of the cameras as well? Like Hillary, Islam is inimical to everything that America stands for. There are limits.
I know every single Rantburger has done such a thing at Christmas or a birthday, smiling and thanking the giver for his/her generosity while inwardly resolving to exchange the horrid thing as soon as possible.
This discussion isn't about an ugly or recycled Christmas gift. It is about how America's most prominent individuals treat with representatives of a genocidal political ideology that seeks to rule our world. Your comparison is wholly inappropriate.
There are many Orthodox Jewish women who cover their heads for religious reasons.
Ice, beat me to it.
if Jewish women and other non-muslims don't wear their scarfs [they] don't get beaten.
not everything you see in a Muslim culture is due to Shari'a.
That is quite disputable. Shari'a and the implicitly sanctioned fatwas emmanating therefrom cover nearly every possible act imaginable during each single waking minute of a Muslim's daily life. It is one reason that I find it so repugnant. The level of mind control it represents is not only abhorent but also directly contributes to the utter stagnation of Islamic culture and its totally retrograde nature. The consistent and routine deprivation or murder of women through the institutionalized misogynism that is shari'a makes it directly culpable in the death of nearly Muslim woman. Even death by natural causes or one by accident might just as easily be traced back to shari'a law's inequity regarding whether women are fed adequately, their being denied higher education and the way they are physically immobilized in their homes.
#38
Shari'a and the implicitly sanctioned fatwas emmanating therefrom cover nearly every possible act imaginable during each single waking minute of a Muslim's daily life.
Ande you know this from direct personal experience3 and from talking with women in those cultures, right?
Pfeh - I'm done. Stone walls and willful ignorance are inpenetrable.
#39
If only Mrs. Bush had lent it to John Bolton for his disguise as Benazir Bhutto at the wild American Enterprise Institute Halloween bash, maybe some would feel better about the whole thing.
#41
I'm sure you didn't intend to insult lotp, Zenster. Your intentional insults are very, very clear. Nonetheless, that is how it came out on the screen -- that's the difficulty of non-face-to-face communication.
No, I am not going to try a thought experiment. The real example in front of us suffices. First of all, Mrs. Bush is not an official of the United States of America. She is merely -- however wonderful she is her very own self -- merely the trailing wife of an elected official, said official happening to be at the moment the American president. The trip could have easily taken place without her, and the coffee morning was essentially organized to keep her busy and amused while her husband got on with his job. It was thoughtful of someone to organize a group whose cause Mrs. Bush cares about, but the activity could have as easily (actually, more easily) been visiting an art museum, a school, or just going shopping. Or sitting in the harem with the princely wives, trying not to show how disgusting she found the whole experience.
We don't like to think it in these liberated times, but Mrs. Bush's job is in the private sphere of her home and family, not in public as a diplomat. Yes, she does all sorts of things, but not only are they not her job, in the grand scheme of things they do not matter. If she did not do those things, not only would they not get done, but nobody would care.
This is not to denigrate what Mrs. Bush does do. I, too, am a housewife and mother. I, too, have been involved in all sorts of volunteer activities which took a great deal of my time and energy, brought me pleasure in the achievement thereof, and I think made a difference in the lives I touched. However, the world got along just fine before I came along, and has continued just fine since I stepped back from such activities. I continue to hostess parties for my husband's people, I continue to go to business events at his side when invited. Nonetheless, when I cannot, it makes no difference to the functioning of his group, nor of the [much] larger company. I am necessary to Mr. Wife's happiness at home, not to his job, however much anyone might try to flatter me with the thought that he could not succeed without me. Just so with Mrs. Bush, for all that she put a scarf on her head for a moment, and someone snapped a picture.
#42
Ande you know this from direct personal experience3 and from talking with women in those cultures, right?
As a single male, how could I possibly engage 90% of Muslim women in a private conversation? However, I do have Middle Eastern friends whocuriously enoughcall me "Mister Encyclopedia" due to my depth of knowledge about Islam and regional politics. It would certainly be remiss of me at this point were I not to give Rantburg due credit for that status, despite a decent head start.
What I also base my observations upon are things like this:
- International terminology that heretics use, such as foul, penalty, corner, goal, out and others, should be abandoned and not said. Whoever says them should be punished and ejected from the game.
- Do not play in two halves. Rather, play in one half or three halves in order to completely differentiate yourselves from the heretics, the corrupted and the disobedient.
- You should spit in the face of whoever puts the ball between the posts or uprights and then runs in order to get his friends to follow him and hug him like players in America or France do, and you should punish him, for what is the relationship between celebrating, hugging and kissing and the sports that you are practising?
- Do not give a yellow or red card to whoever was responsible for an injury or tackle. Instead, it should be adjudicated according to sharia rulings concerning broken bones and injuries.
Do we really need to go into how a Fatwa allows breast feeding among adults? Need I go dig up precise links to the fatwa that precisely specifies exactly how many dirhams of excrement a person may leave upon their anus after defecating but may definitely not exceed a certain measure? Or, how about Ayatollah Khomeini's legendary fatwas concerning the proper disposal of animals that have been subjected to bestial intercourse?
As you yourself admit, lotp, shari'a is evil. My conscience makes it a moral obligation for me to denounce such institutionalized misogyny wherever I encounter it. This world will be a far better place once it has rid itself of this Islamic blight. Again, I will ask you to please explain exactly what sort of redeeming features Islam brings to our world.
Pfeh - I'm done. Stone walls and willful ignorance are inpenetrable.
Yet, while I have not made any effort to insult you personally, you feel no such compunctions about doing so. This speaks volumes regarding your forensic skills.
I'm sure you didn't intend to insult lotp, Zenster. Your intentional insults are very, very clear.
I'm glad that's out of the way as I have always made every effort to let those being insulted have no doubt about my doing just that.
We don't like to think it in these liberated times, but Mrs. Bush's job is in the private sphere of her home and family, not in public as a diplomat.
Wrong, just as multi-millionaire sports stars end up serving as role models whether they like it or not, so do the deeds of Laura Bush play out on this world's diplomatic stage. Please do not try and tell me that she has no power over how she is perceived or the impact of her actions.
Yes, she does all sorts of things, but not only are they not her job, in the grand scheme of things they do not matter.
Again, I believe you to be mistaken. As the spouse of he who leads this world's most prominent superpowerto at least some degreeshe bears the same burden as Pompeia. Like Caesar's wife, she should strive to be above suspicion. Given George's despicable track record regarding his giving undue lenience to Saudis in the Global War on Terrorism, one might think his similarly prominent wife might excercise a significantly greater degree of circumspection with respect to showing any undue courtesy towards those that seek to cast down our constitutional rule in favor of shari'a law's total barbarity.
The U.S. ratcheted up the financial pressure against Tehran last week, unilaterally slapping sanctions on Iran's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp, three state-owned banks, and a number of key officials for their involvement in the regime's terrorist financing and WMD-related activities. Realizing the leverage that American financial markets give Washington, senior U.S. Treasury officials have been telling global financial institutions in the last couple of years that doing business with Iran could do great harm to their reputation and complicate their access to the U.S. market. As a result, a number of global institutions -- including Switzerland's UBS and Credit Suisse and Germany's Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank -- have either terminated or dramatically reduced business with Iran.
There are limits to this unilateral strategy, though. Companies and financial institutions that do not operate in the U.S. may be willing to ignore Washington's warnings. But being cut off from New York and the world's other leading financial capital, London, is a risk not too many of these firms would be willing to take. Few could afford to relocate to a smaller financial hub and miss out on the opportunities only the City of London or New York could offer just to continue doing business with Iran.
It is therefore encouraging that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown immediately backed Washington, noting that "we endorse the U.S. administration's efforts to apply further pressure on the Iranian regime." But while public support from the U.S.'s closest ally will undoubtedly help bolster the impact of the unilateral actions, the U.K. could do far more.
If the British government were to send a similarly strong warning to banks, it could dramatically increase the financial pressure on Iran. More than 550 international banks and 170 global security houses have a presence in London. Between $50-100 billion of Middle Eastern money will enter London in the next few years, estimates Peter Weinberg, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs International. Coordinated visits by top U.S. and U.K. officials to major financial institutions could be a particularly effective way to get the message across that business with Iran is risky so long as Tehran ignores the U.N. Security Council orders about its nuclear program. A joint U.S.-U.K. effort might carry particular weight coming on the heels of the Financial Action Task Force's Oct. 11 statement on Iran. Founded by the G7, the 34-country body instructed financial institutions to use "enhanced due diligence" when dealing with Iran to avoid inadvertently contributing to terrorist financing and money laundering. As U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said after Washington's latest step against Tehran: "In dealing with Iran, it is nearly impossible to know one's customer and be assured that one is not unwittingly facilitating the regime's reckless conduct."
While the U.K. wields particularly powerful tools, there may also be other European countries now willing and ready to ramp up financial and economic pressure against Iran. Ideally, this would be done at the European Union level -- something that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been pushing for. But in the absence of a third U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing additional sanctions, many EU countries, primarily Germany, Austria and Spain, appear reluctant. The French have thus suggested that those European countries willing to act need not wait for unanimity. In fact, France has already announced that it is pressing large French companies to refrain from investing in Iran.
A combined initiative by the U.S. and individual European countries to press Iran may strengthen the hand of those in Tehran arguing for accommodation. It would also be a good way to show China, Russia and laggard European governments that with or without them, action will be taken against Iran. If they are dissatisfied with this approach, they should first spell out a realistic alternative that could bring Iran to suspend its enrichment program.
Posted by: ryuge ||
11/02/2007 07:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
How about some thermobaric pressure for a change?
#6
What's wrong with ya, Pappy? I mean, it would be a depeche from the Ministry of the Obvious that the current strategy is definitely not working well. Doing rather the same and expectig different results? Yea, that would work, peachy...
I am a friend of Corbin Dallas' school of negotiations, whether with Mengalos or Mullahs. ;-)
The story is that she talked about policy. Not talking points, but policy. In talking about it she seemed, for the first time, to be revealing what's inside.
It was startling. It's 1993 in there. The year before her fall, and rise.
I spent a day going over the transcripts so I could quote at length, but her exchanges are all over, it's a real Google-fest. Here, boiled down, is what she said.
Giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses makes sense because it makes sense, but she may not be for it, but undocumented workers should come out of the shadows, and it makes sense. Maybe she will increase the payroll tax on Social Security beyond its current $97,500 limit, to $200,000. Maybe not. Everybody knows what the possibilities are. She may or may not back a 4% federal surcharge on singles making $150,000 a year and couples making $200,000. She suggested she backed it, said she didn't back it, she then called it a good start, or rather "I support and admire" the person proposing such a tax for his "willingness to take this on."
She has been accused of doubletalk and she has denied it. And she is right. It was triple talk, quadruple talk, Olympic level nonresponsiveness. And it was, even for her, rather heavy and smug. Her husband would have had the sense to look embarrassed as he bobbed and weaved. It was part of his charm. But he was light on his feet. She turns every dance into the polka. And it is that amazing thing, a grim polka.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/02/2007 06:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bill could also get away with this since there was little political blogging in the 1990s and voters were somewhat blindsided by the slick doubletalk.
It's different now. Hillary can't get away with slick doubletalk as easily.
On the other hand back in the 1990s the NYT, the WaPo, CBS, ABC and NBC were not as much a shill for the Dem party as they are now.
Are you still afraid terrorists will attack the Mall of America?
I was never afraid. I was always concerned. I still am; who wouldnt be? Its a big red target with great symbolic value. It never keeps me from going there, though. Somehow Ive avoided the FEAR and PARANOIA and PERMANENT WAR HYSTERIA that were supposedly fed 24/7. You know how it goes; if you believe theres actually a credible threat from Islamofascists well, no, thats not the right word, because its inflammatory, inaccurate, racist, and is used as a code-word for an exterminationist agenda founded in a desire to control all the oil in the Middle East and convert it to Christianity. So call it the Small but Legally Containable Conservative Religion threat, since that reminds us that all religions are equally dangerous when taken to extremes. I mean, Fred Phelps, Catholic priests, Timothy McVeigh, and that little thing called the Crusades. Also the Inquisition and the persecution of Galileo. No one has clean hands here, except for me, because I washed them before I put that clever COEXIST bumpersticker on my car. No, Im more afraid of the Mall of America itself. You go there in December not that I do and see people walking around eating meat and shopping for things they dont need and shouldnt really have because they dont need them, and you can almost hear the planet shriek like the music in that scary movie about the psycho, whatever its name is. I didnt watch it. I dont support movies that promote violence against women. Wasnt she in a shower? Those are so wasteful. I clean myself with a pumice stone and the sharpened edge of a clam shell.
(Sorry; I just enjoy the autumnal aroma of a burning straw man.)
Posted by: Mike ||
11/02/2007 06:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I am expecting an international economic collapse, most likely China, but due in large part to sound policies, the US has to a great extent been immunized from its effects.
For instance, the dollar is already rock bottom. This is an ideal place to be if there is an international collapse, because everyone will want to buy dollars, but the dollar will have to recover trillions in value before it becomes too strong. Quite a cushion.
In lots of other ways, the US will actually benefit from an international crisis.
analysts cast doubt on the 166,000 growth figure, underscoring the uncertainty on Wall Street.
Some analysts saw distortions in the data, questioning an increase in administrative jobs. Others said that most of the job gain came from an estimate that the Labor Department makes each month about how many jobs were added by new businesses, known as the birth and death model. The Labor Department did not actually find evidence of these jobs; it assumed they were created based on historical patterns.
And a separate survey of households, also conducted by the Labor Department, presented a very different picture of the job market. It showed that fewer Americans over all were employed in October. The labor force shrank by 211,000 jobs, and 465,000 Americans said they were no longer working.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
