Recently, Lohan unveiled her new bodyguard - an unnamed ex-Israeli Army specialist. Kevin Federline's lawyer hired IDF-trained Aaron Cohen, founder of the Beverly Hills-based IMS Security, to serve Britney Spears' camp with subpoenas for their custody battle. Even that dubious friend to the Jews, Mel Gibson, has relied on one to part the waters for him. For more than a decade, Avi Korein was Gibson's personal bodyguard before he opened his own Beverly Hills security firm, Screen International Security Services.
So what's the allure of these Israeli security mavens? According to industry experts, it's a combination of discretion and training.
"There's a mystique surrounding the Israeli military, based on their past performance and handling of information," says an American IDF-trained security specialist in the Washington, DC area who gives his name solely as "Josh" for security purposes. Josh served in the Israeli infantry as a designated marksman from 2004-6 through Mahal 2000, a preparatory program for non-Israelis who want to serve in its army.
"Discretion at all times is paramount with Israelis in regards to operational and personal security," he told ISRAEL21c.
"In America, particularly in the celebrity scene, there are occasional leaks of personal information," he adds. "But it doesn't happen as much in Israel. Privacy is of great concern. That attitude and conditioning translates to the private security field. Bodyguards revealing secrets about celebrity clients is considered unprofessional and in poor taste."
While celebrities might favor their ability to check wagging tongues, security firm CEOs seek out ex-Israeli military members for their training - particularly when it comes to high-alert situations.
"The Israeli intelligence gathering is among the best. I don't have to train them as much" as people from other backgrounds, says Emiel Fisher, the CEO of RDP Worldwide in Richmond, Virginia, who has handled security for touring rock stars. "They garner a lot of respect from the private security industry."
Elijah Shaw, CEO of Icon Services Corporation in St. Paul, Minnesota, once hired an ex-Israeli commando to guard a famous actress who was being stalked on an international tour.
"I've used members of the Israel Special Forces - its equivalent of the Navy Seals - when I've had a specific, high-level threat," says Shaw, whose clients include Naomi Campbell, Michael Bolton and 50 Cent. "They operate at such a heightened sense of awareness. Because of the constant conflicts there, they're always on alert; they never switch off."
IDF-trained security specialists often see more similarities than differences between guarding celebrities and countries.
"Stalking is a form of terror," counter-terrorism expert Aaron Cohen told The Forward in October. "The formula is a lot like counter-terrorism, because you need to see who you're dealing with before you freak out."
Cohen is a Beverly Hills native who served in the elite Israeli combat unit Duvdevan, which specialized in tracking terrorists. He founded IMS - Israeli Military Specialists - a Los Angeles-based private security firm operating in Hollywood.
"The same security principles apply whether a person is going out to dinner or out of the country," adds 'Josh'. "Counter-surveillance is employed as a protective tool. The things that affect a client is not necessarily terrorism. The idea is to protect a client against harm or embarrassment. We focus a great deal on behavioral profiling - how to assess threats through situational awareness - for example, body language exhibited by one member of a group that contrasts the others can indicate the individual has a different agenda or intent. You take in everything and ID what doesn't belong."
With personal screening like that, it's no wonder that Hollywood's elite are putting their trust in this new breed of Israeli commando.
TEENAGE girls would rather be sexy than clever, according to a new book which blames celebrities such as Paris Hilton, Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears for the phenomenon.
Whoa. When did that start?
Carol Platt Liebau, a leading political commentator in the US and the first female managing editor of Harvard Law Review, warned young women were being taught to believe "sexy" equates to empowered. The author said "promiscuity and sexual aggression" were now being seen as the only way to achieve admiration. And she suggested girls now competed for attention based on how much they were sexually willing to do for boys. Women's groups last night also warned that the sexualisation of young girls was making them increasingly vulnerable.
Thus it's always been. The lusty peasant wenches have always outnumbered the ladies of culture and refinement. The advantage women have today is that they're free to decide which group they're going to belong to.
Ms Liebau's book, Prude: How The Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls, blames the music and videos of Spears, Aguilera and Lil' Kim, as well as films such as Cruel Intentions, for making teenagers value sexuality above all else. She said: "The overwhelming lesson teenagers are now learning from the world around them is that being 'sexy' is the ultimate accolade, trumping intelligence, character and all other accomplishments. In a culture that celebrates Paris Hilton [and] thong underwear, there's scant modesty or achievement that isn't coupled with sex appeal. Girls are being led to believe that they're in control when it comes to sexual relationships.
I'm as impressed with Paris Hilton's achievements as the next man, but I'm also capable of assessing her value to society. I do hope she's not under the illusion the fellows admire her for her mind.
"But they're actually living in a profoundly anti-feminist landscape where girls compete for attention on the basis of how much they are sexually willing to do for the boys. And living in an overly sexualised culture takes a toll on girls."
I do hope she's not under the illusion the fellows admire her for her mind
She's not. She would need a mind to have an illusion.
And it's a good thing that not all women fall for this crap, as this NSF Werk photo so clearly demonstrates.
Disclaimer: Not for the weak of heart. Don't click if you've eaten recently, have taken your insulin, have a meeting to attend in the next half hour, or plan to do anything naughty with your S.O. in the next few days.
I forget who it was that said these, but I think they are true -
1. Feminists thought that they were empowering and liberating women but instead they were turning most of them into unpaid whores.
2. When women finally busted out of the cage that men had kept them in for millenia, they instantly built a different cage and willingly climbed in and locked the door behind themselves.
I'm not suggesting that women be slutty. But there's no reason why a woman cannot be attractive and pleasing to a guy AND work hard and study to be well educated. Furthermore, Ms. Liebau is sounding a little like Naomi Wolf in her lament that young men no longer find the hairy, saggy bodies and the "you will service the goddess" attitude that worked OK on baby boomer leftist men 30 years ago to be worth their time.
Fifty years ago feminists were decrying the lack of sexuality in our culture. Now Ms. Liebau claims it's overly so. Perhaps this isn't about sexuality at all, but the feminist obsession with having power OVER men, not coequal with men. Apparently, sexuality is only acceptable if it is an amount which advantages women, and to hell with the men.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/11/2007 6:17 Comments ||
sweet Jesus, Gorb. Don't ever do that again. I think I threw up a little bit in my mouth
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/11/2007 6:40 Comments ||
Fred, I'm going to disagree with you just a little.
I am all in favor of lusty wenches and manly men romping in healthy ways. But Liebau is right that we are losing a whole generation of girls to a destructive, empty and corrosive kind of superficial sexuality - not the lusty celebration of our basic male/female goodness, but an empty perversion of it.
I am currently trying to reach out to a niece of ours. My brother and his wife finally divorced after years of mutual infidelities combined with a toxic bickering household. Is it any wonder that their 17 year old daughter is overweight, dresses Goth and has had a series of disastrous, exploited/exploitative sexual relationships with older lowlifes?
We are desperately in need of adults who embody mature sexuality - which includes self-discipline and respect for oneself and for others. Neither my brother nor his ex-wife aspired to those virtues. The result is that their daughter grew up without any security or any idea what mature men and women look and act like, including in their sexual relationships.
She is, unfortunately, not alone. Watch this years' ads for liquor in the runup to the new year - I've counted 4 so far with overt scenes of l3sbians tongueing one another's faces, bodies flaunted to the camera, hands suggestively just off camera. I saw a still ad along similar lines in the NYT sunday magazine this week.
What I didn't see were adults acting like adults.
Sexuality is a lot more than empty lust and power based on lust. But that is all our girls are being shown and taught.
"Chivalry is dead--and women killed it." Absolutely correct. What's more, they're taking down Western society as well. I'm not surprised in the slightest when I read that Western women are finding it increasingly hard to get men to make commitments to such things as marriage and children. There's a very simple answer to why they aren't: the odds are horrifically against Western men when it comes to happy and successful marriage.
Any woman who can get a man to actually marry her and father children holds an economic gun to his head from the minute she becomes pregnant. Anytime she decides she doesn't like being married, she can get at least half of what he already has plus a hell of a good chunk of whatever else he might get in the next eighteen years. She doesn't have to worry one damned bit about how fat, ugly, grumpy, wasteful or unpleasant she might become because she's calling the shots and she's got the American legal system behind her all the way. If her husband doesn't like what she's become or how she treats him, that's just too bad. He can either live with it or else lose both his kids and any hope of a decent post-divorce standard of living.
Ask any young man today what he thinks of marriage and the odds are that he's VERY skeptical about it. And he should be. He's not going to get a wife who has any reason to worry about keeping him happy. Once he takes the bait and marries, he's good and solidly hooked and likely to get the same treatment as the average pan fish.
Young guys not only see their married friends get treated like crap by their wives after the kids come along, they see their unlucky divorced friends provide horrifically scary examples of what it's like to be legally raped by the courts. High child support and no enforceable visitation rights are the lot of most divorced fathers. And this is all at the mere whim of the wife, ready to hand for her at any time she chooses.
And the wives choose it a lot. A large majority of divorces in the U.S. are requested by women. It's very obvious that many Western women feel that the business of maintaining a home for a husband and children is beneath them. The feminists have taught them that someone else should be doing all that drudgery because it's just not suitable for an educated woman to spend time doing things like cooking and cleaning. She's meant for more than that and anyone who can't see it must be a sexist pig. All she needs to contribute to marriage is the ability to perform in bed, and even that only when she feels like it.
If you don't think my take on that is true, take a good look at the women's magazines at the checkout counter next time you leave an American supermarket. There's a hell of a lot more emphasis on sexual technique than on anything having to do with domestic economy of any sort. Females reading those magazines are far more likely to know how to stimulate a frenulum than sew a button. It's not just Britney, Christina and Paris either--it's the whole damned female part of American society. You can't think that in these PC days MEN are writing and editing those magazines with stories like "Ten Sex Tips to Make Him Beg for More," "The 10 Hottest Sex Positions Ever," and "Is Anal Bleaching for You?"
Well, the chickens are coming home to roost. We've got a generation of women who think all it takes to succeed in marriage is knowing how to screw like a cheap whore. That's not going to cut it, and men exploiting and dumping them without even thinking of commitment will continue toward becoming the more common reality.
Allen Bloom said that the old marriage rules were broken and we neither could nor should go back to them, but he also said that we shouldn't believe that a new and workable set would emerge just because we wanted or needed them to. He was right. The system itself is broken and I don't see any way to make it right again.
By the way, lest I get slammed for making attacks solely on American women, it's not just them. East Asian (Korean and Japanese)women are worse. Their marriage rates are much less than the U.S., although in their cases, it's usually the women who don't want to marry. Societal pressure on women over in East Asia is very strong and the legal system treats them poorly in divorce cases. Their answer is simply not to marry and just continue to live at home. Should a dalliance cause a pregnancy, they simply abort. That happens quite often. The number of abortions since 1973 in South Korea alone is equivalent to the number of people living in the country today (44 million.)
Bottom line: we used to have men and women. Now we have men and imitation men, and the imitations are following all the worst habits of the real men.
I've seen the same from lotp, and not just from families that have shirked their responsibilities. The external pressures from society and the lionization of such as Paris et al sends a values message to young people. The absolute abandonment of any sense of ethical or moral values by our institutions of higher learning has turned them into bordellos with books where hooking up has made the myth of the sixties sexual revolution a reality.
And campus man-woman ratios approaching 40-60 have not helped matters either. The derision in which all displays of masculinity by men is held by our elites is equally to blame. And it's not as if this was unforeseen. Listen to Jean Shepherd speak in the sixties of the Great Role Reversal and its consequences that are now borne out daily.
But fear not. The coming crisis will reward the masculine values that will be necessary for our society to prevail. And along with that will come a restoration of values by women as they seek to win the returning real men by acting as adult women. But it's not here yet and I fear we must only witness more degeneration before regeneration can begin.
We've got a generation of women who think all it takes to succeed in marriage is knowing how to screw like a cheap whore.
One way to alter it would be to provide them with real competition. Remove the state sponsored monopoly on 'legal' sex. Yes, legal sex. We still have the laws that gives women the monopoly on sex and the institutional bias to support that. Remove the prohibition on commercial sex. Just like the numbers rackets took a big hit when the state authorized legal gambling, removing this barrier will force those who want a 'marriage' to offer something more than just 'sex'. Look at Nevada [other than the Plague of Harry]. The world hasn't ended. And don't give me the line about men exploiting women. I can direct you to a website that is definitely Not Safe For The Workplace which clearly shows that women are seeking other women for 'sevices' at a 2 to 5 ration to men. It is a different world now.
What it would mean is that 'couples' would enter into something closer to real contract [formerly known as marriage] in which each would have to show something other than 'sex' as the basis for that contract. That'll force changes in behavior.
We've also got a generation of 'men' who have close to zero self discipline, willingness to sacrifice and a clear sense of what really matters in a relationship.
Both genders has better get their act together, sooner rather than later.
I'll believe men really dislike the horridly shallow lustfilled behavior of so many young women when I see them refuse to date or sleep with such. Until then, it looks hypocritical and shallow to me on both sides of the aisle.
You missed the part where the women seek the divorce and all the support. Did you know that after a divorce and a DNA test showing the kid wasn't the former spouse's, that some states still makes the person formerly known as the husband to still pay child support and not the sperm provider?
Yes, I did know that. Our legal system on divorce is out of whack. And that has caused injustice and pain.
Speaking of injustice and pain:
Did you know that not all that long ago I volunteered for a battered women's hotline? That I more than once went to rescue women beaten so badly that their faces were unrecognizable, or their ribs kicked in, for the offense of asking Him for money for the baby's medicines when He was drinking?
That up through the late 1960s, when I was a teen, a woman needed her Husband's written permission to be prescribed contraceptives or to have a hysterectomy?
Do you really want to get into an exchange of abuses here? Because based on severity x duration, it won't be nearly as complimentary to men as you might wish.
For my part, I want this society to Grow Up on the part of both sexes. Sooner, rather than later. To build a society and families based on mutual respect for each other - including for our differences.
It's not impossible, you know. I live and work among military families who do it all the time, including families in which both parents are in uniform and each has deployed in theater over the last few years.
My parents divorced when I was a kid. My mother got me because that was the norm at the time, when everyone knew my father was the better parent. It sucked for me, until I finally ended up with him. I know personally how bad divorces can be.
There's a reason I stuck out my marriage during the hard parts. 33+ years into it I'm glad I did. But Mr. Lotp and I *both* had a lot of maturing to do to make this relationship work. And I wouldn't trade the mature Man he's become for a dozen of the pseudo 'men' I see in our society these days.
"We've also got a generation of 'men' who have close to zero self discipline, willingness to sacrifice and a clear sense of what really matters in a relationship."
Go back and read what I read earlier. I'd contend that a lot of men today have a very good sense of what matters in a relationship--and that their chances of getting it from most Western women is darned slim. As for "willingness to sacrifice," I'd contend that you're asking males to play a rigged game with a deck they KNOW from empirical evidence is stacked against them. Smart people don't do that.
"Both genders has better get their act together, sooner rather than later."
I'll heartily concur with that. However, I place most of the blame for the downfall on the women. Western women today demand a hell of a lot more from men, while men expect a hell of a lot less from women. What man in his right mind today would have any reason to expect that a woman he might consider marrying could actually COOK, for example, much less do anything else that smacks of domestic economy.
Women, on the other hand, expect that not only will their husband be an excellent provider and good father, but also be emotionally sensitive and capable of filling all their physical, emotional and financial needs. Big change, I'd say, and not at all in favor of the men. And remember, the minute the woman decides her man isn't good enough, she's advised by the female society around her to reach for the ripcord. They'll be happy to tell her that she doesn't need him anyway, and to encourage her to go for the jugular and get the last damned dime out of him she can.
"I'll believe men really dislike the horridly shallow lustfilled behavior of so many young women when I see them refuse to date or sleep with such."
They'll hold such behavior in contempt, but that doesn't mean they won't take advantage of it when the opportunity arises. A saying I heard many times in college was "a stiff dick has no conscience." The problem for the rest of us is that a society full of contemptuous men and bitter, angry women is a horrible place for trying to raise children, much less decent ones. And if you want a real close view of where that situation already exists, take a good look at America's black community. In their male-female interactions they're already where the rest of us are going. That place has a 70+ per cent illegitimacy rate, BTW, in addition to all its other problems.
"Until then, it looks hypocritical and shallow to me on both sides of the aisle."
No, what's happening is the men who use the cheap women and discard them are utilizing rational choice theory and taking advantage of the free-rider effect (no pun intended, although it does fit rather nicely). That's adult economic behavior if I ever saw it, although not worth a damn for the society as a whole.
I think Excalibur's right. It will get better, but we're going to have to see it get a lot worse before it does.
Did you know that after a divorce and a DNA test showing the kid wasn't the former spouse's, that some states still makes the person formerly known as the husband to still pay child support and not the sperm provider?
What's the problem? That's what real men do. Not run around finding other people to bear their burdens. Now, if the divorce had been for cause of adultery with a corresponding action for alienation of affection with paternity as evidence in both cases, I would see it differently. But once a man brings a child into his home and recognizes it as his own, responsibility for it should be his in the eyes of the law. That's part of why we have christenings.
"Both genders has better get their act together, sooner rather than later."
I'll heartily concur with that. However, I place most of the blame for the downfall on the women.
Yes, I can see that you do. And I respectfully and unapologetically suggest that your view is distorted. You haven't a clue how hard it can be -- for practical as well as emotional reasons -- for many women with children to leave a marriage. No doubt there are some who do so nastily and like financial vampires. There are many others who stay in abusive marriages because they have few choices otherwise.
I'd contend that a lot of men today have a very good sense of what matters in a relationship--and that their chances of getting it from most Western women is darned slim.
What about their sense of THEIR needed contributions? And I don't mean the Oprah crap about sensitivity and backrubs. I mean self discipline, emotional stability, sacrifice, a willingness to do the drudge things that contribute to house and home.
Individually the issues are with both male and female behavior.
Societally the issues are more with the female.
To me the problem is that the feminists that were trying to address the real issues which lotp speaks of didn't know where to stop.
Unmarried sex has always and will always be easier for the man. That's nature, live with it.
Unwanted pregnancy is the woman's burden and there's damn little that can be done to change that. So, the women ought to recognize that situation and act accordingly instead of bitching about how unfair it all is.
If you dress and act like a slut you will be treated like a slut. If that means that fewer males are interested, what have you lost?
If a man is looking for a real relationship, he will not be looking for sluts, except for use as an amateur whore.
I don't think we're that far apart in our opinions, though I think in some cases we're talking about two different things.
Society has always produced hookers and dancing girls (and pimps and pushers and other unsavory male characters). Ye Kynge's Doxy isn't a recent phenomenon, and it wasn't recent back when men wore periwigs. Since caveman times there's always been a "genteel" class. It was made possible by the labor of the "earthier" half of society.
You just can't get good help anymore. That's because machines now do the work the pert Irish lass did 150 years ago. Most of us will go through life without ever having servants, of any kind. We can't afford them.
Neither are the members of society stuck in their social positions, unchanging from generation to generation. Today you can make the choice as to whether you're going to live in a trailer and have the cops come to visit four nights a week or if you're going to make something a bit more substantive of your life. We've all made those choices, and when we've been really lucky we've had the opportunity to change our minds when we've made the wrong choices.
Life is short-term simpler when a girl sits on the most valuable part of her. Life is short-term simpler when a young fellow's ambition extends no further than beer and babes. Liebau makes a point that there's an informal propaganda campaign that nudges large numbers of mostly brainless girls toward sluttish behavior. It does do them a disservice, but there are also enough girls who don't need the nudge, just as there are male equivalents in sufficient numbers to mate with them regularly.
I don't find that sinister or find some deep political meaning in that, even though I'd rather live in a society that was quite a bit more straightlaced than the one we have now. I merely keep in mind that half of everyone is below average and 80 percent of everyone is middlin'.
Until society starts disapproving of Ms. Hilton's penchant for displaying the details of her sex life and her equipment society will remain the way it is. When it does, there will be a new set of problems associated with the change in attitudes.
Of course, Good Parenting has nothing to do with it. (sarcasm) It's easy to blame society for all the ills but what exactly is "society".
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/11/2007 11:50 Comments ||
"Yes, I can see that you do. And I respectfully and unapologetically suggest that your view is distorted. You haven't a clue how hard it can be -- for practical as well as emotional reasons -- for many women with children to leave a marriage."
First of all, who the hell are you to comment on what I do or don't have a clue about? You have no knowledge of my background and what I have or haven't experienced. This would be a perfect spot to concoct some sad story that would make you look like a perfect jerk for having made that comment. Because I don't shoot sitting ducks, I'll refrain.
Second, it's the men who DO work hard and try to be good providers that are the ones who get screwed worst. They're the ones who will be paying for 18 to 21 years for children's upkeep when they far too often never get to see them, not to mention the many times that the support money doesn't go to the kids.
I've seen divorce up close and personal, from both men's and women's sides, and what I've seen is that men getting divorced DO IT ALONE. There are damned few people they know even willing to talk to them about it, and most people feel that the issue is best avoided because no matter how it happened, it somehow represents a failure on the man's part. They go through what might be the toughest thing they'll ever have to deal with generally without much, if any, help or support from anyone at all.
What I've seen from the women's side is totally different. I've seen female relatives of mine literally surrounded by other women telling them how they always knew the soon-to-be-ex was a loser, and how he needs to be made to pay for having been such a bastard. Then they come out with their best idea of how she and her lawyer can best manage to screw the guy over. Sympathy? For her, oh yeah--you could cut it with a knife.
For the guy, a far different story. That lot would gladly have used the knife to emasculate him. Watching that particular scene made me understand where Kipling was coming from when he made his comment about blowing your brains out being preferable to having the women cut up what remains. That was an ugly thing to see but I'm pretty sure (as I was the only man there) I'm the only one who thought so.
Western women have become a lot more demanding of men in the last 50 years. Disagree if you will; it's true, and it's been the cause of many a divorce that probably would not have happened five decades earlier.
Our society and today's media far too often paint men as stupid, brutish cretins and women as both their moral and intellectual superiors. Men, knowing this isn't true, are far more suspicious of women than they used to be, and rightly so. The cohabitation and divorce statistics are clear evidence of it.
What is probably even more persuasive evidence is the number of people living alone in America--the people who don't even bother to cohabit. That number is going through the roof. It's now higher than it's ever been, and I think the reasons are obvious.
A comedian once said he named his um...part because he didn't want a total stranger making all his decisions.
And a man I once loved deeply chose to marry a (seemingly) empty headed temptress instead. He's now going through a flesh-eating divorce and custody battle. I wouldn't wish that on anybody but hey, he had his choices.
A saying I heard many times in college was "a stiff dick has no conscience."
That's the choice you're given, isn't it? The guy lugging it around has to carry the conscience, too. The girlies also have consciences and get to make their own decisions. Liebau sez they're being nudged toward deciding to take their pants off. Conscience is the most secure waistband.
When you're young and horny and you're afraid the supply of sex is going to be cut off without warning at any time it's more important to you. That's why the nudges are successful. They're decreasingly successful when the participants are 40 or 50 or 60. As the remorseless years go by it's more likely (though still not guaranteed) that horniness will be overlayed by other factors like dignity, self-respect, and modesty. Your sense of self-worth encompasses more things than just your nether regions.
Eventually you come to the conclusion that there are 24 hours to the day and that the average sex act takes something less than 20 minutes. You start looking for things to do to fill the other 23 hours and 40 minutes. That's when you discover bowling.
I agree w/the Deacon. Still comes down to parenting. My folks advice to me as a young man - "don't bed a woman you wouldn't be willing to marry, because if you get her pregnant you'll be marrying her."
As for gender diffenrences and unrealistic expectations of partners - go to any msn, yahoo, or other dating site. Look at the comparison between what men and women singles of age range 26-36 (typical bio-clock ticking marriage range) want in a prospective partner - illuminating.
1. If you asked all of the women in America under the age of 50
"In matters of childrearing, does the husband EVER get the final say in deciding what to do"
what percentage of them would say NO, NEVER?
2. If a husband and wife have children, and the husband does anything which bothers, annoys, or even bores the wife, does that give her the right to leave him and take the children and half his stuff at a whim, what percentage would say YES?
The answer to both questions is 99%+.
Until you are willing to admit this to yourself - and until we as a society are willing to address this situation and honestly deal with the factors that led to it and perpetuate it in the courts and our culture - it cannot change.
I can't prove it, but the way women are leaving men and soaking them, I'm beginning to believe that they are actually planning to do so from a time long before they actually marry. It's beginning to seem to frequent to be anything but scripted - the script being "get the man and his income stream, get pregnant, and leave him and take his stuff if he does ANYTHING that does not meet with your approval.
I think that this is yet another outgrowth of postmodern feminism - an aspect which comes from the propensity of women in our era to view a man as useful for his income stream and genetic material only. And having gotten both, he has little other worht, according to what they learned from the media and in the education industry.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/11/2007 17:38 Comments ||
no mo uro, I deal daily with young soldiers and junior officers in our military, many of whom marry when they live the installation where I work.
Your descriptions just don't fit the vast majority of them. And I know because, among other things, I mentor many of them, male and female, as do my professional colleagues. And I know because I see marriages stay steady during the 30s and 40s despite long and dangerous deployments, lower income than the national average for the same education and other hardships.
Now, these young men and women don't suddenly adopt that pro-marriage, pro-fidelity, pro-children attitude while in military training. For the most part they bring that attitude with them when they sign up. We might help them to understand what leadership, sacrifice and commitment mean and we surely help them practice it in various ways before they say "I do". But they brought the basic values with them when they signed up. They got them somewhere, often from their families. So those values still persist in many places.
But I know - I really DO know - how bad the marriage and gender wars are out there in the culture at large. My daughter is 31. My younger brother, the divorced one, just turned 40. Several nieces and nephews or ours have married - or not - over the last few years; others remain determinedly single, willingly or not. My older brother's marriage was a total fiasco. He ended up losing not only his biological daughter but his wife's daughter from a previous marriage whom he had formall adopted -- and he lost all visiting rights.
And I read the media, watch TV and movies. The evidence is all around us.
I detest the erosion of marriage that has been pushed for 3 decades now. I cringe and object when I see the deliberate downgrading of men and masculinity that permeates ads, movies, literature. I see the bitterness on BOTH sides of the gender barrier. And yes - in some women I see stupid shallow destructiveness and vindictiveness. Just as I've seen some pretty horrid behavior on the part of some men.
But I'm struck by the way you phrased your questions. In a healthy marriage both members discuss, negotiate, compromise. When we really couldn't agree I've yielded to my husband's wishes on a lot of issues that mattered to me. He's done the same for his part. We insisted that our commitment to the marriage would always matter more than any issue where we disagreed. It was bitterly, painfully hard to live up to that some times. But we did it.
The idea that there's the wife and kid over here and then there's the man and "his stuff" over there .... is a recipe for a marriage that will never work whether or not the woman makes off with the kids and "half of HIS stuff". Marriage isn't a commercial transaction. Not real marriage.
I'm no expert. But I do have the scars and successes of forging a successful marriage that was far from easy going and conflict free. From what I've seen around me, in corporate jobs and our family and our neighborhood, right now neither sex is behaving very well on average.
And that means a lot of hurt and angry men plus, as Liebau notes, a lot of empty, bitter and often also hurt women. We can fix this but it won't be easy. And it will take a deliberate decision to seek a common ground.
propensity of women in our era to view a man as useful for his income stream and genetic material only. And having gotten both, he has little other worht
This last part really left me sad. Mr. Lotp's worth to me is infinitely wider and deeper than either of those factors. But truth be told, I didn't really have the maturity and perspective to measure his real worth to me until my late 40s. I just turned 56 last week, but I can still remember how I thought and felt in my 20s, 30s and 40s. It's not always a comfortable thing to remember. Some I'm ashamed of. And some was so very dominated by what I thought were urgent, bottom line issues at the time, which I now realize just weren't as important as I thought back then.
Conversely, that worth has deepened in part because he matured into his real potential as a man during those years too.
lotp, those were thoughtful and reasoned responses - it's nice to see that there are a few good women out there.
Your thoughts on discussion and negotiation and compromise are spot on. And I'll take your idea on that even further - those should be in place even before marriage. How many couples talk about what they will do if they are childless, or if a parent gets Alzheimer's, or if one of the couple becomes paraplegic, or what kind of religion their children might have BEFORE they get married nowadays? They almost universally don't - either because they are still in the lovestruck phase, or because they fear to drive off their potential mate. My wife and I talked about these things and a whole lot more prior to marriage, which is when they should be hashed out.
But to get back to your responses - you stuck with your husband and conceded to him on some issues, and he to you. That's what it is all about. My point is that while there are still men 10-20 years your junior who are willing to do this, there are very, very few women who are. They have been sent messages both conscious and unconscious that to ever concede to a man is to betray the sisterhood. The woman is NEVER wrong - Gloria Steinem (and others) said so. This is pervasive now in our culture.
You stuck with your spouse through the tough times even though he didn't always agree with you and you couldn't always get your way. Most women significantly younger than you will simply NEVER permit that outcome to happen, they'll bail way ahead of that, and never have a good marriage or see their spouse reach their potential.
When you have the combination of women who believe they can never be wrong right to their core combined with a court system that backs that notion up with financial and other penalties, you have a recipe for disaster. And while I agree with you that there is a great deal more to marriage (particularly a successful one) than material stuff, the material stuff is nonetheless a big part of marriage, and has been for millenia. You can't just toss that part aside on a lark.
None of this is to let off the hook men who are generically and unconsciously pigs or who game the system with dispassionate cruelty. Philanderers and abusers exist, and the ire of the courts should be directed at those individuals, no doubt. But the current statistics indicate that women are responsible for initiating divorce nearly 80% of the time. Do you really believe that 80% of men are philanderers and abusers? And when the reasons given for divorce are carefully analyzed, it seems that a greater and greater percentage of women are intiating them because Princess got told "no" for the first time in her life, or because she was simply bored. If a man were to initiate divorce for these reasons, he would rightly have to pay. If the woman does this, the man still has to pay. "No fault" sounds a lot more like "man's fault" without regard to the real problem at hand.
At any rate, thanks for your responses, and I hope you've taught your experiences and outlook to a few younger women.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/11/2007 19:25 Comments ||
They have been sent messages both conscious and unconscious that to ever concede to a man is to betray the sisterhood. The woman is NEVER wrong - Gloria Steinem (and others) said so.
Yes, I've encountered that attitude. A lot. And fought it.
Some may remember me boring y'all with my stories about fighting the young radical l3sbian takeover of the LA NOW chapter in the mid-late 80s. They drove out the married women (many Latinas) who were focused on health care, education and similar issues and who didn't regard our marriages as "sleeping with the enemy".
They won control of the feminist movement. They dominate the "womens' study" departments in universities. And their agenda has been utterly corrosive to all who are touched by it.
What lotp said in her last two posts. The same for me after spending more than half of my life with Mr. Wife. We who think of our husbands as equal partners, and whose husbands think of us that way, we're working together to get through our problems instead of getting divorced.
I'm very sorry some of you have had, or watched, bad women destroy all that had been hoped for. But about half of those who marry nowadays never get divorced. Which suggests that significantly more than 1% of the men and women in this country are neither spiders nor leaches, neither bitches nor brutes.
I checked with trailng daughter #1,who is reading over my shoulder, and she says this kind of thing makes her mad -- Ms. Liebau likely doesn't have any evidence to substantiate her allegations, and anyway, this is how the older generation has spoken of the younger since Socrates' time. Besides, she is saying, even as I type this, she and her sister haven't been taught to value sex over achievement and intelligence, and they're both going to be good wives, or not at all.
My apologies: my previous post responded to lotp's #36 and 37.
We should be under no illusion. This is proposed to be the biggest theft in world history, hundreds of times greater than the oil for food scandal. As such, these thieves will stop at NOTHING to pull it off.
It really is key to establishing a one world government with them in charge, looting every penny they can get in perpetuity. Not just a single theft of billions, but literally trillions of dollars and control of the world into the foreseeable future.
And as nonsensical, or conspiratorial as it seems, it is not the belief of the conspiracy theorists that makes it so, but the actual thieves themselves. It is the holy grail of eternal, elite power to them. A restoration of the royal classes over the rest of mankind.
For them, it is the "New Jerusalem", "Eden", a return to the "State of Nature", "Perfect Socialism", or any other bizarre label they want to put on it. But it is all the same thing: elite control of all power and wealth.
Global Warming is just an excuse to them. They could use Global Cooling, or Overpopulation, or anything as an excuse for the same ends. And excuse will do, because it is the ends that matter, not the means.
Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a dangerous time for science ahead.
We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.
The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between, he concluded.
Hope he's right. The problem is that you can't prove that something won't happen. You disprove something by getting a positive prediction and confirmation that the prediction did not come to pass. Given the demonstrably poor logic and problem analysis skills of environmentalists, lefties, and liberals, you get a process whereby EVERYTHING proves global warming, regardless of what happens. Only those in the know realize that if EVERYTHING supposedly proves global warming, then a mistake has been made, not that global warming is a sure thing.
The Sun is VERY calm currently. The Sun is the biggest input to Earths global environment. I am not saying we don't need to move away from oil and coal for different reasons mostly having to do with security. What the UN is talking about is nothing short creating a world where the rich elites have energy and the rest of us don't. They mean to wipe out the middle class and limit freedom in ways you can't imagine. Our Congress people will be happy to go along with the plan as they are part of the few who will be part of the ruling class.
The Media are active participants in the global warming scam the BBC being one of the worst offenders followed by the north American press. The Press in Europe follow the lead of the BBC and the "journalists" in north America are all true believers happy to push this scam.
#1: "They could use Global Cooling, or Overpopulation, or anything as an excuse for the same ends."
They already have, 'moose. Weren't you around in the 1970's?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/11/2007 22:10 Comments ||
They won't ever admit they're wrong, though. They'll just go on to the next world-ending crisis. And the decreasing percentage of the population that let the New York Times, etc. think for them will be just as adamant that the rest of us must change... something... to fix it.
Joe, the ropes are caled Birkeland Twisted Pair Currents in Plasma Cosmology, and they not only connect Earth with Sun, but all the bodies of the solar system to Sun and also planets/moons themselves. This is part of a larger structure that interconnects the Milky Way, and it also scales upwards, to clusters and superclusters.
There is no "wind" going through the Birkeland Pairs, just an electric current--that means a flow of charged particles.
Nice discovery and a confirmation of Plasma Cosmology. Hopefully, a birdie to darkwing duck matter theory.
AFRICA and Europe's first summit in seven years ended in disarray yesterday, with no agreement on the key issue of trade and a defiant Robert Mugabe telling Africa to "fight the arrogance" of European countries opposed to his regime in Zimbabwe.
Europe doesn't have the continental testicles to actually demonstrate its "arrogance" by closing its wallet.
The two-day summit in Lisbon did agree an action plan and a promise to meet again in 2010, but the world's largest trading bloc and its poorest continent remained bitterly divided over how to replace current economic agreements. The EU is Africa's largest commercial partner, with trade totalling more than 155 billion (£112 billion) in 2006, but European officials and businessmen fear growing Chinese investment in Africa could displace it from the top spot.
The EU wants to replace the expiring trade accords with so-called Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), which anti-poverty groups have criticised for failing to provide protection for Africa's poor farmers and its fragile industry. "It's clear that Africa rejects the EPAs," the Senegalese president, Abdoulaye Wade, said angrily. "We are not talking any more about EPAs, we've rejected them ... we're going to meet to see what we can put in place of the EPAs."
Continued on Page 49
Okay Rantburgers, I need a little help on my African history.
I'm trying to think of the last time an African country did something good for human rights and the most recent I can come up with is when Tanzania drove Idi Amin out of Uganda. Granted they only did it because Uganda invaded, but I'm willing to give them the benifit of the doubt.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
12/11/2007 1:34 Comments ||
There's a reason events in Africa tend to get so little world attention.
Don't feel bad Mike. Human rights and Africa just don't mix. If is wasn't rich in minerals and wildlife no one would ever go there or give a crap it existed.
Take the question one step further. Has there ever been a significant lasting civilization on that continent? Egypt doesn't count, it's gone.
Mugabe is just one more dull example of what is wrong with the pervasive culture systemically stagnant there. One only needs to look into the transplanted African culture to understand our own examples like Katrina, Watts etc. Which is a shame and not PC. But none the less true.
Saudi Arabias ruling monarch has appointed his half-brother to head a committee that will choose the desert kingdoms future kings and crown princes, the official SPA news agency reported on Monday. King Abdullah chose Prince Meshal bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud to lead the 35-member committee, set up to ensure a smooth transition of power in the worlds biggest oil producer, ruled by the al-Saud dynasty for 75 years. The move is unlikely to have immediate consequences for the balance of power in the oil-rich kingdom, as Abdullahs successor Crown Prince Sultan, who will be 80 next month, is exempt from the new rules. The king, who is in his early 80s, announced the appointment of his half-brother at a gathering of royal family members in Riyadh on Sunday evening, SPA said. He said in a speech that the dynastys founder Abdul Aziz bin Saud had advised his family to act as one hand and one heart and to discuss any differences between us in a transparent manner and not allow anyone to interfere in our private matters.
President Vladimir Putin ended months of speculation yesterday by naming Dmitry Medvedev, a 42-year-old economic liberal, as his preferred candidate to win Russia's presidential election next year.
The move all but guarantees that Medvedev, a first deputy prime minister, will win overwhelmingly in the poll on March 2. "I have known him very closely for more than 17 years and I completely and fully support this proposal," Putin said, during a meeting with leaders from four parties who announced they were all backing Medvedev's candidacy.
Medvedev, a former St Petersburg lawyer and Black Sabbath enthusiast, is regarded as more liberal and less hawkish towards the west than Sergei Ivanov, Russia's other first deputy prime minister, who was also a frontrunner for the job.
Putin is expected to retain influence over Russia's security services, including the military and the Federal Security Bureau or FSB, the successor agency to the KGB, which he headed before becoming president in 2000. Unlike Putin, Medvedev has no links with the security services. The president, who has to step down in May, has made it clear he intends to "influence" his successor, and has not ruled out returning to the Kremlin at some point.
"It's quite obvious that Medvedev won't be the almighty president that Putin used to be," said Fyodor Lykyanov, editor in chief of the journal Russia in Foreign Affairs.
Sergei Markov, a leading Kremlin analyst, said he expected three people to run the country after May: Medvedev, Putin and Viktor Zubkov, the prime minister. "Medvedev's ideology is liberal patriotism," Markov told the Guardian. "He is more liberal than Ivanov. He has no experience of working with law enforcement agencies, who will tend to see Putin as their main political chief."
Western diplomats were hopeful yesterday that a Medvedev presidency could lead to a rapprochement between Russia and the west, after a year which has seen disagreements over Kosovo, missile defence and the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London.
Medvedev has no experience of foreign affairs. A rare speaker of English, his only appearance on the international stage was earlier this year at the annual economic forum in the Swiss ski resort of Davos. He is largely known abroad through his chairmanship of the state gas giant Gazprom. Here, he has taken an uncompromising line in negotiations with Russia's neighbours over gas prices.
So he can't speak English, has no experience in security, none in foreign affairs, and is known only as an arm-twister. Perfect for the job, doncha think?
Yesterday Putin said Medvedev's candidacy represented "an administration that will carry on the same policies that have brought us results for the past eight years". His United Russia party is expected to nominate Medvedev at a party congress on Monday. After that there are no serious obstacles between him and the presidency.
Nevertheless yesterday's announcement was a surprise. Recent speculation had suggested that Putin would endorse either Ivanov or Zubkov. "The majority of Russia's political analysts thought it was going to be Zubkov," Lilia Shevtsova, a senior associate at Moscow's Carnegie centre said. "Over the last month Medvedev was nowhere to be seen. He was sitting in his lonely government office."
Asked why Putin had picked him, she said: "He has proved many times that he is loyal. But he isn't a silovik (a member of Russia's security agencies)."
Which means he'll let Vlad run the security agencies in all but name.
Several other candidates have said they will contest the presidential election. They include the veteran communist leader Gennady Zyuganov and Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion and leader of the opposition coalition, the Other Russia.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/11/2007 00:00 ||
Top|| File under:
Unlike Putin, Medvedev has no links with the security services.
1. A small figure of a person or animal, having a cloth body and hollow head, designed to be fitted over and manipulated by the hand.
2. A toy representing a human figure; a doll.
3. One whose behavior is determined by the will of others.
(ANSA) - Brussels, December 10 - Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema on Monday urged Kosovo Albanians to avoid being in a hurry for independence from Serbia and to agree each step with the European Union. Speaking on the sidelines of an EU foreign ministers' meeting here, D'Alema also said Italy was pushing for Serbia to be granted candidate status for admission to the Union.
Foreign ministers were meeting to debate a common EU strategy on Kosovo on the same day as the deadline for a negotiated deal on the fate of the breakaway province passed without result.
D'Alema said there was broad agreement in the EU on the need to ''govern the process'' leading to independence so as to preserve hard-won stability in the region. ''Any step must be agreed with the European Union: the when and the how,'' he stressed. Good luck with that, toothless tigers.
Leaders of Kosovo's ethnic Albanian majority had been widely expected to proclaim sovereignty around late January but there were signs on Monday that they might be willing to wait until March. "We have studied the entrails of a slaughtered ram and March ... March is good."
Serbia, backed by Russia, fiercely opposes Kosovo's independence. But after four months of fruitless negotiations mediated by the EU, Moscow and Washington, the US and most European countries appear ready to accept it. EU heads of government are expected to meet on Friday and to produce the broad outline of a European strategy for Kosovo, with the goal of avoiding any violence. hahahah...
It is feared that any bloodshed in Kosovo could spark a unrest and conflict elsewhere in the volatile Balkan region.
It is part of Europe's long-term strategy for the region to be closely involved in Kosovo's transition to independence. It is expected to offer to help running local administrations and policing the territory. And the Kosovars will happily offer high-grade heroin, white-slavery networks, and the world's most efficient chop shops in exchange. My guess is that the good people of Kosovo will say "thank you very much, we'll take the cash"
D'Alema said another part of the EU's strategy should be to put Serbia on the path leading to eventual EU membership, noting that there had been greater collaboration recently between Serbia and the UN War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. D'Alema acknowledged that Serbia had still not provided access to fugitives sought by the tribunal but he said this should not prevent candidate status being given. No EU candidacy for Kosovo, but they're begging Serbia to join ... hmmmm
Serbia, meanwhile, said on Monday that it had no intention of ''trading'' sovereignty over Kosovo for EU membership. Nothing like blood-thirsty Muslims across the border (and, occasionally, over it) to focus attention on the matter at hand.
Kosovo has been under UN rule since 1999, when NATO bombs expelled Serb forces accused of the killing and ethnic cleansing of Albanian civilians while battling separatist rebels.
The UN Security Council is scheduled to discuss Kosovo on December 19, when Russia is expected to call for more negotiations. Russia warned on Monday that a unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo's 90% ethnic-Albanian population could provoke a ''chain reaction'' of violence throughout the region.
NATO nations, who have 16,000 peacekeeping troops in Kosovo, agreed on Friday to maintain their force at current levels and to send more soldiers to control any outbreaks of violence that break out as Kosovo declares its independence from Serbia.
Italian Defence Minister Arturo Parisi said on Monday that Italy would not be boosting its roughly 2,000 Kosovo contingent for now ''We are aware of the complexity of the situation, but we are guided by the hope that everyone will be reasonable,'' he said. hahahaha ...
''If the conditions should change, then this country and the European Union would clearly have to reconsider,'' he added.
A Turkish lawyer has filed a complaint to UEFA, the European football federation, after Italian club Inter Milan wore a football jersey with a symbol said to be offensive to Islam, during a game with the Turkish team Fenerbahçe.
The symbol of the northern Italian city of Milan, a red cross on a white background, was on the Inter Milan shirts during the Champions League game in November which saw Fenerbahçe lose by 3 goals to zero at Milan's San Siro stadium.
Lawyer Baris Kaska, has asked a Turkish tribunal to sanction Inter Milan for wearing the shirts which he says reminded Turks of an emblem of the Christian order of the Knights Templar.
Kaska said that the symbol is considered offensive in Islamic culture and asked the Turkish tribunal to sanction Inter Milan for their 'racist' action. He has asked UEFA, which organises the Champions League tournament, to cancel the three points earned by Inter Milan after its victory over Fenerbahçe. In an interview with Spain's daily La Vanguardia, Kaska said that "the cross reminded me of the bloody days of the past."
Inter Milan consciously decided not to wear the controversial shirt during their match in Istanbul, but did not think it was necessary to do the same while playing the return game in Milan.
Come to think of it, it does remind me of a mosque.
Now I'm offended. Outhouses have made an important contribution to civilization thru sanitation and preventing the spread of disease. And while there may have been the occasional outhouse accident, the toll pales in comparison to the thousands killed by the crap that comes out of mosques.
Yeah, I'm offended that turd-for-brain libs who never miss an opportunity to diss Christianity fall all over themselves to suck up to the muzz. But maybe it's just that the muzz are "enablers" of this offensive lib behavior...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
12/11/2007 10:45 Comments ||
The Muslim "lawyer" finds the symbol of the Christian Cross offensive and is taking action. Another form of Jihad.
BELGRADE - Serbia is not prepared to trade off Kosovos independence for any deal with the European Union, Deputy Prime Minister Bozidar Djelic said Monday as EU powers backed the provinces statehood. There will be no trade of Kosovo for Europe, nor will Serbia ever accept it, and nobodys offering it, Djelic told journalists in Belgrade, according to state-run news agency Tanjug. The European Union isnt a country, isnt a member of the United Nations, and nor will it be a part of the process on Kosovo.
The Euorpean Union isn't necessarily a democracy, isn't a republic, etc., etc ...
That process belongs to the UN Security Council and all member countries of the United Nations, but in no way the European Union, said Djelic.
And the UN is doing a sterling job in Kosovo, every bit as good a job as they've done in Darfur and the Ivory Coast ...
Serbia and the European Union last month initialled a so-called Stabilisation and Association Agreement, considered the first stepping stone for Western Balkan nations on the path to eventual EU membership. The act of initialling the SAA has symbolic but little legal value, ...
... as is all things EU ...
... only meaning that Belgrade and Brussels approve the content of the agreements text.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/11/2007 00:00 ||
Top|| File under:
do not see a reason to give independence to Kosovo.
Kosovo was never a state, but just a region within Serbia.
It was part of the Ottoman Empire(as well as the whole region of the Balkans) and part of greater Albanian nazi state.
The only argument is that Albanians make more than 90% of the population.
Albanians laso treat with the violence if they do not gain independnce.
What about Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia?
They where forced to accept the goverment and internal borders of the former Yu republics.
SO why do not we expect the same form the Albanias?
International law, histoy and moral values scream:Kosovo is part of Serbia. And that's the way how it should stay.
PRAGUE - The Czech Republic has returned 80 kg (176.4 lb) of highly enriched uranium in spent nuclear fuel to Russia as part of a push to reduce stockpiles of nuclear material worldwide, the US Embassy said on Monday. Sixteen transportation casks containing the fuel were shipped safely and securely on special railway cars from a Czech research institute through Slovakia and Ukraine to Russia on Dec. 8, the embassy in Prague said a statement.
It marked the biggest shipment returning Russian-origin spent fuel in line with a 2005 agreement between the United States and Russia on enhanced nuclear security cooperation. This is an example of the international community working collectively to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, and is the kind of concrete international security action that increases both US security and that of our allies, said US Ambassador to the Czech Republic Richard Graber.
The spent fuel from the Czech research institute was sent to an unidentified, secure Russian facility, where it will be reprocessed over the next several years, the embassy said. The shipment raised the total of highly enriched uranium fuel sent back to Russia to 590 kg (1,300 lb).
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/11/2007 00:00 ||
Top|| File under:
Efforts to pass a massive compromise federal spending bill collapsed Monday as a top House Democrat abandoned the measure, accusing the White House and congressional Republicans of failing to bargain in good faith.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, had been working with moderate Republicans to try to generate momentum for a catchall spending bill that split the differences between increases sought by Democrats and the strict budget submitted by President Bush in February.
Instead, Obey said, he would rip up the compromise bill and devise a new one using the strict spending ceiling set by Bush -- but would reach it by whacking GOP priorities and stripping the measure of billions of dollars in pet projects for lawmakers in both parties. Why don't you just let the GOP have its way and use the resultant landslide defeat to reverse the spending changes?
The Senate had been anticipated to take up the bill later in the week, add funding for Iraq and make some final trims to Democrats' vote-buying spending plans.
White House budget director Jim Nussle said Saturday that Bush would veto the omnibus spending bill sight unseen for exceeding Bush's budget by $18 billion. Simple. Effective. Easily understood. Just like I like it.
"It is extraordinary that the president would request an 11 percent increase for the Department of Defense, a 12 percent increase for foreign aid, and $195 billion of emergency funding for the war, while asserting that a 4.7 percent increase for domestic programs is fiscally irresponsible," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia. So you are suggesting that it is responsible to increase spending on domestic programs simply because defense spending increases? Anyway, please tell me more about how earmarks, pork, pet projects, and responsible spending . . . . .
Nussle had accused Democrats of "trying to leverage troop-funding for more pork-barrel spending," but Obey said the opposite is true -- that the White House was willing to relent just slightly on domestic spending in order to obtain up to $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I don't see any purpose in stringing things out for table scraps," Obey said, threatening to cut off negotiations and produce a bill -- at Bush's strict budget number -- without any GOP help.
"Short of having somebody in authority sit down and say, 'OK, we will work out a reasonable compromise,' I don't see any point in prolonging the agony," Obey said. "I don't see how we have any choice but to go to the president's numbers on appropriations to make clear that we aren't going to link the war with token funding on the domestic side." Yeah, it's going to be a bit tough for the Dems if they have to send in a committee to speak for them.
Obey's sentiments weren't universally shared among Democrats. Senate Appropriations Chairman Byrd still hoped to work out an agreement, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, met Monday afternoon with GOP counterpart Mitch McConnell of Kentucky in hopes of putting the omnibus measure back on track. Yeah, these Democrats agreed with him, and those disagreed with him. And the Dems standing over there didn't know what to think.
The omnibus plan had been under discussion for more than three weeks and would have represented the best hope for avoiding a budget train wreck like the stalemate last year under GOP rule. Just had to lay that one at the GOP's feet, didn't ya? You can be assured that you won't be fired by the editor this week.
The measure under development would roll together 11 unfinished spending bills funding every domestic Cabinet agency, as well as a foreign aid budget that's trimmed back from Bush's request. And your paychecks, too, I'll bet!
The bill contained about $30 billion for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, but Democratic leaders anticipate that Senate Republicans would have added to the measure up to $40 billion more for military operations in Iraq.
"They keep raising the ante," Obey said. "Now they're up to $70 billion (for Iraq and Afghanistan). I don't want to be part of any deal like that." Then abstain.
Obey's comments appeared aimed in part at encouraging the sizable bloc of pragmatic Republicans supporting the split-the-differences bill to press GOP leaders to make concessions or risk losing funding for favored programs and hometown projects.
The infusion of war funds was expected to siphon off votes from anti-war Democrats, making it extremely difficult to assembled a hoped for veto-proof coalition of Democrats and GOP moderates for the bill. Ha ha! Don't waste your time.
On Monday, MoveOn.org, a leading liberal advocacy group, called on lawmakers to oppose any war funding measure that does not include a timetable for withdrawing troops. Easy for MoreOn to say when they don't have to worry about reelection to keep their power base around them.
The bill under development includes almost $11 billion above Bush's overall figure for the one-third of the U.S. budget appropriated each year by Congress, as well as $7.4 billion in emergency spending for pressing needs like border security and State Department operations in Iraq. And how much for stuff that is not "pressing"?
Most of the emergency money was either requested by the White House or receives strongest backing from Republicans. Even items not officially requested by the White House budget office were requested by agency chiefs, Obey said.
"Most of that emergency spending is theirs," Obey said. Horrible, horrible, most horrible. So?
Of the $11 billion increase Democrats sought for other programs, much of the money would have gone to reverse budget cuts sought by Bush to programs such as grants to state and local governments for law enforcement, community development, and water and sewer projects. And the rest would go to additional pork? There's a start. Then reduce everything else by 1% across the board and you're done! I should be king, I tell ya!
The bill also would have provided small increases for health research, education and community health centers, among other programs. Homeland security grants to state and local police and firefighters would have received a $726 million boost, some 20 percent. Forget the small stuff. The $726M makes sense, though. Maybe it needs more.
So is this the bill that Harry nd Nancy said they were not going to pursue or present until after the Christmas recess?
Do I sense the Dems already falling apart?
(note: is 'dems' when used collectively deemed offensive, like was noted in another post for another term today)
The United States is rife with racial discrimination and the authorities have an abysmal record on promoting equality, according to a report by a coalition of 250 civic groups published on Monday. The US Human Rights Network, which groups non-profit organizations, released its report to counter the findings of a US government report in April to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
In that case I suggest we drop the subject of racial discrimination and never mention it again. We've been obsessing on the subject since I was a pre-teen and if we haven't made any progress then we never will. To hell with it.
The network said US minorities including African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics and Muslims face discrimination in a range of areas including voting, policing and education. Immigrants are often unfairly treated, as are women and children from ethnic minorities, it said. A disproportionate number of minorities are arrested, charged, prosecuted and convicted compared with whites, and minorities are over-represented in US prisons, said the report titled Turning a blind eye to injustice.
I don't suppose it has anything at all to do with empirical cultural differences? It can't possibly be that 53 percent of the violent crime in the US is committed by 12 percent of the population?
Schools in areas with high concentrations of minorities often lack adequate resources and, as a result, students score poorly in federally mandated examinations, it said. Minorities are unfairly victimized by racial profiling, a practice in which police can stop and frisk people based on their appearance. Muslims have been targeted particularly since the Sept. 11 attacks by Al Qaeda militants in 2001, it said.
Where are the statistics on that? We're never seen them.
The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) calls upon the US to improve its abysmal performance in these areas and to take immediate, robust action to bring the US into compliance with its obligations under this vital Convention, the report said.
International standards? Most places outside of the United States she would be told to get back in the kitchen after a beating. Want to try some real discrimination on, go to Asia or South America. You will find those "international standards" are not even given notice. Bunch of morons the lot of them.
The Secretary of State of the United States (Condoleeza Rice) is the most powerful black woman ever to have walked the Earth.
There is a non-trivial possibility that a person of mixed racial heritage (Sen. Obama) will be the Democrat nominee for president--which means that there is a non-trivial possibility that he could, by virtue of a victory in a free election, become the most powerful person on Earth.
The most popular talk show host in the country (Oprah) is a black woman--so well known that she doesn't need to use her full name. White people the country over cheerfully pay what amounts to millions of dollars to be entertained by Tiger Woods, Denzel Washington, Hallie Berry, Randy Moss, LeBron James, Aretha Franklin, . . . well, I could go on, but you get the point.
Major institutions, including the military and large corporations, are thoroughly salt-and-pepper integrated; black people and white people and all other variations attend concerts and sporting events and commute on the subway all day every day--and with a few unfortunate exceptions, nobody cares.
"Abysmal?" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Sounds like a bunch of NGOs looking for grant$.
It is ironic that Black Americans oversees are frequently targeted by terrorists because the terrorists are told middle class Blacks are more likely to be American than from other countries.
Black Americans here live better compared to Black "immigrants" in Europe and are accepted much more.
P.S. In the Middle East, the word for Black and Slave are the same, and Condelisa Rice is known as "the Slave Woman".
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
12/11/2007 12:09 Comments ||
Roger Simon, in the middle of a review of the Paul Haggis film Valley of Elah:
In 2006 it only got better when Haggis won the Academy Award for original screenplay and Best Picture for Crash, a movie he directed. And since it was not an adaptation, it was pure Haggis.
When I saw that film, I was certainly impressed with its authors chops the guy could write dialogue and entertain us with arresting scenes. But something disturbed me. Crash was a portrait of Los Angeles as a city of races perpetually at war with each other. I had lived in Los Angeles for over thirty years and did not experience it that way. Not always, anyway. And yes, I lived in Echo Park where the Mexican gangs battled the Vietnamese and was here for the riots and burnings in South Central we all know about. In fact, I had taught screenwriting in Watts and helped organize the fundraiser by the very Writers Guild to replace the torched South Central library in the early nineties.
Still, Haggis - who arrived in LA from Canada in 1975, only a half dozen years after me and I live in a very different Los Angeles. He sees that horrifying racism where I see the new melting pot with more Iranians than anywhere but Tehran and more Koreans than anywhere but Seoul (not to mention gazillions of Mexicans, Chinese, etc), all getting along as well, or better, than anywhere else in the world I know of, particularly now. Call it the half-full/half-empty syndrome - or maybe Im just nuts for the ethnic food (I admit it). . . .
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.