#9
Murph: Tell me a little about this electric piano, Ray.
Ray: Ah, you have a good eye, my man. That's the best in the city Chicago.
Jake: How much?
Ray: 2000 bucks and it's yours. You can take it home with you. As a matter of fact, I'll throw in the black keys for free.
Farewell, Ray.
Shake it shake it shake it shake it bay-bayyy.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
06/10/2004 22:06 Comments ||
Top||
BBC: Officials in the mountainous northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh say they are struggling to control a severe form of monkey diarrhoea. Thousands of primates in the forested Himalayan slopes are affected. Officials say the disease has killed dozens and hundreds more remain ill with bleeding from their mouths, and rapid weight loss. A veterinary doctor treating them says they are being given bread smeared with honey and laced with antibiotics. Seattle Times obit: Dr. Walford alternated years of intensive laboratory research on mice with year long sabbaticals in which he walked across India in a loincloth measuring the rectal temperatures of holy men, traversing the African continent on foot, and living in Biosphere 2.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
06/10/2004 16:28 Comments ||
Top||
#5
LotR : Often you make such sense. Someone put a bee in your bonnet today? The imagery invoked by the Seattle Times, and the aside remark by "Frank G" gave me the idea that this is something that Hollywood would like to tackle.
Guy Wandering in a loincloth across India measuring. . .never mind.
#6
BigEd - lol, I was joking. This is hilarious stuff (well, not the monkeys dying, though I suspect Frank J/muck4doo would like that) and I drew looks here in my veal pen, ah, cubical due to my laughing.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
06/10/2004 18:07 Comments ||
Top||
#10
BD - I'm not making fun in any way - she's a work of art and I suggest she's perfectly, um, balanced and symmetrical! I enjoyed Howard's excursion into American English immensely! It was hysterical watching the pieces fall into place - one by excrutiating one - which sent Dave spiraling and left me with a quandry to solve! Trust me, she does not need saving from us in that sense, lol!
#18
YS--Thanks for reminding us "It's all pink on the inside."
Posted by: Dar ||
06/10/2004 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Ha! This stuff just drives the turbans nuts. Form a brigade: Royal Mounted Cameltoe Commando and send em in. Ahhhhhhhh, the chaos the would result.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
06/10/2004 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Somehow I don't think that this belongs in the "Short Attention Span Theater" section. It's been holding my interest for some time now.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/10/2004 20:02 Comments ||
Top||
#28
And the Muslims protesting for Sharia law fall silent . . . and the mullahs' heads explode . . .
Don't I wish. Can't say anything more; girlfriend might see this.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/10/2004 20:05 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Carpet?
That looks more like it would be/inspire hardwood.
Keep posting Stratfor news items, they are some of the best.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/10/2004 2:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wow! I'm not a fan of Stratfor, most of the time, but I have no qualms with much of anything they had to say in this piece. Damned-near every sentence rings true.
One tiny thing to add - in their conclusion, particularly the next to last paragraph, one can see the wisdom of the Bush Admin's efforts to fill the US Strategic Reserve - and the utter idiocy of Skeery & Co's calls to lower prices 2 or 3 cents per gallon by releasing it now. Some people are smart enough to store up for winter, not eat the seed corn, etc. Some are not. The Instant Gratification & What Have You Done For Me Lately crowds should STFU and FOAD. It's obvious that if they were running things we would be vulnerable to much worse than gas prices which are not even out of line with inflation and COL indexes.
As the Firesign Theatre guys say, "Inferior people should not be employed!"
#3
Stratfor's been a little lame of late, but this appears on the money. Saudi ends not with a bang, but with a whimper. Another pertinent example is what has happened to Zimbabwe after the skilled workers were driven out.
France and Turkey have rejected President George W Bushâs idea of NATO playing a role in Iraq, with Paris cautioning that the Arab world does not need "missionaries of democracy". "I do not think that it is NATOâs job to intervene in Iraq. Moreover, I do not have the feeling that it would be either timely or necessarily well understood," French President Jacques Chirac told reporters in a video conference from Sea Island, the private resort where the Group of 8 -- Western industrial countries, Japan and Russia -- are meeting.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a guest at the summit, expressed himself similarly. Asked whether NATO, of which Turkey is a member, should have a role in Iraq, Erdogan said: "The concept we have been emphasising is the role of the United Nations." Chirac warned that US efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East run the risk of backfiring. "We must stand ready to help. But we must also take care not to provoke. For that would be to risk feeding extremism and falling into the fatal trap of the âclash of civilizationsâ -- precisely what we wish to avoid."
Chirac said that instead of missionaries of democracy, what the Arab world needs is addressing conflicts such as the long-running struggle between Israelis and Palestinians. France is doomed.
Heard on the radio that Chirac did agree that NATO could train the Iraqi military and cops. I like that idea: better to have them trained to the standards of a European army than to the standards of the U.S. army. You never know. We might have to clobber them again someday.
Democracy is only for special people. As President of the French Islamic Republic, I think it is passe here. The sooner the United States and Great Britain realize this, the happier everyone will be, and I can go back to my cheese and look for someone to surrender to.
Posted by: Jacques Chirac ||
06/10/2004 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Chirac sez the Arab world doesnât need âmissionariesâ of democracy
Actually, Chirac is right. What the Arab world deserves is a dozen well targeted MIRVs. They should be rather grateful for America's patience.
"For that would be to risk feeding extremism and falling into the fatal trap of the âclash of civilizationsâ -- precisely what we wish to avoid."
A "clash of civilizations" would be something everyone should avoid. However, this is not a clash of "civilizations." This is a conflict aimed at defeating some of the least civilized thugs and their theocratic rulers that the world has ever seen. "Civilization" has nothing to do with their end of the infidel killing-wife beating-mass raping-hostage murdering-terrorist atrocity equation.
The two world leaders looked like and proclaimed themselves friends today, with hardly a hint of the deep differences that divided them over the invasion of Iraq last year.
On more weighty matters, Mr. Bush said the two had discussed NATOâs role in Iraq, and that he had assured Mr. Chirac that they would consult closely.
"We had our differences in the past, but weâre friends, and friends are able to discuss the future," Mr. Bush said.
President Bush made a plea on Wednesday for a continued, even expanded, NATO presence in Iraq. At that time, Mr. Chirac said he saw no "mission" that would warrant his sending French troops there, a position that he has long maintained with President Gerhard Schröder of Germany. Mr. Schröder reaffirmed that position today in a meeting with German correspondents, according to a pool reporter who spoke with one of the German reporters.
Today, at a session arranged for photographers covering the meeting of leaders from the worldâs eight leading industrial and military powers, Mr. Chirac made no mention of the NATO issue.
A senior administration official, at a separate briefing, said he had heard "caution on the part of the French" over NATO at the Bush-Chirac meeting, "but not a hard, `no.â "
The official added: "So I donât want to push this too far and suggest there was some breakthrough agreement. But I think that the two sides have established the basis for discussion and consultation about what NATOâs role might be."
French and American relations, the official said, "are in a far happier place now than they were through much of 2003, when the Iraq war â when the disagreements about the Iraq war â were in an acute phase."
"Those disagreements now belong to a phase of recent history; that is, they no longer govern the present and do not really govern the future," he said.
Mr. Chirac congratulated Mr. Bush, host of the meeting, on the way it had been organized, calling it a success.
"Weâve just reviewed some with our colleagues from the Middle East yesterday; weâll be doing so with our colleagues from Africa today," Mr. Chirac said. "And this gave us an opportunity of reviewing the major areas of concerns for todayâs world, to better understand each other and also to prove our efforts for peace, development and human rights."
In a joint statement, the Group of 8 leaders urged Sudanâs government to immediately disarm Arab militias and other groups waging a campaign of looting, burning and rape in the remote western Darfur region of Sudan.
The leaders said they looked to the United Nations to lead an international effort to avert "a major disaster" in Darfur, where about one million people have been displaced in what aid officials call one of the worldâs worst refugee crises.
In other action, Mr. Bush endorsed the establishment of a global H.I.V. vaccine enterprise, and announced plans to establish a second H.I.V. Vaccine Research and Development Center in the United States.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/10/2004 4:22:13 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11135 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What's making me nervous is a "Happy Jac", smiling GWB and optimistic Arabs all in the same story... What did George give them? The contents of Bakers briefcase???
#4
Hopefully GWB is just playing his poker hand close to his chest. I hope all this smiley stuff is just---stuff, because Chiraq has stabbed this country in the back repeatedly, and France's profiteering in the oil-for-palaces program was achieved on the backs and the deaths of the Iraqi people. France has nothing to bring to the table except a few thousand troops and a wheezing aircraft carrier parked in Toulon. Its all window dressing with France.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/10/2004 17:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Forgive you enemies, but remember their names." - JFK
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/10/2004 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The two world leaders looked like and proclaimed themselves friends today, with hardly a hint of the deep differences that divided them over the invasion of Iraq last year.
#12
This is great news. We can now depend on France to re-double its efforts to help with Iraq and the WoT.
Posted by: Sam ||
06/10/2004 18:11 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Actually, this is just a nuanced way to say that France is doing as much as it can in its current reduced circumstances. Chirac is moving into the elite circle of people like Robert Byrd, Teddy Kennedy, and Robert Mugabe who are self-parodies
Former U.S. President Ronald Reaganâs death and state funeral in Washington tomorrow are an opportunity for people across Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to reflect on the legacy of the 40th U.S. president, whose greatest accomplishment -- in the eyes of many -- was to hasten the end of the Cold War. Although Ronald Reaganâs domestic legacy is still a matter of contention in the United States, many believe that his shining moment on the international stage was as one of the key actors who helped end the Soviet empire.
Reagan left office in January 1989, just before the wave of revolutions that swept across Eastern Europe and the Soviet Unionâs dissolution. But few in the region doubt his crucial influence in triggering those events. Political scientist and commentator Jiri Pehe fled Czechoslovakia in 1981 -- the year Reagan began his first term -- and settled in the United States. He returned to his native country after the fall of communism, becoming a top adviser to dissident-turned-President Vaclav Havel.
Pehe offers his assessment of the Reagan legacy in ending Soviet communism. "I think that he deserves a lot of credit, simply because he was the first American president who decided that the Soviet Union needed to be challenged really seriously, and I think he guessed quite correctly that the Soviet Union was a weak superpower, that the Soviet Union at that point was losing a race with the United States and the West in general -- an economic race. And Reagan in general anticipated quite correctly that if his administration increased spending on armaments, on the arms race, that the Soviet Union would not be able to compete," Pehe says.
There is an irony to Reaganâs masterful intuition in that even his closest advisers describe him as uninterested in the intricacies of politics. Reagan, they say, was not a "detail man." He was not a sophisticated political analyst or foreign policy intellectual. Richard Pipes, Reaganâs key adviser on Soviet policy in the 1980s, wrote in his memoirs that at his first briefing with Reagan at the White House, Reagan seemed "out of his depth" and "uncomfortable" with complex discussions. Reagan had a simple philosophy. The Soviet empire was "evil," and everything should be done to loosen communismâs grip on the captive nations of Europe. And as Pehe notes, that idea was the key to driving events in the region. "In certain moments in history, when we deal with regimes that are obviously evil, as Reagan called the Soviet Union, a simple moral stand, a simple moral point of view may be more important than sophisticated arguments and sophisticated policies. And this is, I think, in the end what made Reagan so important and significant, simply because he -- despite the fact that he was not a detail-oriented man, that he wasnât perhaps as sophisticated as Bill Clinton later -- he was a politician who was able to see or distinguish good and bad," Pehe says.
Pehe says this is crucial because the Soviet-imposed system survived in part because of many Westernersâ inability to comprehend this basic truth. "The communist system was able to resist for such a long time partly because there were a lot of people in the West who were willing to give communism the benefit of the doubt -- people who were very educated, very sophisticated, and yet they were not able to see the communist system as basically a corrupt, evil system," Pehe says. Reaganâs single-mindedness offered inspiration for dissidents across the region, such as Havel in Czechoslovakia or Polish unionist Lech Walesa. Lithuanian independence leader Vytautas Landsbergis acknowledged his countryâs debt to Reagan, in an interview from Vilnius with RFE/RL. "Ronald Reagan was a great man, a statesman of international and world importance,â Landsbergis says. âHe believed in freedom, and he achieved much to bring back freedom for captive nations. He was consistent in supporting our Lithuanian and other nationsâ rights to be again independent and free. He changed the world, indeed, and we will never forget him."
Former Ukrainian dissident Petro Ruban expresses similar feelings, on a more personal note. "For a long time, the U.S. Congress was struggling to force the Soviet Union to release me from jail as a prisoner of conscience. But only Ronald Reagan achieved this. I was released in May 1988, just a few days before his visit. I was at the American Embassy in Moscow and sat next to [Secretary of State] George Shultz. Present were [fellow dissidents Vyacheslav] Chornovil [and Mikhailo] Horyn. I remember Reagan for his magnificent internal beauty. For me, he is the president who gave me freedom. And second, I think that in the history of America there was no other similar outstanding political figure, with a bright mind and strong actions, that could ruin the evil empire, the Soviet Union," Ruban says.
Eulogies from farther afield in the former Soviet Union have also been pouring in. Altynbek Sarsenbayev, the leader of Kazakhstanâs opposition Democratic Choice Party, says, "Ronald Reagan was a big politician who played a direct role in the process of the Soviet Unionâs collapse. His smart policy on the arms race put the Soviet Union in a very tough economic situation, which in its turn led to the collapse of the U.S.S.R. His arms projects were very strong, and the Soviet economy could not compete with U.S. potential power in that field. His âStar Warsâ project was a real challenge to the Soviets. I think, in general, Ronald Reagan is one of Americaâs greatest presidents."
Centrist Kyrgyz deputy Zainidin Kurmonov concurs. In assessing Reaganâs place in history, he said: "Reagan, as a politician, ranks alongside Deng Xiaoping [of China] and Margaret Thatcher [of Britain]. In the U.S. context, he stands alongside Franklin Roosevelt. His accomplishments are highly regarded not just in America but around the world."
Of course, one key figure of the time has not been mentioned, and yet the dismantling of the "evil empire" could not have begun without him -- Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan witnessed four leadership changes in the Soviet Union while in office. Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, and Konstantin Chernenko were all onetime Reagan Cold War adversaries who died in office. It was in the fourth Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, that Reagan found a partner. Over time, the two men built a unique personal relationship that allowed both to change the world fundamentally. Gorbachev began to dismantle the Soviet system he had served all his life, and Reagan agreed to arms cuts after presiding over the largest military buildup in U.S. history. The Cold War was about to end.
Gorbachev this week eulogized Reagan with what could be called his highest praise. "I think that as far as history is concerned --- and he has already gone off into history -- he is a man who made an enormous contribution to creating the conditions for ending the Cold War -- perhaps even the decisive contribution," Gorbachev said. As Reagan might have put it, as he did in his farewell address: "Not bad. Not bad at all."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/10/2004 3:52:01 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
But, of course! We always eat our own cultural icons. Besides, she's a has-been and no one will notice. Let her go live with the English or Americans with an attitude like that.
Posted by: Jacques Chirac ||
06/10/2004 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
she a hero my book for her work save animals.
hey chirac! leave bridgete alone and you know where you are can shove you crepes!
#5
In its verdict, the court ruled that Bardot had deliberately tried to draw a link between Islam and terrorism by mentioning the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States in a chapter on a Muslim holiday celebrated in France and elsewhere.
Er...and why is this being racist? I thought this was an example of common sense?
Posted by: rex ||
06/10/2004 14:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
This is, I believe, the third time she has been fined for this offense. She got nailed once for protesting ritual sheep slaughtering for feasts.
#8
Bardot had deliberately tried to draw a link between Islam and terrorism by mentioning the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States . . .
I'm speechless. She mentions a fact and they fine her. I'm convinced now that we've lost France.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/10/2004 20:46 Comments ||
Top||
Chirac Refuses to Attend Reagan's Funeral
Perhaps too busy still mourning the loss of his business partner Saddam Hussein, chief French quisling Jacques Chirac is not only refusing to attend former President Ronald Reagan's funeral on Friday, his government doesn't even list a representative who will go.
#1
I'd rather he stay away than come and say something insulting or hypocritical. As Mom used to remind me, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything."
Posted by: Mike ||
06/10/2004 8:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Le Mot Officiel de
Le French Islamique Republique
#4
Yes, booing right before the honor gaurd takes aim and shoots Chirac dead. If the crowd doesn't beat him to death first, that is.
Posted by: Charles ||
06/10/2004 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Since Nancy is controlling the arrangements, perhaps he was not invited.
After all, all France did during the Reagan administration was make our F-111s go the long way round to Libya. We should have saved the fuel and dropped on Paris instead of Tripoli.
#6
RWV---very good point. The F-111s had to go around France because we were unable to gain overflight rights. There were 6 aerial refuelings, IIRC, and one plane was lost, with 2 crew members killed.
Leaves a bad taste, all right. We need to remember this when we get friendly feelings for the French govt in a moment of weakness.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/10/2004 23:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think a street running right over the spot of the old Berlin Wall from north to south would be better. Not E/W, but it would symbolize exactly what Ronny did: Bury the USSR six feet under.
Posted by: Charles ||
06/10/2004 8:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I gotta add my support to Mike's call! Great ideer!
Posted by: Dar ||
06/10/2004 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Remember - Angela Merkel national head of the CDU opposition is an ex-East German. Its probably quite personal with her.
#1
A couple years ago I read a book about this massacre. Among other topics, the book described the post-war legal proceedings against some of the soldiers, who were ethnic Germans from the Alsace region of France. They admitted carrying out the massacre but legally defended themselves with the argument that they had been brainwashed by German propaganda throughout their lives. That defense was rather effective, since their sentences were rather mild. (I am recalling all this from my uncertain memory.)
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/10/2004 7:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Reynouard was eventually banned from teaching anywhere in France
Might be his good fortune. No doubt he'll soon be hired here in one of our finer Universities.
#5
For an even more ridiculous example see the other article on Bridgette Bardot and recall how La Fallaci had to defend herself in French court for her writings. Thank G*d I live in the good old USA!
#6
The sophisticated Euros fine and jail people for doing things that here in simplesme America are protected by the first amendment
I've not studied this case, but if by "revisionist" we mean "lying", then I have to remind you that lying isn't protected by the first amendment in America -- hence the fact that people can be fined and jailed for slander and libel.
At first glance atleast, the Bardot case seems to me much more problematic than this one.
#7
I've not studied this case, but if by "revisionist" we mean "lying", then I have to remind you that lying isn't protected by the first amendment in America -- hence the fact that people can be fined and jailed for slander and libel.
Aris if it's political speech the first amendment also protects lying see Michael Moore.
Until last fall, no Western jurisdiction allowed the 1,400-year-old body of religious law called sharia to take root inside its secular legal system. Then the province of Ontario quietly approved its use. Under the 1991 Arbitration Act, sharia-based marriage, divorce and family tribunals run by the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice are expected to begin later this year. The move has so horrified many Muslim women that they're vowing to stop the tribunals before they start.
Long story, snipped.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/10/2004 9:48:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
On Sat., June 26 at 7: 30 p.m., the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada will hold a public meeting at Orial Community Centre, 2975 Don Mills Rd. On Sept. 8, a series of international demonstrations will be held in cities across Canada, and in Britain, Sweden, Germany, France and Finland, with other countries to be confirmed, says campaign co-ordinator Homa Arjomand.
I think it is high time to get proactive here, folks--we should set up a sharia awareness campaign here in the US--starting with a similar kind of protest. New York? Washington? And maybe some proposals for a bill? Any ideas?
#3
You can't have two systems of law, any kind of law, and expect national unity. One nation, one law. Period.
Besides, getting Sharia civil law recognized is only the first step in getting it fully recognized. Its a well known trojan horse. Ask the Nigerians. It seems harmless but it is used to establish legitamacy for Sharia. Once the first step is taken it them becomes easier to argue that other parts of Sharia are a religous obligation, that Muslim must live under Sharia to practice their religion. This is true, ask any devout Muslim and they will confirm that Islamic law must rule every aspect of their lives in a total fashion including civil government.
Following the example of Nigeria, once Sharia is established in civil law, then once Muslims gain a political majority in any province, state or city, then they will elect Muslim majority governments and then demand that they be allowed to observe Sharia in its totality.
We cannot allow them even an inch on this issue. We can't allow Islam to be practiced anywhere but strictly inside mosques and Muslim homes or we will without a doubt regret it as EVERY other country which has gone before us has already learned.
One last thing. The Hasidic example is cited as reason to allow the Sharia courts, but the Hasidim have no universal ambitions, nor do they have any interest in coverting anyone. They do not claim that their way of life and laws are ones that everyone should eventually follow nor do they consider it a good work to make their law dominant over the whole world. The case is entirely different. Either you have your own law and renounce universal ambition as the Jews do or else you have universal ambition without any law to impose as Christianity does. A religion with both law and universal ambition is fatally and diabolically flawed. That is the case with Islam if we don't legally force it to change and give up those ambitions.
#4
The attorney-general's office has repeatedly said the Arbitration Act contains safeguards; that participation must be voluntary by both parties; and that women may appeal to the civil courts if they feel a decision doesn't abide by Canadian law.
The Ontario Attorney General, a moron in good standing, has no consciousness of family ostricism, and the potential for honor killings. These honor killings, of course could be done quietly, with a wink and a nod of the PC bureaucracy there. They would simply be honoring sharia law.
PS why does one think the Conservative party is gaining in the polls there, three weeks before an election. Some Canadians are finally saying, ENOUGH OF THIS BULLSHIT! Its starting to look like 1980 was here. Lets hope Mr Harper is up to the task if he pulls it off!
The endemic left, represented by the "Liberal Party" has fools like this Ontario Atterny General, and his PC approach to Facistic Muslim Sharia Law. Of course there is a constituency of the farther left NDP, and even the father left Greens. I think some of theose folks to the North of us, as I said before, have had it up to their necks in this weasley leftism.
I have been following the Canadian election coverage. Harper of the Conservatives is getting slammed in the elite media because he is suggesting the re-introduction of the Death Penalty, and undoing some of the restrictions from the Machiavellian gun laws there, as well as other issues.
#7
Shari'a law would clearly violate the establishment clause of the First Ammendment.
Given the nature of the courts currently, why do you think this would stop anything? I mean, we used to think the First Amendment protected political speech absolutely, but we've recently learned otherwise.
Remember, we had a judge decide that a school requiring students to take on Muslim practices "as part of a course" did not violate the establishment clause.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/10/2004 14:13 Comments ||
Top||
#8
This kind of thing sickens me. No point in fighting over there if they're just going to be pulling this kind of crap here.
Guess I'm not in the best of moods today . . . by the way, Robert, where did you hear that?
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/10/2004 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#9
a.
Here's the link, #8, for the ruling about Islam in California schools. Please note that it's the same Judge Phyllis Hamilton who ruled in favor of partial birth abortion a few weeks ago. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36118"Judicial Jihad: Judge rules Islamic education
OK in California classrooms, Dismisses suit opposing requirement students recite Quran, pray to Allah" 12/13/03
Requiring seventh-grade students to pretend they're Muslims, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Quran, pray to Allah and even to play "jihad games" in California public schools has been legally upheld by a federal judge, who has dismissed a highly publicized lawsuit brought by several Christian students and their parents...In her 22-page ruling announced Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton said Excelsior[Elementary School in Byron, CA] is not indoctrinating students about Islam when it requires them to adopt Muslim names and pray to Allah as part of a history and geography class, but rather is just teaching them about the Muslim religion...
Here's an article from JihadWatch.org on the issue http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000412.php
b. For anyone interested in keeping up with the Cdn election, Cdn news, you can get a quick fix from www.nealenews.com
It would be great for the USA if Stephen Harper won the election in Canada. The Canadian conservative party might help our own Republican Party rinos remember what conservative values/goals are all about. ie. Hatch, Frist, McCain, et al
Posted by: rex ||
06/10/2004 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Here's a serious question, Big Ed. Given that Ontario law already allows for directly analagous arbitrations based on Jewish law, on what basis would you deny such procedures to Muslims? The basic idea is that a community can draw upon its own resources to assist its members to resolve their disputes. The Jewish community does this in Ontario and in many other jurisdictions. What would be the serious basis for telling Muslims they could not do the same?
Here's a parallel for you: many gun-owners are law-abiding people and responsible in their use of their guns. Some gun-owners are criminals or at least irresponsible. Many Muslims are law-abiding people and responsible in their application of the values of their religious community. Some Muslims are criminals or at least irresponsible. So here's a suggestion: hands off the law-abiding gun-owners. Put the criminal gun-owners in jail. Hands off the law-abiding Muslims who want to use the arbiration courts for civil disputes. Put the criminal Muslims in jail with the criminal gun-owners. Can you live with that?
Posted by: Patrick ||
06/10/2004 15:42 Comments ||
Top||
#11
To Patrick-A straight and curious question: How many honor killings have occurred within Ontario's Jewish community?
Also, to all--let's just pick one issue of many we could focus on for the sake of this arbitrations based on religious law vs secular state law debate.
Take the issue of polygamy. How would you reconcile that common Muslim practice with the US government's law against polygamy? Wouldn't a person defying state law but in compliance with the Quran on this question present a legal nightmare?
#12
Thanks for the links rex. i've been trying to follow this as I have a child heading into the 6th grade. I'm hoping the legal efforts continue on this. No way can we let one hardcore leftist judge determine the outcome on this.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
06/10/2004 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Patrick. In the end those issues are for Canadians to decide. As an American, I only can watch, but as Canada shares a long border with us, and because of the natural exchanges that occur in that environment, it is only natural to keep a jaundiced eye on developments there. I think that there are too many unenforced gun laws and the application therof if quite capricious. We don't need more gun laws until those we have are enforced, and found wating.
I think jules 187 makes valid points and pretty much mirrors my answer.
#14
why does one think the Conservative party is gaining in the polls there, three weeks before an election.
BigEd: I'm predicting a Liberal sweep in Toronto (again). If memory serves and according to tradition, since Ontario has elected a Liberal provincial government, they should vote Conservative in the federal election. But I think this time around this will not be the case. The best case scenario, and the most likely, is a Liberal minority government.
The problem is Paul Martin. As finance minister he got lucky in the early/mid 90s as the economy started picking up, and along with his ties to business, people think he is an economic miracle worker.
The party to watch is the NDP. Jack Layton has chosen an anti-American platform (threatens to pull out from the missile defense treaty, and other silliness). Surprisingly (or not), the NDP will gain in this election. Which is good as long as they don't get too far, because they will take votes away from the Liberals.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/10/2004 20:16 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Can you live with that?
Sure. But only if you can guarantee no coercion, intimidation, or compulsion to follow Sharia. And if such coercion should occur, then you will actively denounce it and work to stop it. Otherwise, bugger off!
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/10/2004 20:28 Comments ||
Top||
#16
If memory serves and according to tradition, since Ontario has elected a Liberal provincial government, they should vote Conservative in the federal election. But I think this time around this will not be the case.
You bet Ontario folks won't vote conservative, because this time round the conservative leader is from Alberta, not from Quebec or Ontario. Alberta=lethal enemy of the bureaucratic parasites in Torontah and Ottawah. Also, Stephen Harper is a true intellectual conservative, who is bi-lingual to boot, not a Red Tory mindless weakling like Joe Who Clark.
The problem is Paul Martin
No, the problem is Paul Martin's Svengali mentor, Maurice Strong, UN advisor to Kofi Annan, and one world government advocate extraordinaire. Strong's influence on Paul Martin could jerk Canada further to the left. Don't let Paul Martin's "businessman" posturing fool you. He and Strong are the worst examples of "nobless oblige." Maurice Strong is tight with NKorea and China. Strong was the chief architect of the Kyoto Accord.
Here's the good news though:
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=cb60db8b-233e-4033-aaca-7bfa231fb77c
"Tories set to win most seats: polls
Analysis shows Liberals trailing everywhere but Atlantic Canada"
June 10, 2004
Posted by: rex ||
06/10/2004 20:48 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Don't let Paul Martin's "businessman" posturing fool you.
I'm not being fooled. Like I said, he was lucky: a booming US economy helped erase the Canadian deficit. Ever since then the Liberals were regarded as gods.
I'm still predicting a Liberal sweep in Toronto, based on personal observation. Don't know about the rest of Ontario though.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/10/2004 21:02 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Yes, I must say I was surprised that the conservatives appeared to be leading in Ontario as well as Quebec. Of course, the new Liberal premier, Dalton McGuinty, has been a major disappointment to voters, so perhaps Ontario may go conservative federally as a protest action. As for Toronto specifically...I was surprised to read that now in Toronto, 60% of residents do not count English as their first language-immigration has had such a profound change in Toronto's demographic makeup-wow!-Toronto used to be a WASP bastion 20 years ago. New immigrants will typically vote Liberal or NDP so yes, I can see Toronto specifically not going conservative.
Posted by: rex ||
06/10/2004 21:25 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Either you have your own law and renounce universal ambition as the Jews do or else you have universal ambition without any law to impose as Christianity does. A religion with both law and universal ambition is fatally and diabolically flawed.
Thank you, Peggy. This pretty much says it all. Although there might be some viable avenues available in terms of voluntary opting by both parties for binding religious arbitration, I see this as the camel's nose (so to speak).
Equal protection under the law is a fundamental aspect of constitutional rights. Abrogating that, even out of respect for religious beliefs, begins to erode certain essential aspects of the judicial process.
More importantly, per Peggy's astute observation, any pandering to the frequently violent nature of Sharia law is quite simply insane. To grant credibility to one part of Sharia, even if specifically limited in its scope, will be taken by its followers as intrinsic approval for them to exercise all of it. Regardless of judicial approval or not.
Canada is nigh well insane to do this and I would contribute my utmost towards the defeat of individuals who attempted such a thing in the United States.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/10/2004 20:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Senator, do you plan to appeal this ruling."
"Well, er, I, ah, I plan to drive off that bridge when we come to it."
Posted by: Mike ||
06/10/2004 22:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"But it's not a decision on the merits. Sooner or later, the 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court will have to decide the issue, and sooner is better, since any decision in which Mr. Pryor participates may well be overturned. I'll keep pressing the issue," the Massachusetts senator added.
Wouldn't it be equally valid to appeal all verdicts of courts that should have included filibustered appointees? Memogate anyone?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/11/2004 0:39 Comments ||
Top||
If thereâs anything I will remember from this day itâs the procession to the rotunda. It was solemn, not sad. Confident and dignified. A rare American moment that makes theater and movies look noisy and empty - no matter what the wizards of Hollywood can contrive, it stands abashed in the face of forty score men in dress uniform impassively bearing a flag-shrouded box to the dome of the Republic.
I watched the Marine who accompanied Mrs. Reagan. Not a muscle on his face moved. His name was perfect: Jackson. She had composure and strength as well, and I say that as someone who never felt much warmth towards the woman. There was something insular about the Reagansâ marriage that kept us all at armâs length. I think that people understood that Reagan madly loved his wife, but they didnât quite know why. She was brittle and steely; whatever personal warmth she had didnât come across on camera. She wasnât a Hollywood knockout. But he was nuts about her, and he had his reasons. She repaid him with the long twilight vigil. She endured sadness you can only hope you never know, and in the end she wasn't hanging on the arm of a Marine like wet crepe. She looked as if she could have helped Jackson to his feet if heâd wilted in the heat.
When the coffin entered the rotunda I realized I had been standing for the last half hour.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/10/2004 10:39:39 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"âNancy Reagan had the frozen smile of someone who had been struck by lightning while riding in a limo.â Who said that? Kitty Dowd? Maureen Kelly? I thought it was great line. Then. But now here I am watching her pat the coffin, running her hand along the lines of the flag, and thatâs when I finally tear up."
I teared up as well....I'm such a sentimental pussy. Nancy Reagan's strength and dignity is amazing
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/10/2004 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Right with ya, Frank. I'd been tearing up at times watching the procession as well. Even just watching the crowds file through the rotunda on C-SPAN2 (mercifully free of vapid anchorman blather) keeps me riveted in my chair. I wish the viewing in D.C. extended over the weekend so I could drive out there from here in Pittsburgh.
Posted by: Dar ||
06/10/2004 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The line was 4.5 hours long if you got there at midnight (as I did). There were a good number of out-of-staters though.
#6
Been watching C-SPAN most of the day while "working" from home. I saw Gorbachev, McCain, and our favorite senator Teddy. President and Mrs. Bush just arrived, said a quick, silent prayer, and left. I was really surprised at how short their prayer and visit were--I don't think the visit was even a whole minute total.
Posted by: Dar ||
06/10/2004 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Probaly did that to let other people in to see pay respects to Reagan, Dar. Bush probably felt he didn't deserve extra time to view the casket just because of his position. I get the feeling Reagan would have done the same thing.
Posted by: Charles ||
06/10/2004 21:26 Comments ||
Top||
"No commentator I heard noticed that the Baroness Thatcher curtsied to the coffin - a gesture which protocol reserves at state funerals to the corpses of royalty. I am sure the Queen will not reprimand her. . . ."
Posted by: Mike ||
06/10/2004 6:29:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Thatcher thought she was royalty anyway - led to her downfall. Surprised she's not trying to suck off the corpse. I doubt that she'll get that sort of send off herself. My reason for antagonism? Sometimes you have to live under a 'great' leader's regime to see through the BS. When I visited the States in the Eighties, everyone seemed to love Maggie whereas at home I remember the celebrations in the neighbourhood (mining town) when the iRA triesd to blow her up - the one time we celebrated an IRA bombing.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/10/2004 6:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Last night before going to bed I was fortunate enough to catch some of the coverage on the hill. I kept flipping between C-SPAN and the other four networks. It took me a nanosecond to realize that on the four networks (I do not get Fox) they had people talking over what I was watching. Then I went back to C-SPAN where they allowed the images to speak for themselves.
#3
Sorry to ruin the atmos. Reagan seemed like an awfully decent fella - can't say I lived under his govt. tho' - fire at will L & G...
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/10/2004 6:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I have to say, Howard, one of the bravest things Maggie did was stand up to the raging old dinosaur that was the British mining industry. She refused to continue subsidising a business that was woefully incapable of competing fairly in the global market, and which many hoped would be kept wheezingly alive at the British taxpayers' expense. Yes, it caused local pain, but the British mining industry was a failure not because of Maggie, but because of simple, brutal, economics. It was inefficient and wasteful for British energies to go pouring into something we couldn't hope to compete at - a reality Thatcher saw clearly, but which many others refused to.
Maggie faced down and defeated the self-interested miners' unions, and the UK as a whole ultimately benefitted.
#6
I think with hindsight you're right, we are a stronger country economically. However, the implementation of a police state went far beyond what was required. In a town with a third of the male population long-term unemployed to be told 'to get on their bikes and find work' was an insult that no-one living in that region in that era will ever forget. Also being told by Cockney-wanker Met officers that men weren't allowed to travel by car across the county border - half-a-mile from my then home reminds me of something from a totalitarian state. This is why I would never ever consider voting Tory.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/10/2004 7:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Sorry Howard I side with Bulldog on this one. I only hope one day we end ALL welfare to our nations farmers and industries. Our farmers get HUGE patments for growing something nobody wants or growing nothing at all. And our steel industry is being propt up by STUPID tariffs to make their product compete on LOCAL markets. To me this is kind of like supporting the covered wagon industry after the automobile was put into mass production. Speaking of which, I wonder how much LESS a car would cost if they could buy cheaper steel from Japan and Korea?
#8
I'm sure Americans would love being told they couldn't travel outside their county of domicile or to stop being lazy and go find work if the farming/steel industry was uncompetitive. Strikes me you'd have another McVeigh on your hands in no time.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/10/2004 7:29 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Howard...if what you say is true, your're right, she handled that poorly. But sounds to me like she had the guts to stand up to mining industry just like she had the guts to stand up to the Soviet Union and the world is better for both.
You'll never get over the insult - don't expect you too, but you should step back a bit as you seem a bit too close to judge her fairly.
#10
Howard: I posted this because I thought Maggie's gesture of respect was classy--and that's independent of whether you like her or not. Hope we can at least agree on that, and save the debate on Maggie's legacy for another day (preferably over some cold Newcastles).
Posted by: Mike ||
06/10/2004 8:24 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Apology expressed in #3. I only have to hear Thatcher's name and I become apoplectic. I'll never forget the Commonwealth Conference where the heads of state had gathered for a photo. They awaited the arrival of the Queen and Thatcher. The front centre seat had fairly obviously been kept free for the Queen and Thatcher was expected to join the standing ranks. So what does Thatcher do? Goes and sits in the Queen's seat and looks terribly pissed off when asked to make way for the Queen. Funny she affords Reagan the respect she grudgingly if ever gave the monarch. The Queen had the last laugh in 91 as she got to present Thatcher with her 'cards.' Nice. Apologies once again Mike - us Brits are nothing if not well mannered ;)
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/10/2004 8:44 Comments ||
Top||
#12
us Brits are nothing if not well mannered
That you are, sir, that you are.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/10/2004 8:51 Comments ||
Top||
#13
In a town with a third of the male population long-term unemployed to be told 'to get on their bikes and find work' was an insult that no-one living in that region in that era will ever forget.
What? Are they Arabs? 'Cause it sure sounds like it. Are they still seething? Or did they get on their bikes and find work, like civilized men?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/10/2004 9:01 Comments ||
Top||
#14
In a town with a third of the male population long-term unemployed to be told 'to get on their bikes and find work' was an insult that no-one living in that region in that era will ever forget
Just an observation, and one of the (I believe) key differences in culture between we Yanks and our cousins across the pond.
One of our great strengths is people's willingness to move around for jobs. In the 70's & 80's the steel industries in the midwest got punched out badly, and as a result many many people moved out West, or to the South to find different jobs. The notion of staying in an area that isn't economically viable doesn't make sense.
I myself have moved from Ohio, to California, and now Oregon in 20 year of working
Can anyone confirm that Americans are much more mobile, or that Europeans tend to stay in one area?
Just curious,
Francis
Posted by: Francis ||
06/10/2004 9:09 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Many were already on their bikes and trying to find work at the time! Some went to their graves without working again. Midlanders/Northerners are an industrious breed who know what an honest day's work is - unlike a lot of the limp cocks I meet when working in London.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/10/2004 9:11 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Francis - that seems a bit unfair since America is a much bigger country...It's far easier to move from Detroit to Houston than to move to another country.
#17
Also being told by Cockney-wanker Met officers that men weren't allowed to travel by car across the county border - half-a-mile from my then home reminds me of something from a totalitarian state.
Weren't allowed? Wow... whatever was the purpose of that dictate?
#18
A problem with 'Flying Pickets.' Striking miners would travel to other pits in the coalfield to rally for the cause and picket miners who were still working - a small number. The coalfield in which I lived stretched across 3 counties - Derbys/Notts/S Yorks - any men of working age travelling together in a car were subject to police roadblocks and told to return home if they were suspected of being miners intending to picket other pits. These police were often brought in from other parts of the country to deal with the burgeoning civil disobedience. Northerners and southerners view each other with a little animosity at times and being told by southern police to go home when driving to a football match/ to visit relatives in another part of the country was a tad irritating to my male relatives. A sign of how quickly a democracy can become a police state.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/10/2004 10:47 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I assume that the travel restrictions were something that happened when the infamous miners' strikes were taking place, and were measures intended to curb the movements of 'flying pickets', who travelled from pit to pit with the intention of stopping work and confronting police and 'scabs'.
#21
18-20: Thanks for that. I had never heard of that before. About what year are we talking? (I'm wondering, for instance, if that kind of policy influenced Roger Waters when he was writing The Wall.)
RR never had such a ban on travel for air traffic controllers. He just fired 'em all and replaced them.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/10/2004 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#23
In a town with a third of the male population long-term unemployed to be told 'to get on their bikes and find work' was an insult that no-one living in that region in that era will ever forget.
Although I have learned quite a bit from your arguments Howard, I fail to see anything resembliing a solution to the problem at hand in your comments.
You seem to be endorsing the status quo, aka government subsidies aka Socialism aka Communism-in-training.
What solution, other than continuing to allow the workers to suckle the government teat, do you endorse for this particular problem? What is wrong with these people choosing a new career? I heard that the fledgeling com-pu-ter industry was growing a little bit during the 80s...
I have the same beefs with farming subsidies in the US, and have little sympathy for people who insist on their "right" to work in a dying industry. Maybe the rules are different in GB, but I doubt it is a crime to change careers there.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
06/10/2004 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#24
I think most people realised it was coming and understood the economic raison d'etre - I do now at least! - There certainly wasn't and still isn't a scarcity of coal but miners had been lied to by successive governments about the status of coal reserves for twenty years. Thus it was a shock to be told that the entire industry would have to go. The problem lay in the way it was done. Essentially the Tory govt turned to 100,000 men and said 'on your bikes' - now that's great if there are other jobs to go to, but there simply weren't.. hence communities simply died. The best the Tories could do was say 'Yah Boo Sucks' I'm looking forward to Thatcher's funeral as I'm sure there'll be street parties back at home.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/10/2004 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#25
All,
thanks for the info re: mobility. #16, I wasn't trying to be fair or unfair, I was simply wondering if American predisposition to following jobs around is different than that of the British.
The reason I ask is because my relatives in France (I'm almost ashamed to admit partial french heritage these days) tend to stay in the area they were born, and the whole idea of moving around to follow jobs or industries isn't as common as found in the states.
Regards,
Francis
Posted by: Francis ||
06/10/2004 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Howard, the indiustry wasn't exactly shut down overnight - the strikes were called after the National Coal Board delared its intention to shut 20 uneconomic pits, over one period, which would result in the losses of 20,000 jobs. The industry had already been in decline for some years, and would continue to decline for years to come. Arguably, the actions of Scargill and his NUM only hastened the destruction of the industry by, on the one hand aggressively trying to hold the country to ransom, and on the other, demonstrating that the UK could still function even with the majority of the miners refusing to work, for an entire year!
Yeesh, what a mess. Sounds like the gov built up the industry to a point where the market couldn't support it. That changes things a bit; the gov had their hands so entrenched into these peoples lives and livelihood that to make a change like Thatcher did was like pulling the rug out from under them. This might as well have been a government cottage industry: created by and controlled by them, and ultimately dismissed at the whim of a beaurucrat.
In the US, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost if they decided to shut down, say, licensing offices or something similar. Any time the gov invents an industry there's always the threat of it being shut down at a whim. One of the many dangers of gov interference in the free market / job market.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
06/10/2004 12:10 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Francis wrote:
Can anyone confirm that Americans are much more mobile, or that Europeans tend to stay in one area?
Sure, I'll sign up for that sweeping generalization. If you think of Britain as the center of Europe (and why not, most brits do), the further south and east you go, the more rooted people are. I'd be interested in True German Ally's take on this.
#29
Howard - Seems like you had a bad experience - up close -
However, from an outsiders perspective, the Labour Party's fringe seems to be the sort who would stifle freedom in a much worse way. Some of them seem borderline Communist Totalitarians. Certainly Tony Blair, whatever his domestic policies, does have a rational world view, which is unusual for the left. Only Lieberman, of the Democrat candidates here, seemed to have that view. What would you do id the Labour extreme left got control of the party? Voting for the 3rd party Liberal-Democrats would be a protest for sure, but it seems that they have no chance to get any Prime Minister. Its Either Tory or Labour.
#30
Francis - sorry. One of those questions where you meant one thing and I read another. Looks like someone else took a more enlightened stab at it.
Posted by: B ||
06/10/2004 13:12 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Howard & Bulldog--Thanks for the primer on recent British history and politics! Very interesting, and very new to me. Exchanges like this make appreciate the Rantburg community even more.
I'm with Cyber Sarge re: #7, getting rid of subsidies to farms and steel industries. I would love to get rid of Social Security as well--the biggest damn Ponzi scheme in the history of the world!
Posted by: Dar ||
06/10/2004 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Bulldog: Apologies , got the number wrong - laziness/hyperbole on my part!? Scargill's actions did ultimately hasten the industry's end - BUT people who saw their communities dying - and mine is just barely getting back on its feet - were determined to make a stand.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/10/2004 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#33
It must have been very tough indeed - no denying it, but the way I see it, what was the natural death of an industry became transformed into a grisly political circus when socialist agitators got involved. Instead of acknowledging the fact that British mining simply wasn't competitive, individuals like Scargill tried to win popular support for lashing the moribund industry to the British economy, like a corpse to a chain gang. Miners, offered what looked like a way of saving their jobs, jumped on board. Instead, what happened? Miners went through hardships, without pay for a year, and still lost their jobs. Former mining communities were left with a deep bitterness and resentment, convinced that their mining livelihoods were lost not because they were economically uncompetitive, but because of politics. Politics in a way did fail the former miners, but it was that of Scargill, his phoney economics, and his false promises...
#34
A time that taught me to be compassionate and understanding to my fellow man and also how utterly ruthless politicians can be in surpressing a community by implementing a police state to get their way.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/10/2004 14:35 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Considering my readings of Twain/Faulkner/Steinbeck times weren't so bad I suppose.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/10/2004 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Since I work in the afternoon (right now in fact) I wasn't able to watch any of the procession or the ceremony in the Rotunda except on a c-span rebroadcast. I sat there from 11pm to 2am, unable to tear myself away. It really was a dignified event. I got a lump in my throat when Bill Frist escorted Thatcher to the casket. And a tear in my eye when she curtsied. Way back when we called her Maggie or The Iron Lady because of the way she stood along side Reagan against the Soviets. Sometimes I think I see the same type of relationship between GWB and Blair. It seems that staring down tyrants brings out the best in our two nations.
Posted by: Scott ||
06/10/2004 16:05 Comments ||
Top||
#37
(Drudge)
There seems to be a bond between the two families on a personal level as well. . ..
Posted by: Inquiring Mind ||
06/10/2004 17:40 Comments ||
Top||
#38
Everytime I get inflated about my cussin skillz I get to hear a native speaker. :)
Fatwa in 5, 4, 3, 2,âŠ
A contrarian Muslim professor claims the Quran actually teaches Israel belongs to the Jews. Khaleel Mohammed, assistant professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, said in an interview with Frontpage Magazine the person most mentioned in Islamâs holy book is Moses, the great Old Testament prophet and leader of the Israelites. Mohammed says the Quran presents Moses "as Godâs revolutionary" who "leads a people despised and tormented for no other reason than that they worshipped God, out of the land of bondage to the Promised Holy Land." The professor quotes from Chapter 5: 20-21, which says Moses declared, "O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you, and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers." Mohammed points specifically to the reference to the Holy Land as a place God has "written" for the Israelites, a term that conveys, in Jewish and Islamic understandings, a "meaning of finality, decisiveness and immutability."
"So the simple fact is then," he says, "from a faith-based point of view: If God has âwrittenâ Israel for the people of Moses, who can change this?" The professor describes himself as a scholar "interested in a moderate Islam, one that is inclusive and is concerned about all human rights. My mission is to help reclaim the beauty that once was practiced in Islam, a message not currently in fashion amongst more traditional or fundamentalist Muslims."
Mohammed said while Muslims may argue the present state of Israel was "not created in the most peaceful means, and that many were displaced," this, for him, is not the issue. "The issue," says Mohammed, "is that when the Muslims entered that land in the 7th century, they were well aware of its rightful owners, and when they failed to act according to divine mandate (at least as perceived by followers of all Abrahamic faiths), they aided and abetted in a crime. And the present situation shows the fruits of that action -- wherein innocent Palestinians and Israelis are being killed on a daily basis." He says medieval scholars, "without any exception known to me," interpreted the Quran to recognize Israel as belonging to the Jews. According to Mohammed, the idea that Israel does not belong to the Jews is a modern one, "probably based on the Mideast rejection of European colonialism, etc., but certainly not having anything to do with the Quran." Most Muslims, he laments, do not read the Quran for themselves and instead rely on imams and preachers to do the reading and interpreting for them.
#1
Like many people, the students in the madrassas memorize but don't analyze. The can recite the verses by rote but have no thought as to what they might mean. They should contemplate for a minute why, if Islam is the chosen religion, they are reduced to advancing it by suicide bombings and the beheadings of Westerners, why Islamic armies haven't won a battle since the siege of Vienna in 1653 and ask themselves what they have done that Allah would allow them to have become so pathetic.
#2
It is worse than that. They memorize Kuran in Arabic, even whey they don't speak a word of it. Even when they are native speakers I have my doubts over what a Moroccan who speaks dialectal modern Arabic from Morocco understands about Kuran who a) has no punctuation signs, b) vowels are omitted and c) is written in 7h centuray classic Arabic. It is difficult for a westerner to read texts written five centuries ago and Kuran was written over theirten centuroes ago?
#3
Much as I am loathe to give people who use religion as a political weapon any accolades--this man deserves
1.) A slot on Larry King
2.) The biggest body guards to be found in Jersey
3.) A newspaper cover story in every major US city with large Muslim populations.
#4
RWV, JFM, Of course if the average layman could understand the Kuran then their Iman would not be able to dictate what ever they want it to mean it means.
Didn't the Catholic Church have the same thing in the middle ages? --- The bible was only in latin and, for the most part, the average person could not read even their own language let alone Latin so they had to have it interpreted by the priesthood.
But CrazyFool, an apologist might put it that that was the point ...
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
06/10/2004 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Mohammed says the Quran presents Moses "as Godâs revolutionary" who "leads a people despised and tormented for no other reason than that they worshipped God, out of the land of bondage to the Promised Holy Land.
He has blasphemed! Cut out his tongue, and sew his lips together! It is Written
(Or at least find someone to do an "honor killing")
Lahore High Court (LHC) Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif validated love marriage of Somia with Muhammad Jehangir on Wednesday and directed the police to stop harassing the couple.
"Yeah! Knock it off, dammit!"
Petitioner Somia, a dancer in the red light area, said she was living with her maternal uncle Ghulam Abbas in Tibbi police jurisdiction because her mother had died while her father Muhammad Aslam was unwilling to accept her as his daughter. Ms Somia said she married Mr Jehangir of her own will but without the consent of her uncle. This had angered him and he had started interfering in her matrimonial life. The police was harassing her on the behest of her uncle, she added. The petitioner said Mr Abbas abducted her on May 28 and kept her in custody for four days, during which he tortured her and pressured her to divorce her husband. Then on June 3, he allegedly sold her to a brothel owner named Sima, alias Gogi. She said she escaped the prospect of an immoral life the next day and then moved the court.
I love a happy ending. Of course, Uncle will have them both bumped off...
Posted by: Fred ||
06/10/2004 7:36:32 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah, this was keeping me up all night worrying.
OpinionJournal; EFL
The U.S. and Britain have whatâs known as constituency-based democracy. That is, voters in neighborhoods or districts select a single person to represent them in Congress or Parliament based on whoever wins a plurality of the vote. This system has many virtues, producing stable and effective governments that can be held accountable by voters at the next election. When Prime Minister Tony Blair came to power, for example, the Tory defense and foreign ministers lost not just their cabinet posts but their seats in Parliament--an outcome almost unthinkable under a system of "proportional" representation.
Yet the latter is precisely what Ms. Perelli proposed last week for Iraq. In this system, voters choose not among individual candidates but among parties that are awarded a share of legislative seats based on their percentage of the vote. Proponents say the system better allows all significant voices to be heard. But even in the best of cases--Italy over much of the past 50 years--proportional systems tend to produce unstable governments easily paralyzed by the little parties they have to cobble into a majority coalition. Would-be candidates are beholden to party bosses who determine their place on the electoral list and thus their chances of success. Iâm sure State doesnât mind having bosses control everything. Makes things more predictable.
In Iraq especially, with its many ethnic divisions, the risks of such a system are huge. As much as possible we should be encouraging Iraqis to think of themselves as Iraqis rather than as Kurds or Arabs, Shiites or Sunnis. First-past-the-post elections in Iraqi neighborhoods, many of which are multi-ethnic, would help accomplish this. Where local elections have been held thus far in Iraq, voters have chosen pragmatic and secular figures rather than religious or ethnic extremists.
By contrast, Ms. Perelliâs nationwide proportional system will encourage voters and parties to separate themselves along sectarian lines. Whatâs more, where constituency systems tend toward centrist politics as candidates seek a majority, proportional systems empower extremists who could never win outright in any single area but who can garner a significant minority of the vote. Look for the mad Shiite Muqtada al-Sadr, for one, to get elected under these rules. Well, heâll either be dead by then or running, Milosevic-style, from prison.
So whatâs driving this strange push for a party-based proportional system in a country with no well-established parties besides the Baath? A big part of the motivation appears to be the dogmatic desire of the U.N. and State Department to ensure that at least 25% of Iraqi legislators are women, which is a goal but not a requirement of Iraqâs interim constitution. You can rig a party-list election to ensure such an outcome, and Ms. Perelli wants to mandate that every third candidate be a woman. Look, womenâs rights are essential to fixing the Muslim world, but this is plain stupid. And if we set up a system on the assumption that the locals will never transcend fine-grained sectarian differences, they never will -- and weâll be the worse for it.
Several developments that bode ill for Christians in Iraq are causing believers to flee the nation. Facing a June 30 deadline for transfer of power, a temporary constitution that reads, in Article 7, that Islam is the "Official Religion of the State," and the most recent humiliation for the community â the failure to receive even one position on the Executive Council and only one ministry post, the Ministry of Emigration â the Christians of Iraq are voting with their feet. "On a recent night the church had to spend more time on filling out baptismal forms needed for leaving the country than they did on the [worship] service," says Amir, a deacon at a local church who does not want his full name published. "We have been flooded with parishioners desperate to leave the country, and as they cannot get an exit permit without a baptismal certificate from the church we have been swamped with requests. ... In recent days nearly 400 families as far as we can tell have filled out baptismal forms to leave the country. Our community is being decimated."
Most of the Christians in Iraq are Assyrians â people who claim to be the original inhabitants of Iraq. The Assyrians were the people of Nineveh â present-day Mosul â the city to which God sent the biblical Jonah. Because they are Christians and seen as allies of the West, the Assyrians have long been subject to persecution. The Assyrian Church, known officially as the Assyrian Church of the East, is the oldest continually existing church in the world. Assyrians are the only people in the world who still speak Aramaic, the language spoken by Christ. During the Assyrian genocide, in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire, it is estimated that nearly two-thirds of the Assyrian people were slaughtered. According to figures from the previous regime, there were 2.5 million Assyrian Christians in the country with an estimated 3.5 million outside the country for a worldwide total of as many as 6 million, many of whom would return to Iraq if they had a future.
"We thought the Americans were going to bring us freedom and democracy," said 31-year-old Robert. "Instead, they are promoting Islam. We do not understand it. ... We love the Americans! We are so grateful for them removing Saddam and giving us back our freedom. We do not want their effort to be a failure if the dictatorship of Saddam is replaced by the dictatorship of Islam." Robert continued: "The American-funded TV station, Al Iraqia, broadcasts Muslim programs four times every day and for two hours each Friday but nothing for the other religions. The recent inauguration of the new government was opened by a Muslim mullah reciting a long passage and a prayer from the Quran, but none of our priests were invited. Why do they do this? Why do the Americans promote Muslims? They need to promote equality and democracy and freedom, not Muslim dictatorship." He lamented: "What happened to the American promise to help [Iraq] become a democracy that would be a place for all to live? This is our homeland! We are the original people of Iraq! We should not have to leave."
The community is working on two projects â one to establish a 24-hour nationwide hotline to provide security for daily acts of intimidation that is much of the cause for the panic among the Iraqi Christians. The other is a nationwide network of "safe houses" to take care of the community, when â as they believe â following the handover of sovereignty to Iraq, the country will descend into chaos and civil war. "We are having to take care of daily cases of harassment of Assyrians by Muslims," says one priest. "I just got back form helping one of our parishioners who was falsely accused by a neighbor and was about to be arrested. I had to go and sort it all out. ... Our women are accosted on the street and intimidated to start dressing according to Islamic tradition. Our businesses are being burned, and the constant harassment is because of the attitude of appeasement toward Muslims." In addition, a proposal for an Assyrian Regional Government based on Article 54 of the Transitional Administrative Law is being circulated in Iraq and in Washington in a last-ditch effort to persuade the community to stay. "We want to stay. This is our homeland," the priest said. "But if we do not have a place where we can go, if we will be persecuted daily by Muslims again we cannot stay. We are appealing to the world to help us â to guarantee us an area where we can be protected, where we can live in peace and where we can worship in freedom."
#1
We ought to help these folks somehow. In the worst-case scenatio let them immigrate to the US. Why does the thought of an Assyrian Orthodox Church in my neighborhood not seem to bother me, but that of a Muslim Tower bellowing five times a day nearby does?
Doesn't it go to show that there is no freedom for anyone else if Muslims have full freedom of religion????
More and more, although I do hate to say it, I am beginning to think that it would be best to encourage Muslims to leave this country. Somehow we have to get them to want to go back to their messed up countries. Pay them if we have to. The more freedom they have, the less we have. They cannot live with other peoples.
#3
I'm with you, Ed. Reduce the quotas of Muslim immigrants to this country and make room for Assyrian Christian immigrants instead.
Why is Islam the official religion in Iraq...huh? I thought Iraq was supposed to be a pluralistic tolerant society? This is a nasty bit of news to JQ Taxpayer Public ie. that we are supporting a monotheistic Iraq.
Posted by: rex ||
06/10/2004 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#4
You know, peggy, we have to walk a fine line here. We dont want to come off like the Germans in the 20's and 30's in re: the Jews. But, having said that, and reading articles elsewhere on RB tody in regards to England, Canada, and the harassment of Brigite Bardot by the Frog government, it seems this is more and more rational. The difference is that the Jews were integral part of German society, and had no desires to force Judiasm on Germany as a whole. It was distortions of a megalomaniac in times where mass-communication was in its infancy that lubricated the wheels of the racist engine that Germany became. It hurts to say it, because, at heart, my politics are more Libertatian than classically Conservative. I don't wish anyone ill who does not wish me ill, but if the thuggery as examplified in the British and Canadian examples aren't reversed in a hurry, I am coming to your unfortunate conclusion.
#5
To be cruelly realistic, how many Christians live in Iraq? Compared with how many indifferent Moslems? Note, I *didn't* say "fanatical" Moslems, just those who wouldn't particularly care if a tiny minority was persecuted by a few hundred fanatics.
Relatively speaking, if a single white family wanted to live in Harlem, NY, surrounded by a mile radius of black families, would they have a chance? (And I don't mean Bill Clinton.) Could the entire NYC police department protect them?
How can you demand that all Harlem let that one family live in peace, and just because they are white?
The tragedy of homogeneity is that purging outsiders is easy.
#6
Anonymoose, you've obviously not been to Harlem in a long time because there are plenty of white families moving up there surrounded by black families and everyone's getting along great.
#7
Muslims, by the very structure of their religion and their society, are not willing to assimilate with infidel cultures. The West, not just the US, but the entire body of Western civilization should expel these people from our body politic. They are an infection that cannot be overcome by our immune system. They are muslims who happen to be living in Western lands, but have no interest in or intention of ever becoming integral parts of our culture or society.
America was built by people from many lands and cultures. These people had one common desire, to become Americans. To do that, they assimilated into the American culture and accepted the common beliefs, goals, language and laws. People who are unwilling to learn English, who refuse to acknowledge the primacy of our laws (in favor of Sharia, etc.). who think that the rights and practices of the majority should be circumscribed so as not to offend their sensibilities should be escorted to the nearest border and shoved across at bayonet point. That doesn't include all muslims, but my guess is it includes most of them.
#8
As to Iraq, I am appalled that their interim constitution establishes a State Religion and does not guarantee religious freedom. I'm not sure that I like the idea of my Marine son risking his life for people who think this way. Unless this is corrected in the final version of the Iraqi constitution, we owe the Iraqi christians asylum.
Christians are persecuted worldwide (some would say even in California), but this is a special case. The US is aiding and abetting in their persecution by allowing the establishment of an Islamic state. We owe these people asylum or their blood is on our hands. I'm sure that the ACLU and friends will adamantly oppose granting asylum to Christians, but that's another fight.
#9
RWV - Maybe we can escort the quisling ACLU attorneys to the border at the same time we escort the unrepentent Muslims? Save time and an extra trip.
#10
"We thought the Americans were going to bring us freedom and democracy,"
Well, we brought as much as we could shoe-horn into your fucked up, dictator-ridden middle-eastern shitbag of a country. Now it's up to you - and running away ain't gonna help.
Me? I'd start assisting the more whacked-out muslim clerics to enter paradise.
#11
mojo, to ask such a task of one man is unreasonable. But truthbetold, this DOES bother me to say the least ... I wonder what the permanent Constitution will say?
(Note to future presidents: Never let a State man near anything worth a damn. Jay Garner should have stayed!)
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
06/10/2004 15:11 Comments ||
Top||
#12
If the new Iraq doesn't include religious tolerance, we've substantially failed.
#13
Mind you, I think the reporting here should be taken with a grain of salt. We did fight the locals -- and force compromise -- on Islam's official role in the interim constitution here.
#14
"We thought the Americans were going to bring us freedom and democracy . . ."
Yeah. We did too.
"Instead, they are promoting Islam."
That completely sucks.
"We do not understand it. "
Neither do I.
"... We love the Americans!"
Are these the only people in the Middle East besides the Kurds and the Israelis who like us? Maybe we figure out who our friends are over there and team up with the good guys.
"We are so grateful for them removing Saddam and giving us back our freedom."
At least somebody over there appreciates the sacrifice.
"We do not want their effort to be a failure if the dictatorship of Saddam is replaced by the dictatorship of Islam."
No shit.
"The American-funded TV station, Al Iraqia, broadcasts Muslim programs four times every day and for two hours each Friday but nothing for the other religions.
WTF?!
"The recent inauguration of the new government was opened by a Muslim mullah reciting a long passage and a prayer from the Quran, but none of our priests were invited."
Courtesy of the good ol' USA.
"Why do they do this? Why do the Americans promote Muslims?"
Because we're stupid.
"They need to promote equality and democracy and freedom, not Muslim dictatorship."
Right on. (Unless we want to exchange one dictator for thousands of itty-bitty dictators called mullahs.)
"What happened to the American promise to help [Iraq] become a democracy that would be a place for all to live?"
Yeah--what happened?
"This is our homeland! We are the original people of Iraq! We should not have to leave."
. . . America fights for the Islamoturds, creating another bullshit state for the most abusive people in the world--the followers of Islam--that wonderful Religion of Peace.
from RWV: "I'm not sure that I like the idea of my Marine son risking his life for people (Islamic people) who think this way. "
Well. That IS the point now, isn't it.
"People who are unwilling to learn English, who refuse to acknowledge the primacy of our laws (in favor of Sharia, etc.). who think that the rights and practices of the majority should be circumscribed so as not to offend their sensibilities should be escorted to the nearest border and shoved across at bayonet point."
I agree. Fuck these bastards. Just look at what they're doing to the Assyrian church (and all over the world, too). They'd love to do it here if they can. And 911 proved they can.
If people don't get with it soon, and see this for what it is, we're all going to be sorry.
#15
I agree with you, #11. To suggest that the small group of Christians should stay a fight the Muslims in Iraq is unreasonable. If that's we'd expect of them, then we should halt ALL immigration, and just tell ALL immigrants, not just Iraqi Christians, to fight for their rights in their birth country and stop running away from the problem.
As for Garner over Bremer, #11, exactly what I think. Garner would not have screwed the Kurds, that's for sure, and I'll bet he wouldn't have rubber stamped an Islam official religion for Iraq thingey. Path of least resistence - that's State Dept.'s signature approach.
As for interim positioning of Islam in the temporary constitution, [whatever] all bets are off once the election is held, #13, and the majority Shiite population win. The Shiite reps on the interim council have said as much to the Kurds already.
Thank you, #8, for your son's service.
Posted by: rex ||
06/10/2004 15:33 Comments ||
Top||
#16
mojo: "running away ain't gonna help"
Don't be an idiot. Sure the minorities could arm for civil war--but don't you think they're just a tad bit outnumbered?
Armchair politics don't cut it when stuff like this is happening to people's families--kids, daughters, wives. The Iraqi Islmofascists are doing what Islamofascists everywhere do. It's just sickening that we're assisting with it.
Hope someone is right about forcing "compromise" on the Islamics, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't think they know too much about "compromising."
#17
Yes, they're outnumbered. That's whay they shouldn't start an open civil war. But a careful, covert weeding of the nastier muslim clerics, done properly, could have the Christians sitting pretty with no evidence of treachery...
I am just as concerened as you about walking that fine line. What I am thinking is along the lines of holding the line in keeping Islam as private a faith as any other in this country (no special accomodations), while working to encourage re-patriation in every way possible. One way is to fight to clean up the middle east enough that people will want to return which we are already doing. Another way is to pay Muslims to leave which is something I say we should give some serious thought.
Now if I so much as smell some draconian, opressive and racist law against Muslims ala the Nazi's, I'll be the first to cry foul. But I believe that there is always a creative way to protect and defend our way of life without having to resort to force, legal or otherwise. We need to be strategizing how to do it as of right now.
#19
Peggy, the last time anyone paid people to leave the US, we wound up with Liberia - not a good precedent. The problem is two-fold: First, we have a tremendous number of people who are in this country illegally. Regardless of what the apologists say, these people need to be sought out, rounded up and expeditiously deported and the borders sealed to prevent reentry. This is not ethnic cleansing, it's just enforcing our laws and respect for the laws. The US is one of the very few civilized countries with de facto open borders.
Second, the US education system needs to once again teach the things that form the core of American culture: the history and values of the American people, American laws and the traditions upon which they are based, and how the American government is supposed to work. It's very hard to keep America as the world's best hope when her own people don't know who they are and why things are the way they are. America is built around the Constitution. Our soul may be in the Declaration of Independence, but our nation is in the Constitution. The schools teach neither. And very simply, anyone who doesn't believe in the values and freedoms outlined in the Constitution shouldn't be in the club. You can try to amend the Constitution in certain areas, but if you don't want to live by its rules, you should move someplace more to your liking.
#20
But a careful, covert weeding of the nastier muslim clerics, done properly, could have the Christians sitting pretty with no evidence of treachery...
After all, everyone just *knows* you need solid evidence in order to start a pogrom.
#21
More and more, although I do hate to say it, I am beginning to think that it would be best to encourage Muslims to leave this country. Somehow we have to get them to want to go back to their messed up countries. Pay them if we have to. The more freedom they have, the less we have. They cannot live with other peoples.
Well..I don't have a problem saying it! In fact, I've been saying it long before 9/11. Muslims (all of them) have got to go! The sooner, the better.
I hope they have recall of judges in Florida if some appeals court judge "decided" to get creative. Or may the state legislature can impeach and remove him.
#2
This biotch needs to FOAD. There is no right to drive; no photo, no liscence, NO exceptions! The state is even willing to have only female officials take her photo and only female cops deal with her if she is pulled over- which is setting a dangerous and totally unnecessary precedent too!
Will she and her lawyer pay the costs of the court proceedings for this travesty? Utter and total bull hockey.
#3
Are veils allowed for photo IDs in Saudi Arabia?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/10/2004 14:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
are women allowed to drive?
Posted by: B ||
06/10/2004 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Freeman's attorney, Howard Marks, argued that his client should not be punished for wanting to practice her religion.
Who's punishing her for her religion? Let Ms. Freeman practice her Muslim religion as much as she wants, but be advised that Ms. Freeman needs to ride around town on a bicycle.
This is the kind of idiocy that steams me. While our GI's are dying to give Muslims "freedom", back at the ranch, we see how wonderfully well Muslims use freedom...they freely choose to go back to living in the 7th century. Nice.
Posted by: rex ||
06/10/2004 14:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/10/2004 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Sultana is back!
I remember her mug shots. The veil might not be a bad idea.
#9
Angie - if you've seen her, only her nostrils are virgin...possible her left ear
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/10/2004 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#10
This one goes so far beyond the pale it is actually ridiculous. If only for national security reasons alone, no photo-identification card issued by a government office of any sort should be permitted to portray someone whose identity is rendered ambiguous by their garb. Who on earth could walk in wearing a Halloween mask and expect to be photographed?
At the risk of touching on racial profiling (lions and tiger and bears, oh my!), it is absurd to facilitate the potential exchange of identification among Islamic individuals when they are among the chief perpetrators of terrorism.
There, I've said it. Islamic followers commit a large percentage of terrorists acts. The PC patrols can hunt me down now. I do not care.
Any judge that does not reflexively quash this sort of completely moronic drivel should have been strangled in the cradle.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/10/2004 10:40:20 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Its just perfect.
Posted by: Evert V. in NL ||
06/10/2004 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Bill Frist has introduced an amendment to rename the Pentagon "Ronald Reagan National Defense Building". This is a butt-stupid idea. Reagan wanted simple government. "The Pentagon" is a simple, easily recognizable name and symbol. "Ronald Reagan National Defense Building" does not pass that test. There has to be a better way to honor Reagan.
EFL: WASHINGTON--Federal officials want to offer oil leases in about 400,000 acres of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska that that were put off-limits six years ago to protect wildlife. The Alaska head of an environmental group said the change would threaten caribou, but the federal Bureau of Land Management's state director said the proposed plan in many ways offers more protections to wildlife. The expanded leasing in the NPR-A's northeast corner is part of the "preferred alternative" outlined by the BLM in a draft environmental impact statement released Wednesday. Comments on the draft will be taken through Aug. 2. "We believe very strongly that we can appropriately explore and develop the area and protect the resource values in the new area that would be made available," said Henri Bisson, the Bureau of Land Management's state director in Anchorage.
In 1998, the Clinton administration completed a plan for the NPR-A's northeast area that blocked oil leasing from Teshekpuk Lake north to the Beaufort Sea coastline--about 600,000 acres. The plan also blocked surface activity on another 240,000 acres along the southern edge of that acreage. That essentially reconfirmed an off-limits policy around Teshekpuk Lake that dated back to 1983, Bisson said. The BLM proposed Wednesday to cut the area off-limits area down to a core 213,000 acres northeast of Teshekpuk Lake. The lake itself would be available for leasing, as would all the area just to the south where surface activity is blocked. Bisson said BLM proposed revising the 1998 plan because new information indicated important oil resources in the area, he said. The current plan shuts off leasing on NPR-A's highest-potential area, he said. The expanded leasing could boost potential future oil production to 2.1 billion barrels from the current 600 million barrels, at a price of $30 per barrel.
That's a hell of a lot of American oil.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/10/2004 9:43:38 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Damn right that's a lot of oil. The enviro-weenies will do everything they can to prevent this from happening. The Western Arctic caribou herd has grown to around 450,000 animals. Up at Prudhoe Bay, a lot of caribou wander around there in the summer. If you are driving a truck and the caribou are standing on a road, you wait until they move before you do. I even had some caribou standing on the runway at Deadhorse airport. Had to have the State guys coax them off before I took off in my plane.
The point is that if we are going to make any headway in domestic oil production, we need to start now. The enviroweenies will do everything that they can to obstruct it. They are well connected and well financed. Theirs is a lucrative industry. When shortages appear and people get mad (and they will!) the finger (the middle one) needs to be squarely pointed at them and the Dems and the necessary legislation will go through.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/10/2004 21:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
push ANWAR make Kerry and the Donks vote against it!
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/10/2004 22:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
He also worked as a lifeguard when he was yound and saved 77 people. BTW the river was a treacherous one so he needed more than just being a good swimmer.
#6
Damn--good story, but he got lucky. Pulling out a gun that's empty is not a smart bluff. He could have cut his life by about 70 years and cost the world a great leader.
Posted by: Dar ||
06/10/2004 19:02 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I'll just bet you that .45 was loaded. Reagan saying what he did, was his way of taking the "edge" off the hero thing, turning it into a laugh.
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
06/10/2004 22:31 Comments ||
Top||
Whatâs wrong with these folks? They have complaints about comments made by conservatives about how our enemies are treated. Surely there is no greater threat to their right to be asses than the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, yet they complain about comments concerning them here and here.
Posted by: badanov ||
06/10/2004 12:45:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I love the way they word this stuff. If you can't face the truth, lie re-word it - no?
Almost twice as many Republicans regularly watched Fox News in 2004, 34 percent, compared to 21 percent of Democrats. This is a stark change from 2000 and 2002, when about the same number of Republicans and Democrats watched Fox News.
Not surprisingly, about half, 52 percent, of Fox viewers consider themselves conservative, a change in ten percent over the past four years.
The survey also found that the increased popularity of Fox News among Republicans could be explained by a loss of faith in the credibility of other outlets. The number of Republicans who believe what they see on the networks or CNN has dropped by almost half in the last four years. But in that same four years, more Republicans have found Fox News credible.
If we are to believe the NYTWaPO crowd, the country is EVENLY divided between liberals and conservatives. IF half of Fox viewers are conservative then that means that Fox's viewers are just representative of the nation itself.
So what this is really saying is that CNN and NPR are losing BOTH viewers and credibility, whereas Fox pulls both liberals and conservatives equally
Also, they tell us The number of Republicans who believe what they see on the networks or CNN has dropped by almost half in the last four years...but what do the liberals think? Do they too think that it has lost credibility?
Rereading that first paragraph, I can't help but wonder if what this study really shows is that more people consider themselves "conservative" now, than before....AND...that CNN and NPR are losing credibility.
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.