Posted by: Dar ||
10/21/2004 15:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Phhbt. That article seems to be based at least in part on the assumption that the US was an ally at war with Britain in November 1941, which was the date of contention in question. When did WWII start for the Americans, class? Early December, very good. Thus, this wasn't close allies sharing information. This was a nominally "neutral" power sharing notes - somewhat contentiously - with a belligerent in a war in which they were not technically involved.
The American stance throughout 1941, and the Swedish stance throughout the war, informs my basic contempt for the stance of "neutrality". There's no such thing as an uninterested neutral neighbor to a war. The only true neutrality is distance - being a state where the "neutral party" is so distant from the conflict that they have no interests at work in any of the affected theatres.
That is, the Ching Dynasty was an effective neutral in the War of the Spanish Succession, due to it's mostly total disinterest in any of the sprawling issues involved, (aside from some bullion-flow interests which I'm not at all convinced the Chinese were even cognizant of, let alone concerned with) but you'd be damned hard pressed to find any other actual neutrals to that first world-war.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
10/21/2004 16:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Speaking of being an apostrophe away from [x]... irony tastes like used coffee grounds.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
10/21/2004 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Mitch, Not close allies? What was the Reuben James, a row boat?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Reuben James!
You still walk the furrowed fields of my mind!...
NEW YORK — One person's trash is literally another person's treasure, if that person happens to be a freegan. They're not vegans who refuse to eat meat or animal products; these people eat out of the garbage. Freegans generally are activists. They believe we live in a capitalistic society gone mad where food, like so many other items, is needlessly tossed out.
Adam Weissman and some freegan friends, none of whom are homeless or destitute, dig through garbage for food in Manhattan's trendy Upper East Side. They refuse to economically support companies that make or sell the items, because they equate doing so with encouraging further exploitation of our natural resources. "I'm saying we're too materialistic and it's ruining our lives," Weissman said. "We're wasting enough food to literally feed every starving hungry person on the planet."
But one supermarket manager says the companies are not the ones being put out. "My first impression is personally I feel sorry for them because I don't think anyone would want to do that," said store boss James Massari.
But the freegans aren't looking for pity, in fact they're sympathetic to the people who actually paid money for food they take home for free. "It irks my sense of justice that things are getting thrown away that people can use," said Alexis Cole. Cole not only provides freegan food for her roommates, but has furnished most of her apartment through dumpster diving.
Do the freegans ever get sick? They say no, primarily because they take precautions like washing the fruits and vegetables and not eating anything that's spoiled.
What's next, roadatarians?
Posted by: ed ||
10/21/2004 11:40:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah, I know one of these guys....he only eats packaged foods and veggies out of the dumpster.
#4
Many fast food places that advert: âbaked fresh, crispest salads, etcâ will dump(ster) perfectly good food (putting it in the dumpster carefully so the freegans can easily retrieve it).
Movie houses, convenience stores and salad bars do the same. All except the Chinese places, they find a way to eventually use everything. Good old â¦MSG!
#7
Saw something similar to this on a PBS show. Young guy and gal -- such hypocrits. They were so smug about how they got free bagels out of the trash and squatted in a building. Ranted on about the evils of capitalism, blah, blah, blah. Not really noticing that it was capitalism that allows them to surf off of the trash. They wouldn't be so happy, or so well fed, doing that in a communist country like the old Soviet Union, or China up until most recently. Looked like kids of upper middle class. Maybe even wealthy families.
Posted by: DO ||
10/21/2004 22:39 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The angst present in the articles subjects is easily understandable. When you are lost in a society that is so rich it becomes hard to understand why people won't just give you everything . . . I mean, you deserve it, right?
Isn't that what this life is about?
Getting the people who work hard to support your sorry arse?
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
10/21/2004 23:26 Comments ||
Top||
#1
"Hansen says the superintendent made the decision for three primary reasons. First, Halloween parties and parades waste valuable classroom time. In addition some families can't afford costumes.
It's the third reason some Puyallup parents are struggling with.
The district says Halloween celebrations and children dressed in Halloween costumes might be offensive to real witches."
#7
This ranks right up there with the ACLU fighting any christmas displays on public property even if no public funds are expended. The Wiccans are free to practice their faith as they chose. I am just getting sick and tired of having to be solicitous to every body elses feelings. If they are that thin skinned maybe they should seek help
He wanted a bit of company, so he bought a pair of bunnies. He ended up with more company than he could handle. Given the run of the house, the little furballs did what rabbits are known for. In less than a year, the man, whose name the Louisiana SPCA withheld on grounds that he was embarrassed enough already, had 73 rabbits. They chewed the furniture. They burrowed into chairs, couches and mattresses. They processed food faster than their owner could clean up after them. Finally, said SPCA Executive Director Laura Maloney, he passed out. Then he moved out and called his doctor for help.
A Somerset County man missed a mouse he was trying to shoot with a small-caliber handgun and wounded his girlfriend instead, state police said.
Them mice are dangerous when wounded, girl friends more so. Or so I've been told...
.Donald Rugg, 43, of Confluence, was trying to kill the rodent with a .22-caliber handgun when his girlfriend, Cathy Jo Harris, 38, apparently went into the line of fire and was hit in the arm early Tuesday morning, state police said.
"That's their story and they are sticking to it."
She was taken to Somerset Hospital where she was in fair condition, said hospital spokesman Greg Chiappelli. Neither Rugg nor Harris could immediately be reached for comment. State police said they won't charge Rugg but advised against people shooting firearms indoors.
No word on if alcohol was involved. Like we have to ask.
Posted by: Steve ||
10/21/2004 10:00:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#7
Ummm, we don't really have many snakes up where I am, so I'm not familiar with "snakeshot" per se, but this is what I was thinking of:
http://www.cci-ammunition.com/default.asp?menu=1&s1=3&pg=18&prod_id=9
#2
No better way to win than doing the impossible against your most hated rival - and pinning the 2004 NY Yankees as the biggest chokers of all time in baseball!
Congrats to the Red Sox - now all you gotta do is win the series....
#5
The evil empire may be defeated, but the curse isn't lifted till they hoist the World Championship banner over Fenway. I remember 1986 all too well.
Posted by: Steve ||
10/21/2004 0:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
What happened that year?
Re: The Curse -- will it be broken if the NCLS winner trounces the Red Sox? (As unlikely as that seems, based on what I've seen.) Or will it simply be a happy memory that, well ...
Seriously, I don't know.
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
10/21/2004 0:43 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Steve - yep. The ghost of the Bambino will be angry, and Halloween is almost upon us...
#10
The next task is to break the curse of the Bambino off the Hub once and for & win the World Series.
This winter might be a real cold one in Bean Town, but victory will make Bostonians feel warm through each & every snowstorm.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/21/2004 3:11 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Background on the Bambino:
For the Red Sox, it all began in 1920, when then-Sox owner Harry Frazee simply needed money to finance his girlfriend's play. As a result, he sold his best player, George Herman Ruth (aka Babe Ruth), to the New York Yankees for a measly $100,000.
The Yankees had won no Championships prior to acquiring Ruth, while the Sox won four, but since then, the Yanks have won a monumental 26 World Championships, on their way to becoming arguably the greatest franchise in all of professional sports.
As for the Red Sox, they've won a grand total of zero. While it is true that Boston has made four trips to the World Series since the famous transaction, they've lost each of those in the deciding Game Seven.
One side note; Boston's other baseball team until 1952, The Boston Braves, won the World Series in 1914.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/21/2004 3:36 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Mark I was kidding! I know what the curse of the Babino is. I hope the Sox win and Kerry loses!
#13
Curse, smersh. Most of the Red Soxes troubles have been self inflicted. The last team in Baseball to intergrate, the continual effort ot build a team that can win in Fenway ignoring the fact that you play half your games somewhere else, suspect pitching staffs, bad managerial decisions. But that siad its been a great post season. Game Seven tonight in St. Louis and I hope the Rocket burns the Red Birds
#14
Maybe a another Cards Red Sox Series? The last one was still played in daytime. I was sick and had to stay home from school. BTW 18 inches from a 100 watt bulb is the thermal optimum for a Johnson brand mercury thermometer, that'll get you 99.5 F.... just right.
The 1986 Red Sox, led by a fireballing righthander from Texas named Roger Clemens, came within one strike of winning the World Series but lost Game 6 after a stunning series of events. This included first baseman Bill Buckner having the winning run score on a ball hit right to him, which he let go through his legs. Buckner endured years of taunts and harassment as a result of the error, and eventually was given so much grief in Boston that he moved his family to Idaho.
Posted by: Steve ||
10/21/2004 8:15 Comments ||
Top||
#16
My neighbor's from Boston, says the curse is lifted. Doesn't matter what they do in the series. Greatest comeback in sports history imho. Even beats my Tigers in '68 coming back from 3-1 against the St.Louis Cards w/the dreaded Bob Gibson. Even Bucky F'n Dent throwing out the first pitch couldn't help the Yanks this time.
Nah. After watching them for 40 years, you learn to deal with it. Best part of last night was seeing the Yankee fans in the stands with "the look". It beat seeing it in the mirror for once.
I'm hoping this is the team. I like their chances, mainly because they appear too goofy to be intimidated by anybody. I'm half expecting Manny to show up at Yankee Stadium tonight for the eighth game.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/21/2004 10:32 Comments ||
Top||
#25
I was hoping NY would lose. Just to prove that spending a huge wad of cash to buy the priciest players is no guarantee that the end result will be achieved.
#26
B-A-R, I think the Detroit Pistons already proved that against the Chokers, er, I mean Lakers.
Frank, WS prediction a little early imho, considering we don't know who the Sox are going to face yet and that the NLCS has been emotional and going 7 games as well.
#29
Sooooooooo, the Yankees have now become the only baseball team in history to blow a 3 - 0 lead in post season. Truly there is some justice in the universe.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
10/21/2004 11:46 Comments ||
Top||
#30
The good news is that this was the Best! ALCS! Ever!
The bad news is that the Kerry crew is going to push the Sox = Kerry, Yankees = Bush meme and try to sell it as the metaphor for the election. If that meme catches on, it will become the solemn duty of the Sox, for the good of the nation and of the civilized world, to lose the Series to the team from Texas in four straight.
(Don't flame me, Sox fans; I live near Cleveland. You think the Curse of the Bambino is something to cry about? It pales in comparison to The Curse of Rocky Colavito!)
Posted by: Mike ||
10/21/2004 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#31
I had the most fun last year watching the Marlins, who had 1/3 of the payroll of the Yankees, steal the Series. This year is just icing on the cake!
Posted by: Dar ||
10/21/2004 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#32
I'm a Padres fan so mark my carping down to jealousy, or as in the Sox/Yankee payroll parade, schadenfreude when they lose
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/21/2004 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#33
NHL players are on strike.
I wish there was a minor league hockey team closer to here than Fresno. Even though I play in a pickup league, I'd like to see a bona fide hockey game in person, if not on the tube. I only watched the last couple of BOS/NY games because I thought there was a good chance that NY could bite it big time. :)
#34
PBMcL-
Given the shoddy way the Bambino was treated by the Yankees' front office in his declining years, he's probably sitting back somewhere laughing his ass off. If I was Joe Torre, I'D be concerned about the shade of Lou Gerhig coming back from the Other Side with a Louisville Slugger and an itch to use it on some overpaid idiots.
Aside to Mike from 'Near Cleveland' - I grew up within earshot of Lakefront Stadium. Always believed that someone should have engraved "Wait 'Till NEXT Year!!" on the E. 9th St overpass.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
10/21/2004 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Thank God the Red Sox won. There can only be ONE "Massacheusetts Miracle" annually, so g'bye sKerry!
from BOTW today (scroll to near botom):
The Boston Red Sox beat the New York Yankees last night in Game 7 of the American League Championship Series. The Sox will face either the Houston Astros or the St. Louis Cardinals in the World Series. But the Yankees, who won the first three games in the series before going to lose four straight, had more runs in the series (45-41), which means the Sox may have a pennant, but they lack a mandate.
The Yanks last won a World Series in 2000, defeating the New York Mets in five games. Since then it's been a series of disappointments:
2001: Lost World Series to Arizona Diamondbacks in seven games.
2002: Lost Division Series to Anaheim Angels in four.
2003: Lost World Series to Florida Marlins in four.
2004: Lost Championship Series to Red Sox in seven.
What happened since the Yankees lost their last World Series? New York elected Hillary Clinton, an Illinois native who had falsely declared herself a "lifelong Yankees fan," to the Senate. After this offense, it seems, even having the Republican Convention in New York was not enough to appease the baseball gods.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/21/2004 18:11 Comments ||
Top||
#37
Al Leiter - get a job.
Posted by: Joe Morgan ||
10/21/2004 18:17 Comments ||
Top||
#38
I'm sure most of you have visited the MLB home page, but if not, go there! If you have a high-speed connection, there's a trove of great videos of highlights, news, et al. All other major sports should really take a lesson from MLB's site.
Posted by: Dar ||
10/21/2004 18:31 Comments ||
Top||
Expatriates of all nationalities are entitled to apply for Saudi citizenship and their travels abroad with re-entry visas will not disqualify them, press reports said yesterday quoting senior officials. Unless, of course...
Nasser ibn Hamad Al-Hanaya, undersecretary for civil status at the Interior Ministry, said the executive bylaw for the Kingdom's amended naturalization law would be ready within four months. "We will look into applications only after the executive bylaw is issued," Okaz Arabic daily quoted Hanaya as saying. We will take our bloody time, too... we don't have enough Indian clerks as it is, sheesh! So much to read and write and stuff, so few expats to do it! More tea?
He estimated that more than a million expatriates would benefit by the amended law, which was passed by the Council of Ministers on Monday. There are nearly 8.8 million expatriates, mostly Asians and Arabs, in the Kingdom. So about 1 out of 8 will likely qualify. Hmmm, I wonder if he'll apply?
#3
the Arab League has instructed that Palestinians living in Arab countries should not be given citizenship
When Allan created the universe, one of his main ideas was that Palestinians should not be given citizenship in any other Arab countries.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/21/2004 7:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If the Arabs let Paleos become citizens, who'll be left to push the Jooos into the sea? The Arabs are happy to let the Paleos do their dirty work and suffer for it. So much for Arab solidarity and the ummah.
#11
As crazy as it may seem to many of us, there are plenty of folks from poor, poor places (think Bangladesh poor) who'd willingly become citizens. Subcontinentals in general can't bring families into Kingdom, etc. Kingdom's health care is pretty good, too.
Note there doesn't seem to be a mention of religious affiliation in deciding who is to become a citizen. Correct? Part of me says it's about time; the other part can't understand what's going on.
Posted by: chicago mike ||
10/21/2004 14:34 Comments ||
Top||
Brazilian officials expressed optimism Wednesday that they would reach agreement with United Nations inspectors over the country's contested plans to enrich uranium. International Atomic Energy Agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming, speaking at the U.N. agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria, on Wednesday, said: "The Brazilian government is being constructive in trying to find an appropriate solution." Brazil has proposed that the agency inspect the valves and tubes leading to and from the centrifuges but not view the equipment completely. "The solution we presented met both the needs of the government and the agency," said Gustavo Cruz da Souza, a spokesman for Brazil's Science and Technology Ministry. ...more...
Oh yeah - sounds like they're being more than reasonable...
Posted by: .com ||
10/21/2004 12:20:41 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#8
Em: I'd love to see Fidel forced into that position, preferably before the muzzle flashes
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/21/2004 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#9
heh, heh...this is huge. Castro has always beneifited from an image of being robust, strong and invincible. That image was just shattered and now we think, old man, broken hip, not invincible.
Send the man some baby wipes. Soon he'll be mumbling and jabbering like Arafat.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/21/2004 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The only problem with that old bastard dying is that he will be replaced by his brother Raoul, who is currently head of Cuba's "internal security" forces. From what I've heard Fidel is the nicer of the two brothers.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I saw this on MSNBC today at the gym. Looks like the old coot missed a step on the way down from the podium and did a face plant. I did a doubled-over lmao. Couldn't of happened to a better asshole.
No matter which way it goes, this story is sweet as honey for me. Barroso had started his work with a show of arrogance towards the EP -- when he resigned from the Premiership of Portugal, before the EP even approved him as President of the Commission. Now, even if his Commission does end up barely passing, Barroso will have been taught a small lesson about modesty towards Parliamentary power.
I'm hoping his team fails though. It'll be even sweeter then, and a historical moment indeed.
#1
I see Louis Michel (ex-FM of Belgium) is Commish for Development. Like developing more anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-Israel invective? This whold EU business with Commissions, parliment, bank,etc. is the biggest waste of waste ever designed. It is nothing more than a "keep Belgians employed" scheme that reeks of corruption, red-tape, employment for professional polticians and hangerons.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/21/2004 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
Germany has become the first country in the world to tax private personal computers that are deemed to be "Internet-capable". The plan, long in the offing, was agreed in Berlin by the Conference of Prime Ministers of the Federal States of Germany on October 8. It is being billed as part of the expansion of the television and radio public services fee, which is administered by Germany's Radio and Television Licensing Authority and enforced by the universally despised GebÃŒhreneinzugszentrale (GEZ), which often resorts to controversial and illegal Gestapo-like methods of gathering information on private citizens. The new tax was originally planned to come into effect on January 1, 2007. That date still holds for businesses and large corporations, but private households will be forced to register their PCs before the deadline of March 31, 2005. Owners must then pay 17.03 euros a month for their PC unless they are already complying with the full GEZ tax for a registered television and radio...
Posted by: Anonymoose ||
10/21/2004 11:29:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This has stupid and insane written all over it. The tax sounds amazingly high - like financial rape. Unfuckingbelievable.
Talk about your basic blinders - penny-wise / pound foolish. Yewbetcha - discourage use of the greatest information tool ever invented. It'll do wonders for your country.
TGA - time for a bitch-slapping jihad on the appropriate Gov't morons, bro.
#6
Bingo, RN. This is very unsettling to Americans - and not just the bureaucratic stupidity of it - the entire notion of Gov't licensing / registration where it serves no real purpose other than taxation (why? because they can) or to assist in tracking people down... smells like terminal fascism to me.
It's one thing to register a car - to tax it for road, bridge, public safety costs, etc. It's a whole 'nuther thing to register a fucking radio. I'll bet they go apeshit over HAM units, i.e. transmit-capable gear...
Is there any justification for this that should withstand the anger of the electorate? "Be a good little drone, folks, and let us know when you move, K? Oh, and you'll owe [mumble] Euros per month for the privilege." I'll bet this is the norm in you-know-who's beloved E(ternally fucked)U Nanny State.
#7
RN> Registration is the key. If you know who has the radio/TV's, if you know who has the PC's, if you know who has the GUNS...You are in total control!
Um, how would that work? Even if I knew that everyone has PCs, everyone has radio/TVs and everyone has guns, I don't see how that would give me even a *tiny* bit of control, let alone "total" of it.
I've heard about TV registration in UK -- didn't know that Germany also had it.
#8
But as a sidenote and in order to forestall misunderstanding of my post above, I'll just have to note that I also find such registration of radios, tvs, or computers *offensive*. I just don't find it very dangerous.
#9
The theory for those who resent having tv's and radios registered is this:
Should there be some kind of totalitarian regime coming to power that would like to restrict the flow of contrary info coming into the country, they would definitely like to know who potentially has the hardware to access the frequencies you are trying to block.
I might be wrong, but there are some instances (such as N Korea) where that kind of thing can get you in serious shit with the authorities (having the wrong kind of receiver allowing you to hear something other than the party line).
Whether present-day Germany would once again be the kind of place you would have to worry about that kind of thing, I don't know. I do recall hearing that listening to the BBC during the Nazis was a good way of risking getting whacked.
As for the PC's....well, try to surf freely in Saudi Arabia for Jewish websites. 'Nuff said.
#10
"With the same argument, the public broadcast services can demand from me a fee for the existence of my briefcase, because in principle it may contain an ARD television magazine that provides free viewing tips," says Arndt Groth, President of the Federal Association of Digital Businesses (BVDW). Groth's comments, among others, have had lawyers frantically scanning the German Constitution for loopholes (notwithstanding the fact that the constitution, along with the Federal Republic of Germany itself, technically ceased to exist as a legal document on July 17, 1990).
Oh wonderful. Maybe the new EU constitution will have something to say about it.
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/21/2004 13:41 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Groth's comments, among others, have had lawyers frantically scanning the German Constitution for loopholes (notwithstanding the fact that the constitution, along with the Federal Republic of Germany itself, technically ceased to exist as a legal document on July 17, 1990)
#12
Lists of owners of (TV's, radios, websites, etc.) can be an awfully handy thing for a government to have. No doubt the UN wing of the Democratic party is watching this carefully...
#13
The article is disingenuous. Germans pay a tax for TVs and radios not unlike the levy on Brits for the BBC. Recognizing that PCs can receive audio and video bitstreams, the Germans just want to make sure that no one can escape the tax by listening to the radio or watching TV on their computer. If you already pay the TV/radio tax, then your PC is exempt. From Der Spiegel:Schon seit Jahren schielen die öffentlich-rechtlichen auf Computer, die dank Internetzugang voll funktionsfähige Radios beziehungsweise Fernseher sind. Bislang gelten PCs ohne TV-Karte nicht als Empfangsgeräte und müssen somit bei der GEZ nicht angemeldet werden. Wer über den PC Video- oder Audiostreams anschaut oder hört und kein Radio besitzt, konnte so bisher die 16 Euro Gebühr pro Monat sparen.
#14
Owners must then pay 17.03 euros a month for their PC unless they are already complying with the full GEZ tax for a registered television and radio...
is there currently a tax on the use of tv's and radios?
is there a sales tax in germany? if there is why should a person have to keep paying taxes? i am sure they are already paying taxes for the cable/satelite connections.
Posted by: Dan ||
10/21/2004 14:35 Comments ||
Top||
#15
How many PC owners don't already have a TV and/or a radio? So what have you got? A list of everybody? Big deal. You already have near about everybody on other lists anyway. This is about taxes, not about totalitarian conspiracy.
Posted by: Tom ||
10/21/2004 14:41 Comments ||
Top||
#16
I find the tax offensive because it is statist. What is far worse than the tax is the methods used to enforce it. I know that for a fact the in the UK, vans prowl around with direction finding equipment to find unregistered TVs and radios. Every TV and radio has secondary emissions at certain well known frequencies (455 KHz is the IF stage freq)that can be captured by a sufficiently sensitive receiver. If you get caught with an unregistered TV or radio, you are cited and pay an enormous fine. I don't know about you guys, but I really don't want the state engaging in eavesdropping like this. Fron the article, it seems that the Germans are doing the same kind of spying as the Brits.
If I lived there, I think that I'd put a faraday cage around my den just to spite the bastards.
#17
Germany funds Deutsche Welle with a tax on TVs and radios just like the Brits fund the BBC. This is just a widening of the net to catch internet savvy would-be "tax cheats."
In order to obtain funding, the BBC requires that anyone using its services must pay for them. So, if you own a TV set and live in the UK, you could conceivably turn on the BBC broadcasts, so therefore you better pay. A colour television licence is £116 a year (around $192 US) and a black and white TV licence costs £38.50 a year (around $64 US)
#18
11A5S: "If I lived there, I think that I'd put a faraday cage around my den just to spite the bastards."
Or how about tinfoil? Of course, a Faraday cage would make reception rather difficult.
No, what you need is a TRF receiver. No LO, no radiation. Of course, for FM or TV it won't be very good, but you can't have everything. Or maybe a direct-conversion jobber would work.
But the whole thing is just bizarre. I made crystal sets and 1- and 2-transistor radios when I was 11 years old. If I lived there, I would have had to have spent My allowance to get a license for them.
Anyway, with the increase in the number of licensees, has the rate ever gone down? Of course not. No government revenue stream ever shrinks or goes away.
#19
Jackal: You pipe in the signal from the antenna using shielded coax. You solder the coax shielding to the hole you make in the faraday cage to minimize leakage. If you were really anal, you could filter out the IF radiation from the antenna circuit by means of a high pass filter.
Thanks for the gratuitous insult about the tinfoil, though! I'll go back to lurking now.
#23
The deal is the only people that these folks are going after are business which don't even come close to fooling around and watching state funded TV or listening to state funded radio on their computers.
The people in Germany who go and and try to "catch cheaters" are not very popular and use all kinds of underhanded methods to get onto peoples homes to see how many and what kinds of recivers are there. It's a total byzantine organization. They even try to bill people who move out of the country for use it's reported. Thank god we don't have that kind of electronic media system here in the US. We would be paying hundreds a month.
#2
Actually, I agree on this one. Good for France. There is nothing wrong with dress codes. If they don't want a public education, there is nothing stopping them from paying for a private one.
If you don't think that they should be able to limit dress codes - then likewise, you shouldn't complain if your daughter's friends are allowed to wear the ultimate slut attire - or boys should be allowed to wear shirts that say "girls are a bunch of *((&) or any other profanity or lewdness.
Public schools are for the public. Demanding dress codes within the norms of prevailing ideas of decency, void of gang symbols or absent religious symbols is just not that big and promotes a sense of belonging to the community and school - rather than to ones own cultural community.
I think it's silly for everyone to get hysterical over asking children to dress in clothing that does not promote sexual harrassment or ethnic, religous, or gang strife.
#3
I'm with 2b, especially since the scarf ban is meant to allow subjugated muslim females free, at least at public schools, from the brainwashing the scarf represents.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/21/2004 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
And when the Muslims get really, really pissed off, the Phrench will surrender en masse.
#5
I agree w/you 2b. Some inner city schools had to go so far as barring jewelry because kids were rolling each other in the hallways and after school. In that case it was a safety concern. Heck make'em all wear the same neutral colored uniform for all I care. School's essential purpose has gotten so far away from education it's disturbing, the kids can express their personal style on their own time.
#6
If it were merely a question of style, I would say, let em wear the scarves. I never liked those arbitrary rules about dress. But Muslim scarves are as much as symbol of gender discrimination as gang clothes are a symbol of violence. France won't confront the problem head-on (because that would be politically uncorrect, sacre bleu!), so they've chosen ths way instead. We'll all see how it plays out.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
10/21/2004 11:48 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The history of the scarf in France indicates that it was a form of "signal" to Muslim males that the girl was a Muslim and off limits to harassment and rape.
#9
"But Muslim scarves are as much as symbol of gender discrimination as gang clothes are a symbol of violence." (Jules187)
Yeah, and they're also about "infiltrating" and changing Western culture and changing perceptions, and proselytizing for Islam.
The aims of the lower levels of jihad work through loose associations like this: "I knew some Moslem girls (in their hajibs) when I was in school. They weren't so bad. They were pretty nice. Gee . . . our government is being really harsh on Moslems. That's not good. That's too right-wing. We need to be respected in the world. It's unfair to my Moslem school chums I remember. They didn't want to hurt anybody. I know--I'm going to influence my goverment to be nicer to Moslems . . . I might even protest with them . . . "
#11
Muslim school girls wearing veil is NOT an expression of religious freedom. It is cohercion by adults who want to put them in the muslim mold of women slavery. It is, quite often, cohercion against their parents, like islamists visting them and telling the father: "why is your daughter not weraing veil? Would you be a bad muslim? Perhaps are you thinking to convert?" (remember that this is a veiled death threat°.
Now let's remeember Lincoln's words: "A nation is not free when half of it is slave". That is why veils are intolerable in western countries.
#12
So if "veils are intolerable," then what defense is there for wearing a yamulke? Or a crucifix prominently displayed? French laicisme / secularism is no less hostile to non-muslim religiosity. Are you really arguing for an end to all displays of religious affiliation?
#13
Lex-That is why it is so damaging for France (and the rest of us) to put up with political correctness. If the threat of violence and the other ways that radical Islamic thought harms society were addressed directly and firmly, France would at least be fighting the real threat to its culture and nation, rather than a paper tiger.
#14
France's definition of PC is a dual-edged sword, mon ami. Cuts against believers of all faiths.
The real problem here is not limited to France's relations with the muslims. It's that French culture, politics and law do not permit the notion of cultural separateness. France's deeper problem is its hostility toward the individual who refuses to go along with the prevailing culture.
The real solution for France is the American one: true tolerance for diversity. In this country, if you want to live with your fellow hasidim or mormons or jehovah's witnesses or survivalists or lefty-crunchy weirdos, you can do so without being considered un-American or having your children branded freaks by the law, the courts and the schools. Result: cultural cohesion, religion, the individual and patriotism are all stronger here than in France, which is beginning to resemble the US during the 1970s.
#15
So if "veils are intolerable," then what defense is there for wearing a yamulke? Or a crucifix prominently displayed? French laicisme / secularism is no less hostile to non-muslim religiosity.
That's a feature, not a bug. To ban only the headscarfs from the schools is to say "Islam doesn't belong here, Christianity and Judaism do" and is giving the fanatics what they want - the excuse to claim Islam and Western civilisation are incompatible mortal foes. The excuse to preach ghettoing and radicalization of moderates.
To ban all prominent displays of religion from the public school system is however to make it clear that the state will remain secular, that religion is a private matter, and that the schools will be a refuge from attempts to enforce religious conformity through dress.
In short, Jules, by having it not be a direct attack on *Islam*, I see it as an even more direct attack on *Islamofascism*.
#16
the state will remain secular, that religion is a private matter, and that the schools will be a refuge from attempts to enforce religious conformity through dress
In other words, that the state will declare its unrelenting hostility toward, and superiority to, the family ties and spiritual beliefs of any community that defines itself primarily through its faith. A brilliant solution to the problem.
France is screwed on this. Any muslim who considers his relation to God to be more important than his devotion to the French state will naturally resent this crude, overbearing and foolish posture that drapes itself in progressive politics.
#17
I'm not religious, and I love my country, but I will not follow the dictates of a state that tells me to piss on my father and his beliefs. I'm sure any self-respecting French muslim with an ounce of backbone feels the same way toward the French state. Screw those pompous, foolish bastards.
#18
Well, if they are not comfortable with French laws, they can always leave, an alternative that will disappoint few native French, I suspect.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 15:30 Comments ||
Top||
#19
In other words, that the state will declare its unrelenting hostility toward, and superiority to, the family ties and spiritual beliefs of any community that defines itself primarily through its faith.
Religious conscience is a matter of the *individual*, not of any "community". That's what the fight against ghettoization is all about: The fight against headscarfs is the fight against a radical Islamist community forcing children to conform to its dress style.
A community that tries to force its individual members to conform to its beliefs has lots of opportunities of doing it *without* the public school system providing it an extra venue.
If a community of nudists that defined itself through absense of clothing wanted to send its children to school in the nude, the public school system would still have the right to say "nope, you shan't".
Any muslim who considers his relation to God to be more important than his devotion to the French state will naturally resent this crude, overbearing and foolish posture that drapes itself in progressive politics.
And any muslim girl who finally has an excuse to escape the pressure of bullying Muslim fanatics will be grateful to the French state. Doesn't it say something that only a handful girls have been expelled out of a population of millions Muslims in France?
#20
I'm not religious, and I love my country, but I will not follow the dictates of a state that tells me to piss on my father and his beliefs.
And I am sure that nobody asked you to.
I'm sure any self-respecting French muslim with an ounce of backbone feels the same way toward the French state.
Which is why a majority of French muslim women *supported* the headscarf ban, I am sure.
Doesn't it also say something that most French muslim women *wanted* the headscarf to be banned from schools? The answer is that it had never been their choice to wear it, ofcourse.
#21
The fight against headscarfs is the fight against a radical Islamist community forcing children to conform to its dress style.
so if most young women wear short skirts and tank tops, and my daughter wants to wear them, and i say she cant because we're traditional jews and consider that immodest, then the state has the right to REQUIRE short skirts and tank tops, in the name of laicism?
#22
Liberalhawk> In your theoretical world, if you said that she can't wear *any* clothes, because you find clothes an abomination upon the sainted nudity of the human body, the state would be able to force her to conform to wear clothes when in school.
But I'm more about the practical side of the issue than the strictly hypothetical side of it. In a perfect world everyone would be allowed to come as they want and their freedom of dress or undress wouldn't be restricted.
But in the modern-day world where the war with Islamofascism is occuring, the headscarf is being used as a means to *restrict* the freedom of the members of the specific Muslim community. So in *practice*, I believe that the ban actually increases the freedom of these girls, doesn't diminish it.
In theory it's horrid ofcourse -- "Gah, religious freedom is restricted" and all that. In practice the opposite seems to be the case.
lex> One last thing -- it might be better if you thought of it as less "Pissing on your father and beliefs" and more as "Giving you an excuse to make your own choices *without* appearing to piss on your father and beliefs".
"Daddy, *ofcourse* I would want to wear the headscarf as you want me to, and as those nice jihadis have been urging our family to make me do, but the big bad school won't let me. Love and kisses."
#23
Doesn't it also say something that most French muslim women *wanted* the headscarf to be banned from schools? The answer is that it had never been their choice to wear it, ofcourse.
In other words, a million or more French muslim girls who want to wear the veil and honor the faith of their parents are prevented by the state from doing so-- in the name of "liberating" them.
Never let it be said that modern France is unwilling to go to war to liberate the oppressed.
Sure, Aris, black is white, night is day, and a complete state prohibition on behavior is actually liberation. Will France's brave cultural warriors also liberate those older students who don't wish to pursue courses of study chosen by their parents? Surely this is a far greater imposition on individual freedom.
Obviously the attack on the veil is little more than an attack on the separateness of religious minorities. Which is of course a completely stupid, heavy-handed way to cultivate and integrate those minorities in the mainstream.
#24
Lex, the key to your argument is that the law forbids headscarfs and large crosses. Small crosses OK, Small head scrafs not. I think Yarmulkas got thrown out too.
Freedom from religion not freedom of religion.
Nonetheless, a good idea if it starts to civilize or extirpate Islam.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 16:43 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Let's argue this from the converse position and see where we end up (everybody can try to fit their arguments into this scheme, ougtha be fun)
Let's say a court in France is headed by a judge who in private life is a strict Islamicist. His biases start creeping into decisions about rape, workplace harassment and discrimination, etc.
#26
"Daddy, *ofcourse* I would want to wear the headscarf as you want me to, and as those nice jihadis have been urging our family to make me do, but the big bad school won't let me. Love and kisses."
What a shallow, smug little ass you are. My point is obvious to anyone but the smug or an orphan. For your benefit I'll try to make it clear one more time: regardless of one's beliefs, and whether or not one shares the views of one's father, there is a core human ethical principle that seems to escape you and that is enshrined in every civilization's moral code: honor thy father.
For this reason children are required by the moral communities in which they're raised to signal, by way of all kinds of overt gestures, their respect for the parents who have taken such tremendous pains to raise them and give them grounding in a moral community.
If that community is a communist state, and if your parents are communists, then it is right and proper for you to show respect for the sacrifices your parents have made to uphold their beliefs. You don't throw away your red kerchief and piss on it, regardless of what you may think, because your love for and loyalty to your parent takes precedence.
The same is true for those us raised in, and refusing, that other one true holy and apostolic faith. It may come as a shock to a smug little shit like yourself, but around the world there are millions of people of strong minds and strong wills who have more respect for their parents than they ever will for any bureaucrat or pseudo-intellectual.
And for this reason, intelligent and truly progressive democracies respect and provide a decent space for this, the most important human sphere of all. Which is why France's idiotic and clumsy measure will succeed only in breeding hatred and contempt.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Lex-either you got distracted by the "screw your mother" part of Islam, or else you intentionally disregarded the rest of the sentence "honor thy father and thy mother".
Do you really mean to say that in the absence of this measure there would be no hatred or contempt of France and French culture by Muslims who forced their daughters to wear scarves? These cultures are at war and this is a small battle. Which side are you really on?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 16:51 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Bringing disrespect to the laws. The nice thing about impeachment, as I understand it, is that it is fundamentally a political act, not one that arises as a result of previously enacted legislation. Thus, Clinton was guilty of breaking the law, but a political decision was made not to convict him.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 16:54 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Lex, the key to your argument is that the law forbids headscarfs and large crosses. Small crosses OK, Small head scrafs not. I think Yarmulkas got thrown out too.
The law is clearly designed to shame and stigmatize religious minorities for whom visible symbols of faith are important.
Marxist-leninism is also a catechism with its own Church, its saints and sacraments and a body of dogma that's at least as backward, superstitious and oppressive as that of any confession. Does the French law also ban the wearing of Che Guevara T-shirts? Somehow, I doubt this pernicious faith is mentioned.
Freedom from religion not freedom of religion.
I'll be the judge of what if anything I wish to believe, thanks. I find your statism repellent. Smells more like fascism to me.
Nonetheless, a good idea if it starts to civilize or extirpate Islam.
I don't wish to "extirpate" Islam. If you want to "civilize" France's muslims, then respect them, respect their families, give the younger muslims real economic opportunities by liberalizing your labor markets, creating real competition and real opportunities to grow businesses and pursue intellectual careers without stifling bureaucracies and regulations.
#34
Lex-you give them this, and in turn they behave in a civilized manner? Why do you believe that? Will there suddenly be fair treatment of women? Why would you believe that? Or impartiality when dealing with people of other religions? What evidence is there to believe that?
Respectfully, I think it's a bit messier problem than your solution would handle.
#35
We are not at war with muslims because they tell their daughters to wear scarves. There are of course decent muslims who insist on their daughters wearing scarves no less than there are decent jews who insist on dress codes for their own women.
France's hysteria over a scrap of silk is utterly ridiculous. The point is not the clothing, and outlawing the clothing will not in any way address the real problem, which is a self-perpuating cycle of political resentment, economic failure and social rejection by a French culture that stigmatizes the religious, regardless of their faith.
#36
We are not at war with muslims because they tell their daughters to wear scarves.
True. We're not even at war with France over Islam. I think our real problems with France have something to do with reciprocity, loyalty, honor, and the golden rule. But you and I agree about one thing: the scarves are merely the symbol of a bigger problem-lack of Muslim assimilation into France. We differ in that it sounds like you are saying with more religious expression they would be more integrated and less violent; I would assert the opposite-Islam aggravates social inequality and alienates peoples of differing beliefs (at least the Islam that pushes itself to the forefront of religious authority today).
Your assumption seems to be that the French should accomodate the Muslims instead of the Muslims assimilating to French culture. I see no reason why the French should have to operate a multicultural society if they choose not to. They are just saying that if you want to go to school, this is how you behave. No one is telling them they can't go to mosque or wear a headscarf at home or out to a public place.
I can tell your argument is starting to break down when you start throwing fascism around. Let's keep the discussion above that level or simply agree to disagree.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 17:11 Comments ||
Top||
#38
Here we are again with political correctness. The same political correctness who wants us to tolerate (wearing veils in class) what wouldn't be tolerated in Turkey or Tunisia. The same political correctness who, in the name of multicuturalness has allowed female genital mutilation in Western countries instead of doing the proper thing, enforcing our laws and protecting the child. Today the veil, tomorrow stoning of adulterous women, the day after shariah and later dhimmitude.
Ah, and about lex and others who think this will enrage the moderate muslims, I would say that "moderate muslims" who want their girls veiled don't belong in France. They can go to Saudi Arabia, to Waziristan or still better, to hell. Here in the West, we have some values, like "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights". If those guys aren't happy with them , then the door is open.
BTW: I think Mexaican immigrants whould be free to practice Huizipilotchli's cult where you live.
#39
Lex> No, lex, I'm sorry but I really don't see the "honour thy father" as quite all universal as that, and I certainly don't see "obey thy father" as that. It's parents that have the primary legal and moral obligation towards their children's welfare, not vice versa.
There are a million abusive fathers out there, and I see no moral obligation to have children honour those abusive fathers.
In other words, a million or more French muslim girls who want to wear the veil and honor the faith of their parents are prevented by the state from doing so-- in the name of "liberating" them.
Well, no, it was in the name of protecting the secularism of the state. I'm saying that said "liberation" is the result of the ban. When a gang forces you to wear its symbols, you ban the symbol from school. When Islamic fanatics force people to wear a headscarf, you ban the headscarf. Anything to prevent the forced segregation of the two communities that the fanatics desire to create.
And a million or more? As I just told you most muslim women *want* the headscarf banned, because it was never a wish of theirs -- regardless of whether you see that as "respect" or not. It seems to me that you are using the word respect to mean "obedience" instead, and you aren't interested in whether said girls actually *want* to obey it or not.
Said million girls can "respect" the faith of their parents as much as they want outside school property. If they wanted to sacrifice goats to the goddess Asherah in honour of their parents' faith, let them do that outside school property also.
What a shallow, smug little ass you are.
Oh, *extremely* so.
If that community is a communist state, and if your parents are communists, then it is right and proper for you to show respect for the sacrifices your parents have made to uphold their beliefs. You don't throw away your red kerchief and piss on it, regardless of what you may think, because your love for and loyalty to your parent takes precedence.
That's kinda the opposite of what nice Jesus said, where he said comes to bring not peace but a sword, to divide families, to divide children from their parents. Respect of your parents' idolatry is not a virtue in monotheistic religions.
It may come as a shock to a smug little shit like yourself,
How *kind* of you. Little cocksucking family-conforming community-establishmentarian fascist.
but around the world there are millions of people of strong minds and strong wills who have more respect for their parents
If their parents are deserving of that respect, good for them. But quite irrelevant really, since there are many parents who don't, and many parents that would force their daughters to dress according to Islamic traditions, so separating them from the other children by force.
In case you are wondering -- I'd be in favour of banning the burka in school also.
#40
I see no reason why the French should have to operate a multicultural society if they choose not to.
Here's why: because it works. Because it's the only effective means of transitioning an alien culture in the span of one generation into a truly assimilated one. And because France's idiotic policy is guaranteed to stigmatize and shame these families without addressing the real problems.
#42
And because France's idiotic policy is guaranteed to stigmatize and shame these families without addressing the real problems.
Wow, it *stigmatizes* these families by having them be like everyone else.
Admit it -- you don't even know what stigmatizing means.
And in your quote, you left out the "cocksucking", btw.
And for someone who supposedly has no time for me, you certainly had a lot of time to ramble again and again and finally break down in insults, irrelevancies and non-sequiturs.
#43
Lex, you think a multi-cultural society works. Maybe it does in the US. Maybe the it doesn't in France. Or maybe the French don't want one. Or don't they hjave the right to decide for themselves?
Everything I have read indicates it takes three generations for an immigrant family in the US to fully assimilate. It would be truly astounding for it to take only one in France.
I cannot undertake a defence of the entire French immigration and assimilation policy because I agree it is a disaster. But I also see that the French have a perfect right to implement the policy they have regarding the scarf and that there are good reasons to do so.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 17:25 Comments ||
Top||
#44
...it takes three generations for an immigrant family in the US to fully assimilate
Depends what you mean by "fully assimilates"... but from personal experience I can tell you this is definitely not true.
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/21/2004 17:34 Comments ||
Top||
#45
What Rafael said. The key to assimilation of the children is ensuring that their parents not be humiliated by the host culture. Doing so has the reverse effect on the kids.
#46
AAAGGHHHH - I can't believe I'm agreeing (in part) with Aris! The apocalypse is nigh!
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/21/2004 17:43 Comments ||
Top||
#47
That would be one part of it, but I don't think it's the key, for adults anyway. I would say speaking the language of country, willingly socializing with the people, and obeying the laws of the country are key. Time isn't so much the essence as the embrace of the people and the acceptance of their beliefs.
#49
Assimilation works so easily and effectively in the US precisely because we've avoided nonsense like this anti-scarf business. We attract religious minorities and other spat-upon types from around the world who seek nothing more than to work hard and be left in peace.
France's policy is guaranteed to attract and perpetuate resenters, by and large. Our multicultural policy is guaranteed to attract strivers.
#50
For the immigrant to America, the deal is that you can support your family and be given the freedom to practice your faith without state interference. This is a superb deal, and one that every multicultural democracy should try to emulate. It eliminates state mischief and also gives a huge incentive to productive individual behavior of the sort that creates prosperity and stability.
#51
Worse than agreeing with Aris is defending the French. I need to reexamine everything.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 18:31 Comments ||
Top||
#52
Re your last point, lex: bang on! This is the brutal and authoritarian French state trying to cure a psychiatric patient through cosmetic surgery. They simply don't understand their Muslim minority, and, worse, seem to have no desire to. At the end of the day, which country has had least success in assimilating its Muslim sub-population out of the US, UK and France? Laissez faire is a concept apparently alien to the French. If they wanted to achieve alienation rather than assimilation, they could hardly be doing better.
Would those who support the French ban also like to see the same blanket ban on perceived religious symbols imposed on schoolchildren in their own country?
#53
â¦make'em all wear the same neutral colored uniform for all Iಞ I support that, that is not discriminatory. Banning all religious symbols is discriminatory agaist all religions. If you put them all in a manditory uniform it is not.
"A small cross is OK." Well it is today.
"The history of the scarf in France indicates that it was a form of "signal" to Muslim males that the girl was a Muslim and off limits to harassment and rape." This is probably true and may be the real unspoken reason so many girls and their parents have resisted this ban.
Despite all the arguments I think the ban is stupid and shows how unfree France really is.
#54
...Except personally, I don't like the term multicultural (state/society/democracy etc.) Too often used by West-haters to justify entrenching immigrants' cultural separateness and resisting assimilation. But from the context, it's obvious you're not advocating that sort of thing.
#55
Correct, BD. I like your concept of laissez-faire as well.
For what I have in mind, a better word perhaps is pluralism: I mean the state's refusal to mandate a particular view on religion (eg secularism) or other deeply personal, private matters. But this does not bless separateness as a permanent good; it merely makes the decision of the children to adopt the majority culture a voluntary one, and in so doing makes it far more attractive than a forced decision.
Had the state forced me to renounce my father's Irish Catholicism, I probably would still be a believer today, out of sheer Irish bloody-mindedness. But no one persecuted me, and I reached my own conclusions.
#56
makes the decision of the children to adopt the majority culture a voluntary one
In theory that's all nice and good, in practice the decision of children to adopt the "majority culture" and abandon the headscarf actually meant they ran a high risk of being raped by Muslim gangs.
You people still seem to talk with the impression that the headscarf was always a matter of choice rather than all too often a matter of fear and coercion.
#57
Gosh..for the first time ever, I think Aris provided the best argument on the thread:
In your theoretical world, if you said that she can't wear *any* clothes, because you find clothes an abomination upon the sainted nudity of the human body, the state would be able to force her to conform to wear clothes when in school.
Lex: I'm guessing you went to school in a primarily white middle or upper class neighborhood and have never stepped foot inside a school located in a minority neighborhood. It's very clear that you have not.
You are right about one thing, though, for people to get all hysterical over a scrap of silk is stupid.
#58
who are you and what have you done with the REAL Aris?
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/21/2004 20:10 Comments ||
Top||
#59
2b having steped into a few "minority"/poor schools is one reason I support uniforms for all students. Even schools in middle class and wealthy schools. No accessories, no jewelery, no 300 dollar sports shoes. A standard and sturdy uniform everyone wears no exceptions. Kids are at school to learn. Lots of styles of dress get in the way of that job the kids are there to carry out.
Further addressing the "Headscarf"/religious symbols ban. Getting all wigged out over a freeking head covering is nuts. If you don't address the real isssue which is discrimination you don't do anything. Banning headgear is just againt all religions which encourage or mandate a style of dress. Uniforms for all would have be undiscriminatory. It's about infringing liberty not secularizing school. A manditory uniform does the job of secularizing if that is what the state (France) wants without damaging real religious freedom. The French ban is stupid and counterproductive. The method is wrong even if the goal may be correct.
A manditory uniform does the job of secularizing if that is what the state (France) wants without damaging real religious freedom. As you say, that would be a better way for them to go.
#63
I find this whole discussion is missing the main two points.
1) No one will be assimilated UNLESS THEY WANT TO BE! My mother was 1st generation American and had not a hint of her German ancestors visible (except for an unfortunate taste for sauerkraut)
2) America is different that virtually all other countries! If I moved to Japan I could NEVER be Japanese. If I moved to France I could NEVER be French. These are countries where your identity is genealogical or geographical or tribal. To be an American is philosophical. If you buy into the American dream you become an American regardless of your accent or you choice in food or clothing. This is a free choice by free individuals. The worst that is happening to new immigrants to the US is that they are being ghettoized by the multi-culti industry and their own "leaders" who are in it for their own power trip.
From my reading, it appears that if not a majority a large minority of Muslims don't want to assimilate in France; they want the French to assimilate to them. See the encroachment of Sharia courts in Canada for the trend.
Thank you for making that explicit. Regarding the ghettoization of immigrants it should be noted that enthusiasm for Ron Unz' proposition to outlaw bilingual education was very high among Hispanics who wanted to assimilate.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 21:27 Comments ||
Top||
#65
Alan C - so true - I just started on VDH's Mexifornia - same points so far
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/21/2004 21:42 Comments ||
Top||
#66
No one will be assimilated UNLESS THEY WANT TO BE!
OTOH, that's very true :) If it takes generations to assimilate, there's probably something else going on there.
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/21/2004 21:42 Comments ||
Top||
#68
well, PD, the cover's slightly less graphic LOL
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/21/2004 22:08 Comments ||
Top||
#69
That's hilarious! Especially the "X" signature.
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/21/2004 22:09 Comments ||
Top||
#70
Would Kerry agree with the policies of one of his supporters, Chirac, in allowing Muslims to be booted out of French schools? How un-P/C.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/21/2004 22:25 Comments ||
Top||
#71
"What have you done with the Real Aris?" Oh, it's the same Aris. Personally, I just have to read what he says SLOWLY. I think he, and others, have pretty much figured out that the French are in a "damned if you, damned if you don't" situation.
Here's what's the real kicker: What do muslims do to non muslims when they are in the majority? Put them down, suppress the minority's visibility and the visiblity of their religion. dhimminitude.
So what are the French doing when they ban the scarf, but allow small crosses or stars of david? THE MUSLIMS SEE THIS AS REVERSE DHIMMINITUDE. The visibility of THEIR religion is being suppressed because they are minority, in the same way that they suppress the visibility of non-Muslim religions when they are in the majority. In a remote sense, they're getting a taste of their own medicine.
Is this a good thing? The perverse side of me says "damn right!", but that's not the side I want running my life: Dhimminitude is an unjust state of affairs that shouldn't be tolerated, regardless of who does it and to whom it is done.
IMHO, the solution has already been mentioned: uniforms with no jewelry and no accessories. No scarves, no crosses, no stars of david.
Here's how I'd handle the Christian and Jewish protests: Neither religion requires an external show of loyalty. The Jewish symbol is circumcision, but Jewish boys don't go around with their pants down showing that they're good jews. Paul did mention wearing the scarf, BUT ONLY IN CHURCH. He regulated all other practices, customs, and habits, by asking the question "Does this give a message contrary to what I believe?" A potential problem are the Catholic priests, who may want their followers to wear a visible sign in order to assess relative strength, in the same way Muslims judge how much power they have by seeing what fraction of women wear scarves. IMHO, the cross has become a fashion accessory long divorced from its base, and so useless for judging how popular christianity is.
The point is this: The muslims NEED THE SCARF more than the Christians and Jews need their clothes accessories, because the former has a purpose apart from clothing, while the latter's religions give them the freedom to regard THEIR accessories as mere clothing. However, Judaism and Christianity lay great emphasis on Magnimanity: the virtue of letting go and yielding in areas that are minor or of no REAL consequence. Integrity and courage are the virtues of NOT yielding in areas that are major or of great consequence. Wisdom, as the saw goes, is the virtue of knowing what's major and minor, what's of great or of no real consequence. It's always a good time to live those virtues, but in this fight, practicing them may be necessary to save the nation...
#74
Three questions that go to the motivation behind this ridiculous law:
1) if the aim is not to divide children from their parents but to uphold "secularism" by eliminating overt displays of religiosity, then do the French schools also disallow kosher food? Do they force the muslim children to eat pork?
2) If the French schools do not remove religiosity from the cafeteria, then why not? Why the exclusive emphasis on clothing? (A little clothing fetish, peut-etre?)
3) if, as some would like to believe, the aim is not to stigmatize religious minorities but to "liberate" children from their tyrannical parents, then why limit such liberation to religious families? Why not intervene also against parents who insist that their children pursue courses of study contrary to the child's wishes?
On the last point, I see that France is now mandating that kids study English-- presumably because English is the language of global capitalism. Suppose an intelligent child with no inclination toward a business career and no wish to work outside his home town prefers not to study English but take up another language instead. Ah, but here the state interevenes for your benefit! So much for the "liberating the children" argument.
Again, this is idiotic legislation that does not even conform to its own logic. It will do nothing to address the real problems that France has with its muslim minority-- problems which, as Bulldog points out, the French neither understand nor care to try to understand.
Makes one sympathize with the muslims. Perhaps the hardworking strivers among them could emigrate to the US, leaving the French to deal with the resenters.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2004 10:04 Comments ||
Top||
#76
Perhaps the hardworking strivers among them could emigrate to the US, leaving the French to deal with the resenters.
They probably do.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/22/2004 10:05 Comments ||
Top||
#77
Was wearing a six-pointed yellow star an area of major or great consequence?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/22/2004 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#78
Integrity and courage are the virtues of NOT yielding in areas that are major or of great consequence.
I don't disagree with this idea, Ptah, but we are talking about Islam here, which is long due some self-examination and change. It might not be a bad idea to identify a few issues of "major consequence to Islam" and then revisit whether you are comfortable yielding to the integrity and courage of Muslims in France to handle those issues in a way compatible with modern, democratic societies.
Among which, as a woman, I might list honor killings, child custody, property rights and other inheritance issues, divorce processes for women, polygamy, obligatory genital mutilation, apostasy, and segregation of sexes...
#80
ahhh yes, individual dignity has so much to do with Islam and women. Accomodating the sick repression forced on women from birth by Islamic society is individual dignity? I'll pass. Perhaps the school nurse can help with the genital mutilation?
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2004 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#81
Of course it doesn't happen through banning clothing. Yes, we all recognize that there is shaming and stigmatizing of girls for not wearing head scarves. But rather than challenging that head on, you are basically saying France should acceed to that pressure and let the practice of SHAMING WOMEN THROUGH THE WEARING OF HEAD SCARVES TO CONTINUE. Those who are that orthodox about their religious beliefs must have understood on some level that the country they were emigrating to has a different set of moral norms. France is not obliged to change its social structure so that the new immigrant group's biases are soothed. The Muslims in France need to accept the terms of life in their new homeland or find a country where the government's ideals are more in line with their own.
#84
lex...your "separating children from their parents" argument doesn't hold water. And it again shows that you've only been exposed to a relatively homogenous lifestyle leaving you to not fully able grasp the issues occuring in poverty prevalent schools. It shows.
Let's look at your "separate from the parents" at an angle that you CAN understand. Would you agree that we should stop all Halloween parties? After all...some parents consider these to be against their religious beliefs. So allowing those children to participate would "separate the children from their parents".
How about teaching evolution? How about teaching sex education? These issues separate some children from the beliefs of their parents. Should we do away with that too?
The bottom line is that, in many schools they face issues of which you are clearly blissfully ignorant and the purpose of a PUBLIC, taxpayer funded school is not just to teach children to read and write, but to become good citizens - able to function in the host society.
Wearing the headscarves may indeed separate some children from their parents - but so too do ideas of going to college, not using drugs, learning to be honest, or being accepting of the beliefs of others.
By NEDRA PICKLER
BOARDMAN, Ohio (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said he bagged a goose on his swing-state hunting trip Thursday, but his real target was the voters who may harbor doubts about him. Kerry returned after a two-hour hunting trip wearing a camouflage jacket and carrying a 12-gauge shotgun, but someone else carried the bird he said he shot. "I'm too lazy," Kerry joked. "I'm still giddy over the Red Sox. It was hard to focus."
The Massachusetts senator was referring to Boston's American League championship Wednesday night. He stayed up late cheering his hometown team onto victory, then got up for a 7 a.m. hunting trip at a supporter's produce farm. Kerry adviser Mike McCurry said it's important in the final days of the campaign that voters "get a better sense of John Kerry, the guy."
That means the Democratic senator is spending some of the dwindling time before Election Day hunting, talking about his faith and watching his beloved Red Sox. It's all part of an effort to win over swing voters who may be open to voting against President Bush but aren't sure they feel any connection with Kerry. While the Democrat campaigns as an all-American, his political opponents are working to leave voters with a different impression. Bush tells voters that Kerry is on the "left bank" of society, opposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Kerry does not support gay marriage but says the matter is for states to decide, and he favors civil unions for same-sex couples. "We stand for marriage and family, which are the foundations of our society," Bush said Wednesday in Mason City, Iowa. "We stand for the Second Amendment, which protects every individual American's right to bear arms."
The National Rifle Association said it bought a full-page ad in Thursday's Youngstown newspaper that says Kerry is posing as a sportsman while opposing gun-owners' rights. Kerry has denied NRA claims that he wants to "take away" guns, but he supported the ban on assault-type weapons and requiring background checks at gun shows "If John Kerry thinks the Second Amendment is about photo ops, he's Daffy," says the ad the NRA said would run in The Vindicator. It features a large photo of Kerry with his finger on a shotgun trigger but looking in another direction. Meanwhile, labor unions have been circulating fliers among workers that say Kerry won't take away guns. "He likes his own gun too much," says one of the fliers from the Building Trades Department of the AFL-CIO that features a picture of Kerry aiming a shotgun.
Kerry's aides said he spent about two hours hunting at a blind set up in a cornfield. More than two dozen journalists were invited to the farm outside of Youngstown to see Kerry emerge from the field, but none witnessed Kerry taking any shots. Kerry was accompanied by Ohio Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland; Bob Bellino, a board member for the local Ducks Unlimited; and Neal Brady, assistant park manager of Indian Lake State Park in western Ohio. Each of his companions carried a dead goose on the way back, while Kerry walked beside them with his 12-gauge in one hand and the other free to pet a yellow Labrador named Woody. Kerry said each of the four men shot a goose. The last time Kerry went hunting was October 2003 in Iowa, a state where he was trailing in the Democratic primary but came from behind to win.
Hunting is of particular interest in several of the states that are still up for grabs in the presidential race. Kerry bought his hunting license last Saturday in one of the most critical - Ohio, which has 20 electoral votes. Kerry bought the nonresident license and a special wetlands habitat stamp, which lets him hunt waterfowl. Kerry plans to deliver a new speech on faith this weekend in Florida, McCurry said, focusing on an explanation of his values. "The fact that Senator Kerry is a person of faith is something that might help voters who are undecided," McCurry said. Kerry has been explaining it more in recent weeks as he campaigns in socially conservative areas like rural Ohio. At a town hall meeting Saturday in Xenia, he talked about taking his rosary into battle during the Vietnam War. "I will bring my faith with me to the White House and it will guide me," Kerry said. The faith, the baseball, the hunting all come at the end of a long fight against Kerry's liberal elite image - an image promoted by his political enemies but perhaps aided by Kerry as well. The candidate disregarded concerns from other Democrats that he shouldn't go windsurfing or vacation at his homes on Nantucket and in Idaho's ski country. McCurry said Kerry is simply doing the things he loves in the final days of the campaign. Asked if it will include windsurfing, McCurry smiled. "It's too cold this time of year," he said.
Kerry is the only one of the 4 hunters not to carry the goose. He had blood on his hand.
Did he get bloody from inaccurate shooting and have to wring the goose's neck? Did he have his snowboarder's success, and somehow hurt himself?
#6
OldSpook, amen! I got in to a rather heated discussion with a co-worker about Kerry. She said she is a Democrat and will vote for Kerry. I asked her did she really like his policies and she said " No, I really can't stand him and I don't sgree with him, but he's a DEMOCRAT". This attitude scares the hell out of me. I have talked to a lot of Democrats, some who will not vote, some who will vote for Nader, but most will vote for Kerry even though they don't like him or his policies. "He's a Democrat!"
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
10/21/2004 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#7
That "He is a democrat" or "He is a Republican" crap just makes no sense to me. People who dopn't use their brains are useless drones. I think the Democrats depend on that more than the Republicans do. How can voting for a fool or nut job help a political system even if he is "your party"?
#8
SPoD, that was pretty much my argument. If you vote for someone you endorse his policies. If you don't want his policies to be enacted, don't vote! That's what I said to her and her reaction was "I HAVE to vote. If I don't, George Bush will be re-elected and I can't stand that. He's filling his pockets with OUR oil money!" It's impossible to argue logically with these people and that's what scares me shitless. They don't think about what kind of government we will have with Kerry but they spout the Party line about Bush and how EVIL he is.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
10/21/2004 20:46 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I heard that John Kerry shot a goose that fell on a nearby farmer's field. When he went to collect it, the farmer was holding the goose and Kerry asked for it. "I shot that goose," he said, to which the farmer replied, "It fell on my field, and I'm a republican, so I figure the goose is mine. But tell you what," the farmer continued, "let's make a contest of it. Each of us kick the other in the nuts as hard as they can, and the last man standing gets the goose." Kerry thought that sounded fair, so the farmer reared back and kicked Kerry as hard as he could in the crotch. Kerry doubled over in terrible pain, but didn't fall down. "Well," said the farmer, "here's your goose. I give up. You win."
#10
Well perhaps senator Horseface could try hunting woodchucks. If he injured it he could show us his compassion by giving mouth to mouth to the animal much as he did the hamster he saved from drowning. John Kerry . What a guy.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
10/21/2004 21:26 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It's been several hours.
I wonder if his goose is cooked.
#13
The anti-gun stance of Kerry, and Democrats in general, is fundamental to where my vote goes. (Well, there is also that clash of civilizations thing we got going.) All Kerry has to do to convince me he is not anti-gun is to do the same kind of publicity stunt with a semi-auto AK, a few hundred rounds, and an old car or refrigerator.
Posted by: DO ||
10/21/2004 22:48 Comments ||
Top||
Hat tip: Instapundit. Edited for brevity.
American teens have spoken, and they want George W. Bush for president. Nearly 1.4 million teens voted in the nation's largest mock election, and the Republican incumbent wound up with 393 electoral votes and 55 percent of the total votes cast. Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry received 145 electoral votes, far short of the 270 electoral votes needed to win a presidential election. Kerry received 40 percent of the total votes, while five percent of teens selected the third-party option, though no third-party presidential hopefuls managed to pick up any electoral votes. Maybe there's something to letting teens vote after all! Click link for story and state-by-state tabulation.
Posted by: Dar ||
10/21/2004 2:53:20 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wow! Illinois & Michigan! Over-confidence makes me very uncomfortable, but maybe just maybe, the insane 1/3 of Americans won't be able to fool enough people to hand this election to the worst candidate to be put forward in modern times.
We shall see if the kids have it right - and the political punks are morons.
I'd like to know more baout how this vote was conducted... there's quite a bit on this page, but not everything, such as how they prevented multiple votes / stuffing, etc. Nonetheless, I'm impressed. Very cool.
#2
Here's how I'm seeing this...
These teens are still in H.S. and living at home. They most likely reflect the political leanings of their parents, thus how their parents will vote.
#6
My daughter was involved in this. Each student received a slip of paper with information on the vote, the website address, and a single-use sign-in code. So, unless someone got a bunch of these slips, they couldn't vote more than once.
As for the results: I am starting to feel a little better about this election. Not totally, as Mr. Wife and I still disagree on who should be president, but it looks like a lot of improper registrations are being thrown out, and I've started to wonder how many of the legitimate new registerees will actually betake themselves to their polling places Nov.2.
Check the Kerry Hunting pics from the Drudge Report. See the corn lying on the ground in most of the pictures. Speaking from experience, you get shelled corn to lie like that during harvesting by simply not towing the wagon or having a truck behind the harvester. This is an old trick to set bait. Hunting over bait is illegal in Ohio and also is illegal on a Federal Level for migratory birds. Canada Goose is a migratory bird.
#3
He bought the license last week in a media photo op. This is part 2.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 15:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Crimenee, Tom, did you get to this part of the article?
Kerry plans to deliver a new speech on faith this weekend in Florida, McCurry said, focusing on an explanation of his values.
"The fact that Senator Kerry is a person of faith is something that might help voters who are undecided," McCurry said.
Kerry has been explaining it more in recent weeks as he campaigns in socially conservative areas like rural Ohio. At a town hall meeting Saturday in Xenia, he talked about taking his rosary into battle during the Vietnam War. "I will bring my faith with me to the White House and it will guide me," Kerry said.
Is he going to stop campaigning between 12 an 3 so he can tune into Rush Limbaugh too?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Amen, Mrs D! He's a manly man, no? Cheney has already ridiculed him for having to buy camo gear - proving he doesn't do this regularly and thus this is, as Mrs Davis nails him squarely between the eyes for, merely yet another disingenuous photo stunt / op. Wotta 'tard.
#6
I think Kerry is calling the next few days worth of themems his "Closing Arguments" Iraq, Faith, Values, Health Care will al be a different topic of the day............ My closing argument comes on Nov 2. Please make sure everyone you all know votes.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton has set his sights on becoming U.N. secretary-general. A Clinton insider and a senior U.N. source have told United Press International the 56-year-old former president would like to be named leader of the world body when Kofi Annan's term ends early in 2006. "He definitely wants to do it," the Clinton insider said this week.
"It'd be a great way for me to meet willing chicks make a contribution to world peace."
A Clinton candidacy is likely to receive overwhelming support from U.N. member states, particularly the Third World. Diplomats in Washington say Clinton would meet willing chicks galvanize the United Nations and give an enormous boost to its prestige. But the former president's hopes hang on a crucial question that will not be addressed until after the presidential elections: can he get the support of the U.S. government -- a prerequisite for nomination?
The political wisdom is that a second George W. Bush presidency would cut him off at the pass. The notion of Clinton looming large in the international arena from "the glass tower" in New York would be intolerable to the Bush White House. If Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wins on Nov. 2 the prospect of Clinton as secretary-general won't exactly be welcome either, but Kerry would find it much harder -- if not impossible -- to go against it.
'cause he'd owe Bill, ya know.
After a Middle East U.N. Secretary General (Boutros Boutros Ghali) and an African (Kofi Annan) it is generally considered Asia's turn to fill the post, U.N. experts say. No announcement has been made, but behind the scenes China is already pushing the candidacy of Thai Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, who also seems to have U.S. support. If Clinton does emerge as a candidate, however, China would most likely shift its support, the experts say.
As a thank you for the satellite info.
No American has ever been U.N. secretary-general, but the United States is both host country to the United Nations and the major contributor to its budget. A hostile U.S. Congress held up its dues for years -- until the Clinton administration negotiated a payment plan for Washington's arrears. Clinton also revived U.S. membership of UNESCO though the Americans did not actually move back into their offices at the Paris-based scientific and cultural U.N. agency until after the start of the Bush presidency.
President Reagan had taken the United States out of UNESCO in protest against alleged corruption by former top agency officials.
And Ronnie was right again.
Clinton is currently recovering from the heart bypass surgery he had to undergo last month, and this has kept him away from the Kerry campaign after a few initial support appearances. The former president has told friends and Kerry staffers he plans to resume campaigning for Kerry, but on a limited scale because his recovery has been gradual. He has talked of his interest in taking over at the United Nations since the publication of his commercially successful autobiography, which he recently said had sold 1.9 million copies. Writing the book kept him busy after leaving office in 2000, but he is now ready to channel his considerable political skills and energy into another role in public life.
There had been rumors that he would run the Third Way organization, the world Social Democratic movement he had talked of launching together with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. But the political alliance had come unstuck and the idea ran out of steam partly because Blair and Schroeder found themselves on opposite sides in the Bush-led Iraq war.
Putting Clinton in charge of the United Nations would be a real test of international intentions, observers say. "Critics of the U.N. complain that it's an organization without the muscle and will to put its decisions into effect," the U.N. source observed. "There's a good chance that Clinton could let him meet willing chicks significantly change that situation, and then we'll see if the critics mean what they say."
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/21/2004 2:08:39 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Moving to Paris, Bill? Take Hillary with you!
Seriously, the last thing we need is for the Democratic Party to line up behind the U.N. even more than Kerry has already. On the other hand, this could galvanize moderate Republicans against the U.N. and lead to a cut-back in U.S. contributions.
Would Clinton have diplomatic immunity against charges of molesting interns?
Posted by: Tom ||
10/21/2004 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
..Ya know what? If this becomes a serious possibility, I will write President Bush and ENCOURAGE him to nominate Willie to the job. Better ANY American in that job than the Islamofascist who we are almost certainly going to be stuck with after Annan leaves.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
10/21/2004 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
That is exactly why it will never happen. By treaty or tradition, I cannot determine which, the Secretary General is not a citizen of any of the Permanent Security Council members. To think that the UN would break this tradition, at a minimum, is to misunderstand the rest of the world.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 14:38 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Oughta be fun to see what he would do with the whole international sex trade issue. Child prostitution might an entertaining topic to watch Mr. Clinton take a swing at, as well.
#7
"Critics of the U.N. complain that it's an organization without the muscle and will to put its decisions into effect," the U.N. source observed. "There's a good chance that Clinton could significantly change that situation, and then we'll see if the critics mean what they say."
Nonsense. The UN's problem is structural: it defends the sovereignty of nightmare regimes in a an age in which those regimes threaten to destroy the rest of us. Until and unless this is changed, the UN will never prevent a war or enhance our security. It's the ultimate Clintonism: a feel-good rhetorical platform that allows inaction and corrupt behavior to continue apace.
#8
If the world is willing to vote for Clinton the US should push for him as well. Hate him or love him I think he has America's best intersts at heart and would thus stand up to crap like that Durbin conference.
#9
If Dollar Bill was the SecGen of the UN, could Hillary be even remotely considered for Pres of US? Wouldn't that be the most massively obvious case of conflict of interest in world history? Lol! Wotta silly-assed joke. Pfeh.
#10
rj, what are you taking? I want some. We're talking the guy who appointed Mad Albright, Don Shalalah, and Jock Elders. And don't forget he married Hill.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 15:28 Comments ||
Top||
#11
.. I think he has America's best intersts at heart..
If he did, the Cole attack and the 2001 WTC attack might not have happened; we'd have gone after Binny and Soddy much, much sooner.
#13
Having America's best interests at heart does not mean he has a spine or good taste. It means he wouldn't blame America for each and every problem as Kofi has done and his guilt over Rwanda would probably cause him to push to stop genocides in the future.
I think Bill would be able to restore some American popularity around the world and he can't possibly be worse than Kofi and his corrupt son.
I also think he'd be the best person to help move the UN to France so he could get away from Hillary.
#14
yadda yadda yadda... Clinton would have zero impact. How exactly would Clinton persuade the Arabs to cease supporting the slaughter of black Africans in Sudan? How would he prevent Libya from chairing the UN Human Rights Commission? How would he end the shameful and absurd anti-Israel hatefest that consumes almost half of the General Assembly's time?
Clinton as head of the UN would merely delay the eventual death of that irrelevant organization.
#16
lex:
Maybe it would speed up the death of that irrelevant organization. Athough I can't stand the man (and have even less use for the UN) I can't totally rule out that this might be a good idea.
WHO WOULD HAVE EXPECTED the Washington Post to inflict real damage on John Kerry's faltering presidential campaign? Yet they have.
Here is the third paragraph from today's front-page article by Helen Dewar and Tom Ricks on Kerry's foreign policy record:
Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."
[Emphasis added]
I'd say un-fucking-believeable, but with this jerk, it isn't.
When the Bush campaign talks about John Kerry's wanting a "permission slip" from the U.N., many commentators dismiss it as rhetorical excess. But Kerry really does believe that the United Nations is a fundamental, legitimizing body for the use of U.S. force. One hears this deference to the U.N. all the time in European capitals, but it is rare to hear it even among mainstream American liberals. In this respect, as in others, Kerry really is a throwback. He still shares the McGovernite distrust of U.S. force and suspicion of the judgments that are arrived at by the American body politic.
John Kerry is not an American or even a human being Clinton-Lieberman Democrat. His near obsession with gaining the approval of the U.N., and for that matter of France and Germany, for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy would make him the riskiest commander in chief of any presidential candidate since George McGovern--and surely makes Kerry unsuitable to govern on this planet in a post-9/11 world.
How to punish Phrawce for their continued perfidy? Send sKerry there. Permanently.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/21/2004 11:36:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe he thinks he's running for Kofi Annan's job, not W's?
#2
Desert Blondie - I think it's more likely he thinks they should be the same job.
Kerry thinks the UN should run the US.
I think we should run the UN out of the US. Send the bastards to the Sudan; according to them, there's nothing going on
And send the Kerrys with them. Or they could go back to Mozambique - I hear it's lovely this time of year.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/21/2004 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Barbara -- There's no four star restaurants in the Sudan! How do you expect them to continue their very important work if they can't get foie gras? ;)
- for US soldiers to die in the course of a United Nations effort is justified
- otherwise, US soldiers should stay in the US
In other words, the UN is entitled to decide where and why US soldiers should die. ONLY the UN. Which would mean Kofi Annan de facto being commander-in-chief of US forces.
#6
Great post Barbara! Appreciated your comment, Kalle.
I've said it before: John Kerry is a closet totalitarian. His love affair with the UN, and his close associations with the Bildeberger group (those billionaire guys from all over the world who believe nationalism is the number one impediment to business, and who want to bring about a world government system that would benefit their investments) are dead giveaways in and of themselves. Of course his voting record on banning firearms is another at this National Rifle Association link. What a doof. He was even goose "hunting" in Ohio today, trying to trick people and get votes. He'll do ANYTHING to get elected--another earmark of despots.
This election seems to be a contest between the citizens who are able to be deceived--and thus will vote for Kerry, and those who can see through Kerry, and who will vote for Bush and the continuance of our nation, and for freedom.
#9
Man, this is everywhere. This is the comment I left at VodkaPundit.
----
I hate to defend Kerry, but look: this was clearly a comment on the situation in Bosnia, an ethnic-religious Euromess in which we had no compelling national interest (and therefore, a very fragile political will).
There he was probably right: we had no reason to believe we could wade in there unilaterally and make it all better. It wasn't the difference between dying for the UN and dying for the US, it was the difference between dying for a (possible) success and dying for a (very likely) failure.
I agree that Kerry's UN fetish is wrong and dangerous in today's context, but in the context in which he was speaking, in 1994, he was right.
----
Someone brought up the same thing AlanC did: we didn't go into the Balkans with UN approval. But NATO was there. It depends on whether you see Kerry as calling for the UN specifically, or whether he just thought we needed allies, and should not go in unilaterally. (As opposed to Bush in Iraq, who went in "unilaterally", meaning, without France and Germany.)
The Balkan adventure was a farce that is of almost no relevance to the security challenges we face in this century. That war involved no US strategic interest and properly should have been fought by the Europeans, whose incompetence forced our involvement. That war was fought at 10,000 feet and was in the words of one of our generals, an "88-day campaign that lasted 87 days too long."
By contrast, our global war on islamofascism is a US-led affair in crucial regions that directly affect our economic survival, and this war can only be fought with large numbers of troops on the ground. It will take not 88 days but decades of effort, blood and treasure. There is utterly no comparison between this paramount challenge and the absurd little freak show that was the balkan episode.
For Kerry to use that irrelevant little non-war as a prime example of his thinking is highly revealing. It's as if the only war he considers legitimate is one in which there's no US interest at stake. Pathetic.
#12
Taking a different tackâ¦letâs say Kerry gets his wish and the USA becomes the âpolice forceâ of the UN. Does that mean that when the UN callsâ¦the US hauls!
Or taken a different wayâ¦in most UN sponsored deployments, the blue beanies, while armed (with small arms) are precluded from taking aggressive action to save locals being massacred, or defending themselves.
For example: In 1994, the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and the Hutu Militia, systematically worked together; setting up roadblocks, and going from house to house killing Tutsis and temperate Hutu politicians. Thousands of innocent Rwandans were killed on the first day of the genocide because UNAMIR (United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda) troops were forbidden to intervene, due to the nature of their "monitoring mandate".
The former peacekeeping commander during the Rwandan genocide told a U.N. tribunal that world leaders allowed the deaths of more than 500,000 people by feigning ignorance of what was taking place.
Retired Canadian Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire told the court he could do little to stop the killing because his U.N. force had a limited mandate and an insufficient number of troops and weapons, and that his appeals for reinforcements were rejected.
He specifically mentioned France, Belgium and the United States "as being uncooperative ... I did not get intelligence information from them."
Belgium ordered the withdrawal of its peacekeepers, the backbone of the operation, shortly after Rwandan troops killed 10 of its soldiers.
#14
For Kerry to use that irrelevant little non-war as a prime example of his thinking is highly revealing.
Unless I have misunderstood, he made that remark in 1994, at which time it was relevant.
I share the fears of most people here, that Kerry will surrender (or at least lend) our sovereignty to the UN. But this quote does not make that point, when seen in the context of the times, and it's dishonest (or just dumb) of Kristol to suggest that it does.
(I tried to get to the WaPo to look at the original article, in case he had repeated this statement recently. But three bugmenot registrations didn't work, so to hell with it.)
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 16:15 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Yes, you have misunderstood both the point of the article and the deeper truth about the continuity in Kerry's thinking over the past several decades.
Here's the assertion in the sentence preceding the quote, for which the 1994 quote is offered as illustration (my emphasis is added): "Kerryâs belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support."
Note the present tense used in "runs so deep": the crystal-clear assertion here is that this not only was Kerry's view in 1996 but also remains his view, indeed is a "deep," core belief of Kerry's.
If you have evidence that Kerry has changed his mind, or that this is not a deep conviction of Kerry's, then you should bring it forth, and direct your ire not at Kristol but at the author of the WaPo article.
#17
Kerry likes to work with allies because he's a weenie. On each debate he was practically glued to the moderator--looking for personal approval and liberal "team-manship." During the second debate he mentioned McCain over and over (his fellow puke Vietnam POW betrayer) to the point that Bush had to remind everyone that McCain--the senator from Arizona--has endorsed the Republicans and Bush for President (at least publicly). The point is, Kerry can't do anything without getting others' approval, and when he does do something on his own, he goes around burning Vietnamese villages with his Zippo lighter for no reason, or he tells a story about a phantom dog that would pee on him during battles in Vietnam (I think to cover up him peeing on himself), or about "secret missions" to Cambodia. Think you saw recklessnes and idiocy regarding military action/ nonaction, and social/psychological dysfunction, during the Clinton years? Ya ain't seen nothin' yet--if Kerry gets elected, that is.
Your comment only reinforces the view that Kerry is only in favor of the US taking action if it is of no direct concern to the US and is requested by someone else i.e. NATO or the UN.
My personal position is that we should never have gotten involved in the Balkans as we had no "dog in the fight". I bent, grudgingly, in favor due to the genocide argument (see Rwanda). Of course we now find out that the genocide was not much more real than the Israeli "genocide" in Jennin.
Given the "selflessness" of our old "allies" I would never do anything at the behest of NATO without a direct attack on one of them from an outside power.
I would not be at all unhappy for the US to leave NATO and form smaller alliances in our interest with the East European states and those in our Iraqi coalition.
This is the journalists' spin. They are using this quote as an illustration of their own assertions. In doing so, they have taken a quote out of the context of its times.
It's exactly the same as when journalists imply that Bush is a hypocrite because, in his first election campaign, he disdained "nation building" -- exactly what he's doing now in Iraq. They have removed those campaign statements from their pre-9/11 context.
My point is not about what Kerry believes. It's about journalistic honesty, and the fact that this spin has given some people, who ought to know better, the vapors.
Hat Tip Drudge - Bill Clinton A Model Patient
(AP) Former President Clinton is proving to be a surprisingly "patient patient" as he recovers from quadruple heart bypass surgery, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday. But his doctors haven't yet cleared him to hit the campaign trail for fellow Democrat John Kerry. How convienient for Hillary
"That is still being worked on as we speak," the former first lady said during a news conference about flu vaccine. She said the former president has received a flu shot. Only Democrats deserve to live. Cheney, also having heart problems, should not have gotten one for the good of all!
Earlier Monday, in an interview with an Albany radio station, the senator said her husband has surprised her with his resolve and patience. Look out for the bimbo hidden under the bed.
"He's really doing well," she told Albany radio station WROW-AM. "He has been a much more patient patient than I would have ever guessed. He has taken seriously all of the advice the doctors have given him." Once you smoke a cigar, you can't use it for other things.
"Every day he feels a little better," she said from the couple's home in Chappaqua, a New York City suburb. As it appears that Hillary will more and more have a clear path to 2008 after a Kerry defeat.
Clinton, 58, underwent surgery Sept. 6 after complaining of chest pain and shortness of breath. The surgery stalled the former president's plans to campaign for Kerry. His wife has said it will be up to Clinton's doctors to decide if he can hit the campaign trail before the Nov. 2 election. The former president has been phoning Kerry and his aides with advice and is expected to make radio ads and get-out-the-vote telephone messages for the campaign. To be sure and undermine the effort. He has a direct line to Teresa advising her to comment on the Bush family.
Posted by: BigEd ||
10/21/2004 11:27:19 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign slammed Vice President Dick Cheney, a heart patient, over reports he had a flu shot, despite a shortage of the vaccine. The campaign complained that Treasury Secretary John Snow and Senate Majority leader Bill Frist also had jabs, despite Bush's advice that the young and healthy did not need to get an injection. "Once again, the Bush administration proves that it is the 'do as we say, not as we do' White House," the campaign said in a statement issued in Pittsburgh where Kerry was campaigning. "The very week that (health) secretary (Tommy) Thompson is telling Americans to keep calm, Dick Cheney, John Snow and Bill Frist are getting flu shots." "It is unfortunate that the Bush administration failed to do the work necessary to ensure that all Americans, including those most at risk, had been able to get shots as well." Cheney would fit into the government's definition of those most vulnerable to a looming influenza epidemic as he has a long history of heart disease. Bush last week suggested in the final presidential debate that the young and healthy forgo the annual shot amid a shortage of vaccine that Kerry has blamed on the president's management of the health system.
Former President Clinton is proving to be a surprisingly "patient patient" as he recovers from quadruple heart bypass surgery, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday. But his doctors haven't yet cleared him to hit the campaign trail for fellow Democrat John Kerry. "That is still being worked on as we speak," the former first lady said during a news conference about flu vaccine. She said the former president has received a flu shot.
Any comments, Johnny?
Posted by: Steve ||
10/21/2004 9:51:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bill Frist is a MD and also fits within the guidelines as a health care provider. All the rest of the Congresscritters, Cabinet members, and other Administration hangers-on oughta personally deliver his or her dose of flu vaccine to Walter Reed Hospital, where most of the OIF amputees are recovering.
#2
Soo... a 63 year old man (who is older than the recommended cut off of 55 for a flu shot), has a heart problem (making him automatically elegible for the flu shot in any state) is not supposed to get one because he is in the Bush administration. Any one want to bet if John KKKerry or his wife has gotten theirs?
If this is the best John can come up with this late in the game, he is screwed...
#4
What is the matter with these people! Give 'em hell. I did. http://www.johnkerry.com/contact/
The e-mail stuff is on the right side. Just don't give them your real e-mail address because these jerks are dangerous.
Posted by: Tom ||
10/21/2004 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Is Kerry going to chastise his running mate and the rest of the freaking lawyers for chasing vaccine production out of the US? And they bitch and moan about outsourcing
#6
As the Dems so often point out, Cheney has a bad heart and is well within the guidelines for a flu shot. He got one for the same reason Clinton got one.
#7
More comments from a very small man. He was small with the Allawi, comments; small with Cheney's daughter comments and small again with a man who has done more for this country than Senator Horseface could probably comprehend. John Kerry absolutley disgusts me as a human being.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
10/21/2004 20:21 Comments ||
Top||
Every member of an ethnic, racial or religious minority in the United States understands the power and value of freedom and democracy. Americans understand that the right to vote ensures the equality of every person; democracy is a powerful force that commands respect for the rights of others and insists on the application of the rule of law.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/21/2004 2:27:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Seems the Bush supporters (Limbaugh scored that high!!??) are all at the higher end, and the biggest bashers are all at the bottom end.
Stern, Garafalo and Franken, in the rear where they belong, all of them about as smart as a bag of hammers.
Fitting.
(abridged list)
* Bill O'Reilly - 1585
* James Woods - 1579
* Ben Stein - 1573
> I come in here 1540 780v 760m
* Rush Limbaugh - 1530
* George W. Bush - 1206
* John Kerry - 1190
* Al Franken - 1020
* Janeane Garofalo - 950
* Howard Stern- 870
A British performance artist has been living like an earthworm for more than week as part of a contemporary art event in England, according to a Local 6 News report. Paul Hurley has been in plastic wrap slithering through muddy holes in Devon, United Kingdom, as part of the event. His series of performances, "Becomings Invertebrate" investigates humanity in the natural world. In one of his earlier performances, Hurley coated himself in KY Jelly and played the role of a slug and has also performed as a snail licking the inside of a greenhouse. Hurley plans to become an insect for his next performance.
Here you have it. It has been my experience that most invertebratae turn into nasty insects at some point, sooner or later.
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia -- A Malaysian woman has broken a world record by enduring 32 days enclosed in a glass box with 6,069 scorpions, suffering seven stings in the process, her sponsor claimed Aug 21. Nur Malena Hassan, 27, will remain in the case, on display in a shopping mall in the eastern city of Kuantan, until Saturday, said Bohari Rahmat, whose biscuit company sponsored the stunt. Nur Malena surpassed the previous record held by Kanchana Ketkeaw from Thailand, who spent 31 days in a glass box with 3,400 scorpions, Bohari said. Bohari said he hadn't talked to Nur Malena since she reclaimed her record, which she first won in 2001 by living for 30 days with 2,700 scorpions. "We don't want her to lose focus, thinking that this is enough," Bohari said. "If we can reach 36 days, it will be more difficult for someone else to beat us next time."
That uplifting story provides some room for optimism as upcoming presidential election is concerned. Vertebrate will win over slugs and roaches.
#8
OS Higher verbal? Also, I am sceptical of unrecentered scores above 1500 that end with a units digit other than 0. I never saw that when I was a kid.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I don't know guys, I thought these things were sealed, not for public view. I'd be suspicious. I don't doubt Stein, O'Reilly, or even James Woods as having high SATs. I'd think Clinton was higher then what it shows, I had heard (though unconfirmed) that he had a genius level I.Q. (I know your laughing, but that's what I heard.) Yes, he maybe morally bankrupt but I thought he at least beat me on an SAT. I'd buy Stern getting 870, the guy has what I call great "emotional intelligence" but is obviously no intellectual.
#10
I think I dated her (or more likely, her mom).
Posted by: John Simmins ||
10/21/2004 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
#11
A British performance artist has been living like an earthworm for more than week as part of a contemporary art event in England,..
A remarkable likeness in stone, plaster or clay is art. A caricature, portrait or sketch on paper or in paint on canvas, is art. If it falls outside these definitions, it's probably garbage.
#12
From the looks of this guy, I have a feeling he had no problem finding an abundance of that KY Jelly, which appears so vital to his "performance"...
#13
I thought earthworms were hermaphroditic and digested soil...I mean if you're REALLY dedicated to your art, why do it halfways? Go for it, Paul, or have your "art" seen as a fraud!
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/21/2004 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#14
No wonder it's so hard to Win Ben Stein's Money.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
10/21/2004 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Jarhead: I suspect Clinton has genius-level bullshitting abilities, able to sucker the media into believing anything (including baloney about his high IQ).
#16
someone: no doubt he's a world class word parser, but I think the guy did go to Oxford. Was he a Rhodes (sp?) Scholar as well? I'm not sure but have heard such. The guy would've been a helluva used car salesman in Little Rock.
#18
Mr. Clinton was indeed a Rhodes Scholar (named after Cecil Rhodes of Zimbabwe fame), and apparently quite popular with his classmates, as well (not to mention avoiding the draft in a way which poor Kerry was unable to achieve).
#19
tw - The Rhodes people (both the org and others who were in the program) make a distinction: You are not a Rhodes Scholar if you do not complete the program successfully. Clinton did not, he withdrew prematurely, heh.
The new prime minister of military-ruled Myanmar was directly behind an attack on opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her convoy last year, the United States charged on Wednesday amid calls for UN Security Council action against the Southeast Asian nation.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Washington had a credible report that Lieutenant General Soe Win, an ally of hardline junta chief Than Shwe, was "directly involved in the decision to carry out the brutal attack on Aung San Suu Kyi and her convoy on May 30, 2003." "We did look into the matter extensively," Boucher said when asked for the basis of the charge. "I'm not sure exactly where that report came from but I think we find it to be a report that is worth taking into account."
Last year's attack by a pro-junta mob on Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders and members of her National League for Democracy party heralded the Nobel peace laureate's latest period of house arrest. At least six democracy campaigners were killed in the assault and eyewitnesses said the toll may have risen up to 70 as government-affiliated forces set upon the convoy with bamboo staves and metal pipes.
In a report on the incident released earlier this year, the State Department said generals involved in the attack had been subsequently rewarded and alleged that scores of villagers, students, and Buddhist monks may have been killed.
So much for any move towards democracy.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/21/2004 12:14:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Robert Anson Heinlien is a writer who like Kipling has long been out of favor even if his audience was somewhat limited. But Heinlein was not the raving militarist or racist some think he was. He admited to being racist, in favor of the human race. Its just that his definition of Human ranged more on the productive versus parasitic members of the species
#2
Much of my world view as a youth evolved from what RAH had to say in such books as Starship Troopers or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It filled me with a sense of awe and wonder that he could place such compelling stories in a future so raw with change and dire, from our viewpoint, in political strife (think of the UN actually having the power to nuke us from orbit . . .).
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
10/21/2004 23:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Those were all from Time Enough for Love, weren't they?
Such a great book, but reading it is enough like getting pulled through a meat grinder that I can't do it very often.
#4
Read Pravada means truth.(Non fiction) That is the kind of state Kerry wants for you.
Read as much Heinlien as you can.(fiction)
It woke me up years ago and changed my political
outlook entirely.
#5
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a masterpiece. Is there any other novel that illustrates and promotes the themes of the American Revolution so well?
#6
TANSTAAFL remains at the core of my political principles. (And Tunnel in the Sky was just fun, particularly the bit about bringing a deck of cards with you as survival gear...)
Many refineries are not set up to process abundant heavy crude oil because it is more difficult, expensive to refine into products.
OPEC producers insist there is no shortage of oil despite record prices and although plenty of heavy crude is available, refineries are thirsty for light sweet crude which is in shorter supply, analysts say.
"To answer the question, is there a shortage of oil at the moment? We have to ask, a shortage of what oil?" said Bruce Evers, an oil industry analyst at Investec Securities.
Many heavyweight producers such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait and Iran produce large quantities of heavy, sour crude with a high sulphur content.
Others such as Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates, Angola and Libya pump a higher quality, light sweet crude, with a lower sulphur content.
"We still have a deficit of refinery capacity that's capable of processing heavy sour crude and we still have an absolute shortage in light sweet crude which is easy to refine," said Societe Generale analyst Deborah White.
NOTE: Light, sweet, low-sulphur crude is most suitable for refining into petrol, gasoil and heating oil.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/21/2004 6:02:04 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Funny, but I remember hearing years ago that S.A. produced light, sweet crude. Somebody's lying.
MILWAUKEE — The Wisconsin Department of Commerce and the Wisconsin Petroleum Council say they are investigating reports that gasoline may have caused problems with vehicles' fuel injectors.
Commerce Department spokesman Tony Hozeny said Wednesday gasoline may have caused clogged or failed fuel injectors in the last few weeks.
"We need to track down this product that's causing the problem," said Berni Mattsson, administrator of the DOC's Division of Environmental and Regulatory Services.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/21/2004 4:42:30 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Jeebus, Mark! Enuf with the oil fixation! I read the biz section too. This is the WOT, Christ!
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/21/2004 19:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Frank G, haven't you heard? It's all about oil!
[That's "War On Terror, Mark, not "World Oil Thread".]
Posted by: Tom ||
10/21/2004 19:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Whip it into something like Nuggets from the Urdo press? I like it... it's just too many seperate posts.
Major US airlines dived deep into losses in the third quarter, stalling under the pressure of record fuel prices and near-lethal competition with budget carriers. Four of the traditional carriers - American Airlines, Northwest, Delta and Contentintal - bled red ink, even after unprecedented cost-cutting to skirt bankruptcy in an industry-wide crisis. The two others - United Airlines and US Airways - remain in bankruptcy with their chances of escape in doubt.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/21/2004 2:33:41 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The money quote, "...a weak revenue environment which meant that despite our best efforts - and unlike other fuel-intensive businesses - we have been largely unable to pass the higher fuel costs on to our customers."
Translation, "Our fat union paychecks and benefits and massive fixed cost structures are killing us."
I say let 'em die and bring on a dozen more money making "discount" carriers like Midwest Airlines.
#3
I singled out Midwest because they fly planes with only first class seats (2 on either side of the aisle where a normal airline would have 3 on each side) and they do it at a cost of about 75% of what a non-refundable advance purchase coach seat runs on a major carrier. So with 2/3 the seats @ 75% of the cost they're running a revenue stream that's at best 50% lower per plane than major carriers and they seem to be doing fine. Clearly the dinosaurs should be allowed to face extinction.
#6
Another factor in airline ticket prices are the outrageous landing fees exacted by most large airports. So much hack hiring, corruption, featherbedding, unneeded construction (billion dollar projects are always in the works) is done at large airports and they make sure it comes out of the hide of the airlines. Meaning the customer.
#7
Yep, inefficient airline companies have been propped up for too long. Let the dinosaurs fail, and a thousand innovative and customer-friendly ones will bloom. Privatize all airports. The deregulation of the 80s was incomplete.
#9
Ship-
Do you have any reference for that negative number statistic? I'd very much like to show it to someone.
Frankly, IMHO, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason an airline should ever have been losing money, though I could understand problems associated with the fuel price increases. The problem is that in the 80s when they were de-reg'd, their boards and CEOs treated them as a license to print money rather than businesses - and then a lot of them diversified out into other areas that had nothing to do with flying people around. Now they're paying for it.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
10/21/2004 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Mike, check this. Search for the word inception as the sentence you want is near the botom in a paragraph begining , In 1989.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 8:45 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Didn't notice Southwest in there?
Posted by: Don ||
10/21/2004 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Southwest is about the only major airline that seems to realize they're a business, not a government agency. I'm pretty damn sick of watching our tax dollars go to bail out the other airlines and subsidize their bloated, inefficient ways. There will always be a need for airlines, and where there's a need private enterprise will follow.
Case in point: Pittsburgh, which was a USAir hub until recently. We've been downgraded to a "focus city", if I have the term right. Since then we've had AirTran, Independence Air, America West, and ATA come in to fill the vaccuum left by USAir's cut flights.
I know USAir's problems affect a lot of people in SW PA, and I hate to see that, but subsidizing their incompetence has gone on too long. Propping them up on so many occasions has only encouraged them to continue their inefficient business practices, delaying and intensifying the resulting fall.
Posted by: Dar ||
10/21/2004 12:04 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Southwest was the first to get it. Since then, several have joined, Midwest having been mentioned, and the airline that is really hurting the large carriers, JetBlue. I haven't been on a JetBlue flight that was under 85% full. Yet I never hear of anyone having been bumped or of desperation stand-bys. There are European versions also, RyanAir for example. They are eating the government owned airlines lunch. Air travel is going Greyhound but the majors still think they're St. Bernards.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Yeah but I wonder who's doing the aircraft maintenance for all these low-fare airlines.
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/21/2004 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#16
If the oldies can't compete domestically, wouldn't their best bet for survival be to develop an alliance with a good domestic carrier and concentrate on their international capability? I'd figure United would be a good candidate for this sort of approach; they've got the resources for it.
#17
A good question, Rafael, but I think (no links at hand) that SW has one of the highest rated service records in the biz. It can be done right, without bilking or cutting maint corners, and it seems SW and others have worked it out. Where it goes wrong: Crandall and his ilk (read: true corp assholes) issue demands that can't be met (i.e "Cut 10% off your Opns, but without reducing flights!"), 2nd-level and middle-tier execs, knowing their bonuses are at stake, approve cuts wherever they can find them - and that is always in personnel and operations. I had an uncle who was Director of Stores for a major US carrier (died in 1986) - which means he was responsible for everything related to keeping the planes flying - and he got raked over the coals regularly for trying to protect his Opns system from insanity. He told me very personal Crandall stories (and others, as well) that would make your hair curl. Only former pilots or mechanics (preferable) should ever be allowed to run a commercial carrier, IMO. They "get it" and know this is not just another biz.
#18
In the case of SW I'm less worried about their maintenance practices due to their large fleet. An operation of that size means they have the experience. I know most people don't even think about this sort of thing but it is a consideration for me when choosing an airline (that and security). That's why I tend to pick the biggies. Customer service issues play a very very very small part.
One of the smartest things that SW did was to standardize on one aircraft type and get rid of the hub system. Perhaps the full-fare carriers should follow suit.
...develop an alliance with a good domestic carrier and concentrate on their international capability?
I believe that was tried with Pan Am. Though I don't think they had a domestic partner providing feeder services. For some reason, North American airlines tend to do relatively poorly on international routes. Maybe this is because there is no single flag carrier as there is in other parts of the world.
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/21/2004 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I love JetBlue...but their fleet is all EU-subsidized Airbuses. Dunno if that's a factor in their economics.
#21
Rafael--One reason I'd trust SW's maintenance is because they fly only ONE type of airplane: the Boeing 737. They don't need to send airplanes to some particular hub for specialized maintenance based on make and model. They don't need to cross train mechanics to handle multiple types of plane. There's only one plane type to know (although it has variants within the class), and every SW maintenance person eats, sleeps, and breathes only 737's.
Posted by: Dar ||
10/21/2004 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#22
The single aircraft absolutely is a factor in the operation of low cost airlines. It is also part of the reason their maintenance costs are lower. I have less concern about the maintenance of these aircraft than of the aged, mongrolized fleets of the big carriers whose employees sabotage their planes as we saw in the story about Delta yesterday. Also, the regulator of the aircraft maintenance companies came down hard on them after the accident with the oxygen bottles on the airline that is now using a new name. Airline travel is the safest way to travel, by far.
Perhaps the reason North American airlines do poorly on international routes is that there is not a lot of money to be made, other countries subsidize their captive carrier, and other countries discriminate against the US carriers because they cannot fly domestic US routes.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#23
[Minor correction]The possible sabotage story yesterday was USAir.
Posted by: Dar ||
10/21/2004 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#24
AirTran is heading toward the single model aircraft (may already be there) with Boeing's new 717 (I think it's called). And here in Atlanta, they often force Delta to cave in to their prices. Didn't like AirTran at first (not many destinations out of Atlanta), but seeing as how they now have basically an entire fleet of brand new planes (and with that came more fuel efficiency, lower maintenance costs as described above) and have started to fly to even west coast cities...I don't see how Delta (Atlanta is their hub) can survive against them and the other "discount" carriers. Maybe the lack of competition for years proved fatal (Eastern used to be Delta's main competitor in ATL until they went belly up in the 80s...then Delta basically owned Atlanta's airport until recently).
Posted by: BA ||
10/21/2004 15:33 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Thanks Dar.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/21/2004 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Hey Rafael, I can't speak for down here, but I hear Celine Dion is helping out up there.
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.
He wanted a bit of company, so he bought a pair of bunnies. He ended up with more company than he could handle. Given the run of the house, the little furballs did what rabbits are known for. In less than a year, the man, whose name the Louisiana SPCA withheld on grounds that he was embarrassed enough already, had 73 rabbits. They chewed the furniture. They burrowed into chairs, couches and mattresses. They processed food faster than their owner could clean up after them. Finally, said SPCA Executive Director Laura Maloney, he passed out. Then he moved out and called his doctor for help.
And they did it the way NOBODY has done it before - and pinned the Choke monkey on the NY Yankees backs!
Bill Kristol:
Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign slammed Vice President Dick Cheney, a heart patient, over reports he had a flu shot, despite a shortage of the vaccine. The campaign complained that Treasury Secretary John Snow and Senate Majority leader Bill Frist also had jabs, despite Bush's advice that the young and healthy did not need to get an injection. "Once again, the Bush administration proves that it is the 'do as we say, not as we do' White House," the campaign said in a statement issued in Pittsburgh where Kerry was campaigning. "The very week that (health) secretary (Tommy) Thompson is telling Americans to keep calm, Dick Cheney, John Snow and Bill Frist are getting flu shots." "It is unfortunate that the Bush administration failed to do the work necessary to ensure that all Americans, including those most at risk, had been able to get shots as well." Cheney would fit into the government's definition of those most vulnerable to a looming influenza epidemic as he has a long history of heart disease. Bush last week suggested in the final presidential debate that the young and healthy forgo the annual shot amid a shortage of vaccine that Kerry has blamed on the president's management of the health system.
The new prime minister of military-ruled Myanmar was directly behind an attack on opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her convoy last year, the United States charged on Wednesday amid calls for UN Security Council action against the Southeast Asian nation.
