Two Italian tourists kidnapped on August 22 by bandits in Niger were released by their captors on Saturday in Libya, the Italian foreign ministry said. The ministry thanked Libyan authorities, saying that help from a Libyan foundation was vital in resolving the case. The two men were abducted while traveling with a tour group in Niger's vast desert near the border with Chad.
Claudio Chiodi and Ivano De Capitani were held by a group which calls itself Far Sahara, the Foreign Ministry said. "We're in Tripoli, we got in during the night. We are well, we are in good physical condition," Chiodi told RAI state TV in a telephone call. "We think we'll be back in Italy tonight. We thank everyone."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/15/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
hat tip to LGF who linked it
Female students at a new Islamic school will be made to wear head scarves regardless of their religion, it was revealed yesterday. The Madani High School in Leicester will be required by law to accept 10 per cent of its 600 pupils from a non-Muslim background.
But girls who are not Muslim will still have to abide by a rule insisting all female pupils cover their heads as part of the uniform. Imagine the furore if they attended a Christian school and were required to wear crucifixes? I am all for freedom of choice: ie - if you don't want your kids to wear a headscarf, then don't send them there. But this isn't how the argument goes when it is say Muslim kids in public schools. Then it's "you're violating my right to wear a headscarf" if they are asked not to as it is not part of the uniform.
Assistant principal Zainab Elgaziari said he did not regard the demand as a problem - despite the ongoing row over Muslim women's veils. He said: 'I can't see why if a student wears a head scarf it should be an issue. It's the same as a shirt or tie - it's just part of our uniform.
'We will welcome students of other faiths. Indeed, there will be a quota set down by the Government, and we will abide by these rules.
'When you go to any school you know what the uniform will be. Like any school, we will have one - and in our case it will include a head scarf.'
The secondary school, a voluntary-aided state academy, will replace the city's existing Islamic Academy when it opens next September.
Yesterday Leicester City Council said it did not believe the scarves would deter non-Muslim parents from sending children to the school. Education spokesman Hussein Suleman, who is also a member of the school's temporary governing body, said: 'We have to find a balance.
'Governors have to take into account the fact that 10 per cent can be of a non-Muslim background and use discretion where appropriate. Wonder if you'd experience tolerance if you were a Jew or atheist kid at that school?
'At the same time, parents have a right to send or not send their children to this school. I hope discretion will be used if there are any disagreements.' This is a good argument now to spout back next time there is a row where muslims demand the scarf despite the uniform of an established school NOT including a headscarf.
The school, which is not expected to make boys cover their heads, was also backed by Suleman Nagdi, of the Federation of Muslim Organisations.
#2
My son attended a Catholic high school. Non-Catholics were in the minority, but it was a surprisingly large minority. They paid higher tuition because they didn't have a parish chipping in. They had Study Hall instead of Theology. But they did have to wear the uniforms and the uniforms did include the school emblem complete with Catholic symbols. As far as I know, nobody complained. It's a private institution -- if you don't like it you can go elsewhere.
#3
Excuse me for being dense, but why exactly would any non-moslem want to go to a moslem school?
You can read all about the koranimal and bomb-making online at the local library.
Go to a regular school for normal studies.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/15/2006 11:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm with Darrell, if this isn't a public funded school - I don't really think this is a big deal, though I agree with Barbara - why would anyone want to do that? I do think it would be interesting if the local synagogue took them up on the offer. Kinda like Selma. But since the kiddies wouldn't get the national guard, probably not a good idea on an individual basis.
But most of all, I agree with the comment that this is a great one to keep in the back pocket for the next time they demand the right to wear headscarves when it is not part of the uniform. Not that it will stop them from whining, but it will make the lawsuit more interesting.
#5
crazy fool - that's a good question. Seems to me to be a good reason to have one uniform for all with no exceptions for religion. Don't like it, send your kids somewhere else.
#6
If the headscarf is ok, then so should be shirts saying "women are subhumans who have fewer rights under law" or shirts saying "women who don't wear veils are sluts who deserve to be raped". The symbolism of the headscarf says the same things.
#8
lets not push this too far. We don't get excited when the Amish women wear their headcaps. For centuries, catholic churches required women to cover their hair inside the church.
#11
The Madani High School in Leicester will be required by law to accept 10 per cent of its 600 pupils from a non-Muslim background.
Didn't anybody notice this? If the school is privately funded, then they should be immune to any government regulations about uniforms. Due to the "10 per cent" enrollment clause, it appears as though they may well be receiving government funding.
And guess what?
The £17m school project will have places for 600 pupils and has received £15m of funding from the government. The school, which will be named the Madani High School, will be the home of the Leicester Islamic Academy and is due to be finished by August 2007. It is hoped the school will address the 1,300 shortfall in places forecasted for Leicester and meet the growing needs of the city's Muslim population.
So, constitutional liberties are suspended even though millions in taxpayer money is being used. I'm beginning to think that a total ban on the hajib will become necessary. These Islamic fuckwits just can't bring themselves to imagine a world where the sun doesn't shine out of Allah's Asshole.
But girls who are not Muslim will still have to abide by a rule insisting all female pupils cover their heads as part of the uniform.
Imagine the furore if they attended a Christian school and were required to wear crucifixes? I am all for freedom of choice: ie - if you don't want your kids to wear a headscarf, then don't send them there. But this isn't how the argument goes when it is say Muslim kids in public schools. Then it's "you're violating my right to wear a headscarf" if they are asked not to as it is not part of the uniform.
Assistant principal Zainab Elgaziari said he did not regard the demand as a problem -
#12
Oops. Please disregard the trailing text in my last post. I had also intended to note how:
Assistant principal Zainab Elgaziari said he did not regard the demand as a problem
Of course it's not a "problem" if sharia is being imposed upon the kuffar. But just try and require the ummah to follow a single edict of common law and watch the feathers fatwahs fly!
#13
it's a good point, Zenster. I'd say that it is more like non-jewish students attending a govn't funded Jewish school being forced to wear a yarmulkes.
With no disrespect intended, anon, just where in hell besides Israel is there a "govn't funded Jewish school"?
Well, tie me to a hog and throw me in the mud!
While it was right that state funding for schools was being extended beyond the Anglican, Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths, he warned of arguments ahead over whether religious groups such as the Moonies or Scientologists should be subsidised by the state.
"The intellectual argument in favour of extending the provision of voluntary-aided schools to other faiths is unanswerable," Mr Smith said. "The issue on which we will really have to concentrate is will the Green Paper proposals open the way for financially powerful cults such as the Scientologists or the Moonies to apply for public funding? "Who is to decide between a mainstream non-Christian faith which is entitled to be considered and a heavily-bankrolled fringe religion?"
'Insulting'
But a senior government source dismissed Mr Smith's comments as offensive to the millions of parents who sent - or wanted to send - their children to church and other faith schools. "The supposed threat he's talking about doesn't exist - there is no more chance of a Scientology or Moonie school being established now or in the future than there was in 1944," the source said.
At present, along with Anglican, Roman Catholic and Jewish schools, there are state-funded Islamic, Sikh and Greek Orthodox schools.
Crikey! I'm so glad to live in a country where there is separation of church and state. I can only hope that the above serves to demonstrate exactly why I am so dissatisfied with how Bush has intentionally eroded our separation of church and state here in America.
It is hoped the school will address the 1,300 shortfall in places forecasted for Leicester and meet the growing needs of the city's Muslim population.
More than likely, that "1,300 sortfall in places" is not entirely Muslim. Therefore, the 10 per cent issue. The children of Leicester may not have a choice about what school they attend, just as they will not have a choice about what religious attire they are forced to wear. This sucketh mightily a great wind.
#17
#8 anon-And for the same reasons then that Muslims want to do it now. In recent history, the Amish also painted the doors of their homes when teenage girls begin to menstruate. Some folks need to drag themselves into the 21st century; let's try not to go backwards.
#18
Jules, I agree with the point you are making. It's clear the hijab represents more than a headscarf in the same way that yarmulkes represent more than a cap. And worse, it is becoming a sign of "us v/s them" that results in justification of violent actions as has happened in France, Australia and England. It's become a bit like gang colors.
When I see it, it strikes me as a sign of oppression against women - but still, for them it is an expression of their faith and I don't harbor ill feelings toward Muslim women who are simply following traditional dress codes in much the same way that I don't walk around topless.
Should a govn't funded school be allowed to force non-Muslims to wear a symbol of their faith? No. It's not just a headscarf any more than a yarmulkes is a beaded cap or a cross is a geometric piece of jewelery.
#19
More than likely, that "1,300 sortfall in places" is not entirely Muslim. Therefore, the 10 per cent issue. The children of Leicester may not have a choice about what school they attend, just as they will not have a choice about what religious attire they are forced to wear. This sucketh mightily a great wind.
Yes that's the point right there.
At least 60 kids are going to just "get stuck" with this odious institution.
#23
hello? Property taxes generally pay school fees
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/15/2006 18:14 Comments ||
Top||
#24
For centuries, catholic churches required women to cover their hair inside the church.
And the analogy is...? The Church regulrted the clothing of people in the church, just as now it would not admit people in bikini and as I would not tolerate someone in my house crossing certain limits on clothhing. Women who didn't like to cover their hair could choose not to go to the church. Islam regulates women clothing in the STREET and lets you no choice unless that you never leave your house. In Iran they even regulate what women must wear in tehir own house.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/15/2006 18:28 Comments ||
Top||
#26
I'm Catholic and I don't know a single parish that requires veils. Name one. Otherwise, admit that some religions have moved ahead, but Islam hasn't. When's the last time a Ctholic threw acid in a women's face? Stoned a woman to death. Barbarian human trash
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/15/2006 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#27
I don't understand the big deal about the fact that the Muslim religion requires a hijab. Our religion requires us to wear a top. BFD.
Every single thing they do isn't frick'n Satanic. I addressed the fact that I understand it's not as simple as just a cultural norm in previous posts. I said I don't think that gov't funded schools should allow non-Muslims to be forced to wear what is essentially a statement of faith. But that their culture requires them to cover their hair is not the problem. It's what their culture does if they choose not to.
#29
Exactly. The Catholic Church has made giant strides. Like many other churches it still has some way to go when it comes to equal treatment of genders regarding "unsanctioned" sex. But the members of the Catholic Church, unlike members of Islam, have admitted wrongs done in the past in the name of their religion-the Inquisition and associated witchhunts, pedophilia by priests, etc., and the Catholic Church has moved beyond insisting women cover their hair to make their presence in public tolerated. Not so Islam-it doesn't admit to its witchhunts, pedophilia or shaming of women.
#30
I'm guess I'm making an obscure point. Will it mean that we are more liberated when we are allowed to go to work naked? That they wear a hijab just isn't the big deal in my mind. It's the fact that they don't allow Muslim women, in western countries, to opt out of doing it if they choose.
#31
Anon-that is a strawman argument. I don't believe anyone here is arguing for complete nudity (although, given rantburgers, I could be wrong about that). :)
"...that their culture requires them to cover their hair is not the problem."
Acutally, I would argue that is precisely the problem. Just because x is an aspect of someone's culture doesn't make it untouchable. All ideas can be questioned, even cultural ones. That particular cultural expression embodies more than the notion of religious piety.
#32
that's a strawman for sure. Who's allowed societally to go naked? Come up with something a LOT better or refrain, thx
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/15/2006 19:48 Comments ||
Top||
#33
I think most Rantburgers concur with you on one big problem with it being that Muslim women have no real choice; even if folks in their umma don't demand a veil per se, not wearing one would carry consequences, perhaps even lethal ones.
Have you ever heard of convicted felon, self-proclaimed Messiah and cult leader, Sun Myung Moon?
"I gave all the individuals in the world cause to kneel down in front of me."
(Rev. Moon, Today's World, March 1995 p.6)
"I served the famous professors and scholars, and eventually they learned that the Reverend Moon is superior to them.... Even Nobel laureate academics who thought they were at the center of knowledge are as nothing in front of me."
(Rev. Moon, Today's World, April 1995 p.6)
"The whole world is in my hand, and I will conquer and subjugate the world."
(Sun Myung Moon, Master Speaks, 5/17/73)
Do you know that affiliates of Sun Myung Moon's Christian Unification Church have received hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars?
Free Teens USA, an after-school program in New Jersey promoting abstinence until marriage, has been given $475,000 by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, another part of the Department of Health and Human Services. Free Teens is led by Richard Panzer, another alumnus of Unification Theological Seminary. Panzer was also a leader in the American Constitution Committee, one of many political organizations affiliated with Moon.
[snip]
Another longtime political operative in Moon front groups, David Caprara, now directs the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for the federal government's Corporation for National and Community Service. That agency runs, among other things, AmeriCorps Vista, which works with community organizations in low-income neighborhoods, and has emerged as a key player in Bush's faith-based initiative, handing out $61 million to faith-based organizations in fiscal year 2003.
Do you not have a problem with the possibility of your tax dollars going to registered charities like The Nation of Islam or the Krishnas or Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network?
Do you not have a problem with recipient religious organizations, despite receiving taxpayer dollars, being allowed to violate Federal hiring guidlines that prohibit basing employment decisions on a person's religion?
#35
I get the distinct feeling you aren't reading what I'm writing - but perhaps we just don't agree.
I'll make one last go at this. Does it upset you to see a nun in full garb? Probably not. Why? Because it is a choice on her part to do so.
I see no problem in their decision to wear a hijab. It bothers me no more than when I see an Indian women wrapped in those beautiful dresses that cover them to their ankles.
What does bother me is that if an adult Muslim women wants to opt out of wearing the veil, then Mulsim culture will encourage or excuse all sorts of criminal actions to be taken against that women for choosing to do so.
Additionally, I find it VERY disturbing that Non-Mulsim women, who are in contact with Muslim communities are finding themselves forced to wear a hijab out of fear of being raped or otherwise harrassed. In no way should government funded schools support these "gang colors" that create an atmosphere of "them v/s us".
Focusing on women who choose to wear a hijab, or the hijab itself, is sidestepping the real problem.
#37
One last bone to pick: A nun is not the equivalent to a Muslim woman in hijab; the equivalent, at least in principle, would be every Catholic woman.
#39
One point that is maybe not widely known, is that a non-muslim pupil may well want to attend a muslim school as it will be VERY WELL FUNDED.
Not just because it gets a pittance from the government but because it will have the very latest computers - and lots of them, gym equipment, the latest and best of everything. And Islamoschools get this stuff from their network of Islamic charities funded from oil-rich arabs in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
They are very keen on funding the Islamoschools as it perpetuates and spreads the culture, and even better if there's a cherry of maybe converting some kaffirs along the way.
No sharing computers here. They will have powerpoint presentations and smaller class sizes and all the best stuff money can buy.
#40
Zen, you sounded like Bush's gummint is trying to instal theocracy.
I don't have a problem with similar initiatives per se.
1) I question the timing. It has to be somewhat equal, so there is a chance that funds would be channeled to nefarious outlets that are connected to Islamonazis.
2) The main issue is transparency. Of course, if someone violates federal guidelins, the support should be yanked out, the program should be based on merit only.
3) Further, the taxpayer should have a say how the money would be allocated, or even have an option to opt out of certain programs. Meaning, you, for instance, should have a selection of choices of distribution of your tax money 100% to military budget if that is what you want. Creating budgets based on taxpayer supplied choices may be actually not as big paperwork nightmare as it seems on the first look and may help government making more informed budget decisions instead of the current ad hoc wrangling of intrest groups.
#41
Lol. Some days you just let it flow by, the great sewer of half-baked cranial excrement, and hold you nose, as well as your peace. Other days, well, you feel the need to engage, parry and thrust, do some yadda stuff, seek enlightenment and rapport. Once in awhile you just say fuck it.
Zen has a woodie - religiosity: it's his favorite dumbfuck rant. 90%+ of the money given to religious orgs is just possibly because they run more efficient homeless shelters, battered women shelters, traditional orphan care, general and disaster aid centers, etc. and this has been going on since Day One in the US. And, under Presidents like Bush, less money flows to the asshole outfits, the SP orgs who have more in common with ANSWER and the ACLU than with Americans.
I am an atheist, but I don't shoot all the dawgs cuz some of them have fleas. I learned, the hard way, that The Salvation Army is a worthy charity and The Red X isn't. Now I know.
Nonetheless, despite those inconvenient bits of reality we have admit the brilliance and bow to the Grate Zen:
The constitution is ripped, shredded, torn asunder!
And, although I am not and atheist (agnostic, there is a diff... though some may call it fence-sitting), any church and me are mutually incompatible. ;-)
#43
Zen, I understand your concern, I really do. But you would be a lot more persuasive IMO if, like anon, you were able to see the good in various religions. Or, to put it a different way, to see what those inside them might find valuable.
I don't have a problem holding my own in our coarse, elbows-out society. But I do understand -- deeply understand -- how that culture *feels* to many women from more traditional cultures. And I understand why they would want to separate themselves from it.
There's a REASON that conversions to Islam are occuring among hispanics, for instance. I believe the women converts who've been interviewed and who say that, while they have less freedom, they are relieved to have (as they see it) more respect and a shield from a popular culture filled with violence, degrading sexuality and little real payoff for them.
Same thing is true of some Christian fundamentalists, who may have 6, 7, 8 or more kids they homeschool and whose husbands may not only work but do much of the shopping etc. I don't want their lifestyle and I would fight its imposition on me -- quite fiercely. But I understand what they value in it.
My own view is pretty close to anons (FWIW). Want to wear a hijab over your hair? Go right ahead!
I have a lot more problem with the veil. That's so foreign to western civilization that I do think those who want to wear it should do so in Islamic countries rather than insist we condone it here. But the real issue is what happens in the Muslim communities to a girl or woman who does NOT want to wear them. IMO we should come down fast, hard and publicly on any intimidation or violence in such cases.
#45
Non-muslim students forced to wear headscarfs in one particular school in UK
Yesterday Leicester City Council said it did not believe the scarves would deter non-Muslim parents from sending children to the school.
Turning this around, why would non-Muslim parents want to send their children TO a Muslim school? Do all of the other NON-Muslim schools in Leicester suck or something?
The Madani High School in Leicester will be required by law to accept 10 per cent of its 600 pupils from a non-Muslim background.
It isn't like Her Majesty's Government is going to round up girls at random to make up this quota.
Sure thing, especially when it interferes with good government. Do you think an athiest or agnostic president might have minced as many words about the Religion of Peace [spit], the Cartoonifada or took so long to finally identify Islamofascism?
But you would be a lot more persuasive IMO if, like anon, you were able to see the good in various religions.
Must I suppose that you've forgotten my rather consistent support and deep personal concern for Pope Benedict in his timely opposition to Islamism? Has my unwavering backing for freedom of religion flown entirely under your radar? Why would I vigorously support freedom of religion if I didn't believe it served some good or noble purpose?
Further, the taxpayer should have a say how the money would be allocated, or even have an option to opt out of certain programs. Meaning, you, for instance, should have a selection of choices of distribution of your tax money 100% to military budget if that is what you want. Creating budgets based on taxpayer supplied choices may be actually not as big paperwork nightmare as it seems on the first look and may help government making more informed budget decisions instead of the current ad hoc wrangling of intrest groups.
And that is precisely the problem, twobyfour. We don't have any regular vote as to how this money gets spent. Look who's directing this office, David Caprara, a former operative for convicted criminal, Sun Myung Moon. Doesn't that raise any concern on your own part? A check-off box on each taxpayer's 1040 would make a lot more sense. We don't have that and I don't like it.
#47
Turning this around, why would non-Muslim parents want to send their children TO a Muslim school?
The school on question has gotten massive government funding and is required by law to have 10% non-muslim students ( and there are students waiting for a desk in the area)
The Non-Muslim girls who are unlucky enough to draw the short straw will have to wear the headgear whether they like it or not.
This is the objection,
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
10/15/2006 22:49 Comments ||
Top||
#48
Unfortunately, in Europe, faith-based schools do receive gov't funding. I believe that it has been documented in these very pages that there are gov't-funded Roman Catholic schools in the UK, which are now majority Muslim wherein the parents are agitating to turn said institutions into Muslim schools. In Holland there are Muslim "schools" that are little more than Paki-style madrassahs. The Europeans, despite their intense anti-clericalism, have never quite gigured out the whole seperation of church and state thing. Ironic, isn't it?
#49
Very ironic and the precise reason why I rail against any erosion in the separation of church and state. I believe firmly that this is one of the things that has made America the great nation and military superpower it is today. I also believe that any tampering with the separation of church and state leads to one of the slipperiest slopes imaginable. The theocracy which awaits at that slope's bottom is such a hideous prospect whereby I would sooner avoid any such tampering at all. The situation in Europe that you mention, 11A5S, should be regarded as a prime example of what I'm trying to illustrate.
#50
Nice drive-by posts there, .com and lotp. It really bolsters your arguments to dash in, briefly poke at things and then run off with out involving yourselves in any significant exchange of ideas.
Police broke up a smuggling ring that shipped drugs and illegal immigrants from Morocco to the Canary Islands, officials said Saturday.
The ring allegedly used boats to smuggle the drugs, and used the same vessels to transport Moroccans into Spain.
Authorities arrested 15 people from Spain, South America and eastern Europe, and seized 1.5 metric tons (1.75 U.S. tons) of hashish in the operation, the National Police said in a statement.
The ring allegedly used boats to smuggle the drugs, and used the same vessels to transport Moroccans into Spain, charging them 1,000 (US$1,250) for the trips. Those without money were allowed to work off the debt by loading and unloading drugs for the gang, the statement said. It did not provide further details of the operation.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/15/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Break the boats. In open water. Sharks will handle the rest. No need of prosecution or trials.
A bronze statue commemorating the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in Turkey has been stolen from the Paris suburb of Chaville. Police say the monument may have been taken to be sold as scrap metal. But some are connecting the theft to last Thursday's vote by the French parliament making it a crime to deny that Armenians suffered "genocide".
Posted by: Fred ||
10/15/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called John McCain yesterday to personally apologize and denounce comments an adviser of hers reportedly made slamming the GOP senator over his time in captivity in Vietnam.
The move from one potential 2008 presidential candidate to another was sparked by a column in The New York Times, in which Maureen Dowd quoted an anonymous adviser talking about McCain's criticism of the Clintons over their North Korea position. The adviser said Team Clinton thought McCain was doing the White House's dirty work by criticizing the Clintons and ended up "looking similar to the way he did on those captive tapes from Hanoi, where he recited the names of his crewmates."
That was a reference to an unsubstantiated rumor used to tar McCain, a Vietnam war hero, as off-kilter during the 2000 GOP presidential primary.
Aides to both senators said Clinton reached out to McCain to denounce the comments. Clinton is said to have a good relationship with McCain, and her circle clearly wasn't pleased with the remarks. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said, "These comments are reprehensible and they in no way reflect Senator Clinton's feelings."
McCain spokesman John Weaver replied, "Senator Clinton is correct, the remark was reprehensible."
Last week, McCain took what many saw as the first shot of the 2008 race, blasting Clinton for placing blame for North Korea's recent nuclear test on President Bush - and pointed to husband Bill's policies as a "failure."
Clinton has avoided directly criticizing McCain over those comments, instead taking aim at Bush and Republicans at large. Clinton, facing token opposition in her Senate re-election bid, has said she's focused only on the 2006 mid-term elections, and has stayed mum about her future. Both senators lead several public polls for their party's nominations for the White House including a University of New Hampshire poll released last week showing voters in the country's first-in-the-nation primary state put McCain and Clinton at the top of the pack.
The comments about McCain's prisoner-of-war days put Clinton's camp in damage-control mode with five weeks left in the 2006 cycle, at a time when everyone around her has stayed on-message. McCain's side responds - excellent snark:
Asked about the line, McCain advisor John Weaver responded:
"I never expected the Clintons or their allies to know much about Vietnam. But [it] is disappointing to see one of her spokespeople purposefully lie about John's war record and time in a Hanoi prison camp. There was no such tape recording; though he did once give up the starting lineup of the Green Bay Packers while under extreme duress. Senator Clinton's spokesperson does a disservice to all who were there and served so bravely and honorably."
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/15/2006 14:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Good on Hillary; never thought I would say that, but whenever I acted up (back in my yonger and stupider days, for I am older now) The Person In Authorit (Mom, Dad, Gramma, etc) would 'convince' me to personally contact the wronged individual and make amends. Now Hillary, how 'bout you run little Miss/Mr. Big Mouth over to see John and make nice??
U.S. Representative Bob Ney, an Ohio Republican, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and making false statements related to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and said he'll resign from Congress.
The congressman also said he has a problem with alcohol dependence and is seeking professional help...
``I plead guilty, your honor,'' Ney, 52, told U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle today in Washington. In a statement distributed later, he said, ``I accepted things I shouldn't have with the result that Jack Abramoff used my name to advance his own secret schemes of fraud and theft in ways I could never have imagined.'' Ney said he'll resign his congressional seat in the next few weeks.
Ney previously admitted in court papers he accepted gifts and travel from Abramoff and thousands of dollars in gambling chips from another businessman in return for legislative favors. He faces as many as 10 years in prison on two counts. Prosecutors have recommended a prison term of two years and three months when he is sentenced on Jan. 19. Following months of insisting he did nothing wrong, Ney last month said he had made ``serious mistakes.'' The congressman also said he has a problem with alcohol dependence and is seeking professional help. House Speaker Hastert and other House Republican leaders said that if Ney doesn't resign, they'll act to kick him out when the House reconvenes, scheduled for Nov. 13.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/15/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Outsourcing is the only answer. Chuck the entire lot of them and contract the duties out to British Royal Family for a few years.
#2
Hate to point it out, but the only institution of government that seems do be doing a good job, has a respectable level of integrity, and has one of the highest credibility ratings is your military. And you wonder why the Roman Republic fell? Same self serving two bit politicians, national security issues, and a willingness by to many to play loose with the Constitution for some power made the transition possible. There will never be a coup in America. We will invite them and they will only act reluctantly. A stewardship. History may not repeat itself exactly, but you can bet on human nature, done daily in Vegas.
One is often told that a Sikh without his flowing hair and turban is like a king without a crown. But, across Punjab, and more so in the countryside, young members of the community are giving up the most visible religious symbol of Sikh identitylong hair and the turban. The trend, which has been growing in the last four to five years, has reached "epidemic" proportions and now has the Sikh religious leadership worried. So much so that desperate campaigns have been launched to revive the use of the turban.
When Outlook began examining this trend, Sikh organisations engaged in saving the turban estimated that about 80 per cent of the Sikh youth in rural Punjab have cut their hair and discarded their headgear. An exaggeration, one thought. But president of the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), the highest decision-making body for the Sikhs, Avtar Singh Makkar, confirms this trend.
He told Outlook: "Yes, it's true that in many places about 80 per cent of Sikh youth have indeed cut their hair. Sadly the 'dastaar bandhi samaagam' (a turban-tying ceremony for young boys), too, has become rare in villages because very few boys of 13 or 14 years of age have long hair."
Does this mean that the day is not far when a Sikh village in Punjab won't have a single turbaned male to show? This is not just in the realm of possibility but an inescapable reality according to a dismayed and rather helpless Sikh leadership.
But why are Sikhs, otherwise very dedicated to their religion, saying goodbye to turbans and going in for haircuts? Scholars say it is a combination of various factors, both social and economic, at play. The most common reason cited is the convenience of not having to go through the elaborate rigmarole of maintaining a beard and tying a turban. Says Baldev Singh, the patriarch of a large family in Adliwal near Amritsar, "Except I and my two brothers, all our sons and grandsons have shorn their hair.
#2
Sikh turbans are distinctive, you can't mistake them for other styles. It's worth our while to learn the difference, so as not to confuse Sikhs and Moslems. I knew lots of Sikhs in Australia, including our next door neighbours. All excellent people.
#3
While I vehemently support the right for Sikhs to wear turbans (with certain military exceptions), it might also be a good thing if the practice were abandoned. They would be doing the world a huge favor in simplifying the ease with which Muslim extremists could be identified. While not all Muslim extremists wear turbans, sufficient numbers of them do to where this would be a useful indicator.
Again, Sikhs are under no obligation whatsoever to assist the War on Terrorism by doing this, but the task will be a lot more simple once the Muslims begin standing out like a sore thumb.
Yousaf Raza Gillani, a former National Assembly speaker and vice chairman of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was accused of passport tampering on Saturday, and the British High Commission (BHC) has refused to issue him a visa. BHC sources said Gillani had applied for a visa on an official blue passport that was issued to him during his capacity as the National Assembly speaker, after writing the word former before the designation. Calling it tampering, the commission refused to issue Gillani a visa, but keeping his capacity in view, the case has not yet been forwarded to the FIA. The former speaker, however, said that the commission had not told him of any tampering accusation, rather a visa has been sent to me along with the passport. Sources said Gillani had not yet been issued a visa.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/15/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
BRUSSELS - The European Union said on Saturday it feared renewed fighting in Sri Lanka could endanger the resumption of peace talks between the government and rebel Tamil Tigers this month.
Nothing gets past the EU ...
Finland, the holder of the rotating EU presidency, called on both sides to create an environment for constructive discussion ahead of the talks planned for Oct. 28-29 in Geneva. The presidency is deeply concerned about the increasing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, the presidency said in a statement.
It urged the Sri Lankan government and the rebels to ensure humanitarian aid deliveries had free access to areas hit by the conflict and that the security of humanitarian workers was guaranteed.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/15/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have finally slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures by The New York Times.
The American Community Survey, released this month by the Census Bureau, found that 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nations 111.1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples with and without children just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent five years earlier.
The numbers by no means suggests marriage is dead or necessarily that a tipping point has been reached. The total number of married couples is higher than ever, and most Americans eventually marry. But marriage has been facing more competition. A growing number of adults are spending more of their lives single or living unmarried with partners, and the potential social and economic implications are profound.
It just changes the social weight of marriage in the economy, in the work force, in sales of homes and rentals, and who manufacturers advertise to, said Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. It certainly challenges the way we set up our work policies.
#1
We have finally achieved "minority" status. As soon as I figure out how I've been victimized, I'll soon start whining, ****ing and moaning. I wonder if I am too old to apply for special student loan status or housing assistance? New boxes to check at the end of job applications? Affirmative action....HERE I COME!
#2
I think it's wiser to expect to become an oppressed minority, you're still part of the Dominant Class, regardless of your numbers. You can only attone for your sins by disappearing and being dissolved.
#3
Jennifer Lynch, a 28-year-old stage manager in New York, said she had lived on the Lower East Side with her boyfriend, who is 37 and divorced, for most of the five years they have been a couple. Cohabitating is our choice, and we have no intention to be married, Ms. Lynch said. There is little difference between what we do and what married people do. We love each other, exist together, all of our decisions are based upon each other.
In the olden days this was referred to as "Common Law marriage" after it had gone on for long enough (5-7 years, I think, depending on the state), and as far as I know those laws are still in force. Just because these sweet young things are busy dramatizing themselves by refusing to formalize the arrangement doesn't change the daily committment to honour and cherish one another. And if in their minds there is the caveat, "...until I don't want to anymore," that's true of many who formalize the situation as well.
Not to mention the sweet old things who won't marry because it will complicate inheritences for the various pre-existing offspring, and reduce the Social Security payments.
But clearly, those in long term, committed relationships are still in the majority, whether or not the distaff side can legally change from Ms. to Mrs. Regardless of the desires of the New York Times' staff analyst or the Council on Contemporary Families. And little girls still dream about their weddings to the as-yet faceless true love.
#6
Marriage as we understand it with government sanction hasnt been around that long. What did you think people did in the distant villages and along the frontier? The government intrusion had roots in property distribution. The state needed a clean mechanism to resolve inheritance and tax issues. In the 19th Century, it moved what had been pretty much an exclusive religious ritual and formally codified it into civil law along with other legal reforms of the time.
May I point out that if marriage is a minority, that maybe its time to relook the entire position of the government towards the social mechanism. The only interests that government really has in the process is act as a disinterested third party in the dissolution of any contract entered into by adult parties and the protection of those unable to properly represent themselves, children or disabled adults. Outside of that, the contract between two adults should not be the basis to force others to subsidy or compensate their arrangement.
#8
The census survey estimated that 5.2 million couples, a little more than 5 percent of households, were unmarried opposite-sex partners. An additional 413,000 households were male couples, and 363,000 were female couples. In all, nearly one in 10 couples were unmarried. (One in 20 households consisted of people living alone).
so...let's do the math...shall we??
Figures are in millions
111.1 households
55.2 currently married couples
5.2 hetero couples living together
.4 gay men couples
.36 gay women couples.
And we add them up and we get .... only one half of one percent of households that are couples who are not married. And remember that number includes all of those hetero couples who will eventually marry and also seems to include widows/ers who have outlived their spouse.
So how do these numbers mean that a "tipping point has been reached" or that the "political, social and economic impacts are profound?"
It doesn't. Just another agenda driven piece of garbage posing as journalism.
#9
oops. Ok. So I made a mistake. Duh. It is 5% of the households. But my point is still valid. This is hardly a "tipping point" with profound implications. And I could further break down the stats, but it doesn't seem worth the effort. This is just an agenda driven piece implying we need to recognize gay marriage and living together as "marriage".
Professor Oettli of Griefswald, in his discussion, Das Gesetz Hammurabis and die Thora Israels, Leipsig, 1903, p. 10, ...picks out the scattered laws and brings them together under thirteen great topics, as follows: 1. Marriage laws; 2. Parents and Children; 3. Freemen and Slaves; 4. Inheritance laws...
Not only has it been around a long time, it's been known for a long time that it's been around for a long time.
What did you think people did in the distant villages and along the frontier?
The vulgar masses lived a life focused on daily survival and rutted about like wild animals whenever the opportunity arose and they were sufficiently healthy and energetic. The more well off sought to preserve their capital by conducting themselves in accordance with the law or, failing that, hiring lawyers to protect them from the effects of the law, or better yet, bribing lawmakers to change the laws to stick it to the bastards.
The government intrusion had roots in property distribution.
No, I suspect the roots of government itself are, in part, in assuring that posthumous property distribution takes place consistently and non-violently. Sort of the ensure domestic tranquility thang.
The state needed a clean mechanism to resolve inheritance and tax issues.
No, it already had one. Inheritance taxes were a significant source of revenue for the state. That is why colonial historians find so much valuable information about the past from the inventories of property that had to be filed in probate.
In the 19th Century, it moved what had been pretty much an exclusive religious ritual and formally codified it into civil law along with other legal reforms of the time.
No. It had been codified for a long time as previously demonsttrated. That's why you see the term bastard used correctly so often back then. What is different about the 19th century is the prevalence of real property ownership amongst the general population and the application of laws stretching back millennial to them for the first time in history due to the broader distribution of wealth resulting from the industrial and American revolutions.
May I point out that if marriage is a minority, that maybe its time to relook the entire position of the government towards the social mechanism.
You may point it out, but don't be surprised if you find little support for that position.
The only interests that government really has in the process is act as a disinterested third party in the dissolution of any contract entered into by adult parties and the protection of those unable to properly represent themselves, children or disabled adults.
Ah yes, For The Children. They are so much more protected now that we have recently legislated no-fault, Muslim style, divorce and tolerance for common law marriage and the resultant bastardy.
the contract between two adults should not be the basis to force others to subsidy (sic) or compensate their arrangement.
Then what would the Congressional tax committees do to shake campaign contributions out of their constituents?
#13
Is there any doubt that children raised in a happy, healthy two-parent relationship are better off? My kids turned out great, but the divorce was nasty, custody battle cost me $35,000, and as a single Dad raising three kids (girl, two boys), it was tough - I don't recommend it as a lifestyle choice. That said, I wouldn't change anything
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/15/2006 15:22 Comments ||
Top||
#14
That said, I wouldn't change anything
That is so sad. Thanks for picking up the ball and running with it Frank. I'm as impressed as I am astounded by how many men are in the same boat. I had an male employee go through it and it was 3 years of hell for all of us. Much worse than when the women got custody which is the autoset default in Caliphornia. And then things began to get back to "normal."
Re: the article: May I point out that if marriage is a minority, that maybe its time to relook the entire position of the government towards the social mechanism.
And may I again point out that she didn't make her point!! She did not include widows or widowers in her stats - she included them as "people living alone". Yet Grandma living alone why we have marriage contracts - It was fraudulent to leave her out of the numbers. Additionally, many of those heterosexual couples "living together" will eventually marry. Thus acting as if they will not eventually benefit from the laws of marriage is again a distortion of the figures.
Including just the widows/ers would have thrown that number back over 50%
It's pretty obvious that she's taking the tactic that, if you won't let us have the same rights under the laws as traditional marriages, we will rip it down and not let anyone have them.
#16
I appreciate the accords, but I wish it were the default position for all men, unfortunately it's not. I damn sure wasn't gonna give up my kids and my daughter (the oldest at 21 now) sez I did the best thing for her and her brothers. The younger boys (18 and 17), as they will, concur.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/15/2006 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Well done, Frank. Seriously. That's a damned tough row to hoe and you have my admiration for having accomplished it. Your ex must have been hellaciously bad for you to get full custody, particularly back in the day. Again, well done!
Posted by: mac ||
10/15/2006 18:41 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Frank, here's some guidance I recently got from a buddy. "If it floats, if it flies, if it fu**s.... lease it!"
#19
lol - I've heard similar. I date, but I have no desire or need to marry. My kid's are almost all grown - last is a senior in HS and will probably live at home during college to save $. Point is - more men should not only take responsibility, but should aggressively pursue their rights, and then do the right thing, and be the best parent your kids could have. In my case, a switch occurred - my ex was the better parent during our marriage (sad to admit), but I woke the f*ck up and took responsibility later. My message to Dads: do it right from the start- it's hard but there's nothing more rewarding on this Earth
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/15/2006 19:54 Comments ||
Top||
#20
"More men should not only take responsibility, but should aggressively pursue their rights"
Gee willikers, wish that was something my daughter's father should have done. I would have liked that, actually. I thought he was a nice responsible person... oh, my bad. Instead, he was gone in a cloud of dust as soon as I said, "Darling, I have the most wonderful news."
My revenge is that I raised her entirely by myself, no alimony, no child support... and that she turned out to be a most happy, un-bitter and well adjusted child.
Well, all except for those couple of years when she wanted to hunt him down and carve her name across his ass with her USMC dress sword.
Anger is poison, I told her. Let go of it. Living a happy and successful life is the very best revenge.
#21
Sgt Mom - that's my point - too many men bail. That's unacceptable. Your efforts were the same as mine and I know you received the same ultimate satisfaction, right?
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/15/2006 21:05 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Amen, Frank. I always thought it must be illegal, somehow, to feel so happy, so useful.
#23
PD - there's nothing else I've ever tried that achieves the same internal happiness, satisfaction, and self-esteem boost - our schools could learn a lot by teaching that - I've already fed it to my kids. They're tired of hearig it LOL
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/15/2006 21:31 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Agreed. My daughter still marvels aloud that she never felt that I talked down to her - and tells me that no matter how infrequently we talk, I'm still her (second, heh) best friend. I'm not all that familiar with humility (suprise!), but she never fails to make me feel it - and incredibly lucky.
#27
"Your efforts were the same as mine and I know you received the same ultimate satisfaction, right?"
Finest kind, Frank, finest kind. After a while, I pitied his ass, because had chosen to take himself away, and never know what a wonderful and totally marvelous person his (strictly biologically speaking) person his daugher is, and was.
All those wonderful gifts that come to us as parents, and he chose to vanish in a cloud of dust. Thank god idiocy does not seem to be genetic.
#28
Funny that the article makes ZERO mention of how our current tax structure punishes marriage. I personally know a couple that refuses to get married for this one reason alone. If our nation wants to reverse declining birth rates and find a way to counteract the Muslim demographic machine, they need to take a long hard look at revamping the tax code for marrieds.
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.
Police broke up a smuggling ring that shipped drugs and illegal immigrants from Morocco to the Canary Islands, officials said Saturday. 
One is often told that a Sikh without his flowing hair and turban is like a king without a crown. But, across Punjab, and more so in the countryside, young members of the community are giving up the most visible religious symbol of Sikh identitylong hair and the turban. The trend, which has been growing in the last four to five years, has reached "epidemic" proportions and now has the Sikh religious leadership worried. So much so that desperate campaigns have been launched to revive the use of the turban.
Yousaf Raza Gillani, a former National Assembly speaker and vice chairman of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was accused of passport tampering on Saturday, and the British High Commission (BHC) has refused to issue him a visa. BHC sources said Gillani had applied for a visa on an official blue passport that was issued to him during his capacity as the National Assembly speaker, after writing the word former before the designation. Calling it tampering, the commission refused to issue Gillani a visa, but keeping his capacity in view, the case has not yet been forwarded to the FIA. The former speaker, however, said that the commission had not told him of any tampering accusation, rather a visa has been sent to me along with the passport. Sources said Gillani had not yet been issued a visa.
BRUSSELS - The European Union said on Saturday it feared renewed fighting in Sri Lanka could endanger the resumption of peace talks between the government and rebel Tamil Tigers this month.
Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have finally slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures by The New York Times.
