Paris Hilton is being praised by conservationists for highlighting the problem of binge-drinking elephants in northeastern India. Activists said a celebrity endorsement such as Hilton's was sure to raise awareness of the plight of the pachyderms that get drunk on farmers' homemade rice beer and then go on a rampage.
"The elephants get drunk all the time. It is becoming really dangerous. We need to stop making alcohol available to them," the 26-year-old socialite said in a report posted on World Entertainment News Network's Web site. Her comments were picked up by other Web sites and newspapers around the globe.
Last month, six wild elephants that broke into a farm in the state of Meghalaya were electrocuted after drinking the potent brew and then uprooting an electricity pole. "There would have been more casualties if the villagers hadn't chased them away. And four elephants died in a similar way three years ago. It is just so sad," Hilton was quoted as saying in Tokyo last week. She was in Tokyo to judge a beauty contest.
Her publicist couldn't immediately be reached for comment Tuesday.
"This job doesn't pay enough for me to put up with this ..."
Hilton promised to improve her bad-girl image after she completed a jail term in June for violating probation in an alcohol-related reckless driving case. She announced plans to do charity work in Rwanda, but the trip was postponed until next year.
Sangeeta Goswami, head of animal rights group People for Animals, told The Associated Press: "I am indeed happy Hilton has taken note of recent incidents of wild elephants in northeast India going berserk after drinking homemade rice beer and getting killed."
"As part of her global elephant campaign, Hilton should, in fact, think of visiting this region literally infested with elephants," Goswami said.
Another conservationist said elephant alcohol abuse was just a symptom of the real problem. "Elephants appear on human settlements ... because they have no habitat left due to wanton destruction of forests," said Soumyadeep Dutta, who heads Nature's Beckon, a leading regional conservation group. "A celebrity like Hilton must focus her attention on this fact," Dutta said.
#1
She was in Tokyo to judge a beauty contest.
Snark?
Nah, too easy.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
11/13/2007 14:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hello, I'm Paris Hilton. The plight of the alcoholic Indian elephant, like, really bums me out. That's why I, like, would like you to give, like, all you can to:
The Pachyderm House for Alcoholic Indian Elephant Rehabilitaion
1010 Indira Ghandi Blvd.
Meghalaya, Someplace in India
Lindsey and Britney say, like, rehab is, like, really hard. So it'd be, like, really cool to get these drunk elephants, like, off the street and give them, like, jobs at the circus and...stuff.
#10
(11-13) 15:44 PST GAUHATI, India (AP) -- In a Nov. 13 story, The Associated Press incorrectly reported that Paris Hilton was praised by conservationists for highlighting the problem of binge-drinking elephants in northeastern India. Lori Berk, a publicist for Hilton, said she never made any comments about helping drunken elephants in India.
The AP
So she really doesn't want to help drunken elephants in India?
That bitch...
Click the link - given the entertaining graphics there's no good way to copy it to this page to save y'awl the effort!
I thought this was clever. I don't know how true it is, and some of the line items start out good but end up lacking the distinctions or details I think are important - probably because it is aimed at a Western audience. It would be interesting to see this if it were aimed at different audiences, and it would be interesting to see what it would look like if it were not just a snapshot but included trends as well.
Anyone want to add any detail or clarification to any of these? :-)
And that one means the market is still so saturated with useless qualifications someone with a Master's degree is permanently underemployed in downtown Toronto.
#7
95% would be batshit insane and do things daily that are against their own best interests, and those of their neighbors, because of (religion/clan/honor/tribe/laziness/pride).
#8
5 would control 32% of the entire worlds wealth, and all of them would be US citizens
Okay, apparantly the Queen of England, King of Saudi Arabia and the Catholic Church are all American citizens? Not buying it? Controlling wealth while excluding land is bogus twisting of numbers.
#9
Lets see the real benefit of a college education:
5 Americans (including Canada) control 32% of the world's wealth, yet there is only 1 person in the whole world with a college education and by odds is most likely to be a non-white, male, heterosexual Asian. So, you see, we don't need no freeking colleges. Save your money and teach your kids Golf.
Posted by: Jack is Back!` ||
11/13/2007 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#10
100% of the people reading that page will suffer an epilectic attack.
Sea: Apparently you forgot to subtract the LLL crowd.
#14
"33 would be without access to a safe water supply"
That's 2 billion people without safe water, and yet they live long enough to reproduce. I think that's a bit like Excaliber's point in comment #2. How safe is "safe"?
#16
Leftist carp about wealth and scheme to come to power and redistribute wealth without realizing it must be created. This particual bunch of loonies act like the US took wealth from others. Bull. Its not a zero sum game.
Hey leftists:
We control much of the world's wealth because WE CREATED IT!
Biotech, transistors, cell phones, the PC, the internet, etc - they did not exist wordl-wide and now they do thanks to the US. Our brains, our work, our inventiveness and adaptability created wealth where there was none.
Go piss up a rope with your socialist collectivist BS.
(Sorry, can't work out how to link the title to the "From Our Own Correspondent" article.)
Here's an example of the steady stream of bias that pours daily from the BBC. Saturday's From Our Own Correspondent had an article on an American destroyer off Mombasa that was aimed solely at discrediting and mocking America. Unless, of course, the writer intended to praise America when he wrote, "Wicked imperialists like to pick the best spots for themselves." Now people may ask why they don't see that particular bit of evidence of bias when they access the article on the BBC website:
But that's not the only evidence of bias. It is rife throughout the article, kicking off with the link on the Africa page:
Kenyan embrace Why a US destroyer joined the dhows in Mombasa harbour ("embrace" indeed)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/default.stm
continuing with the title, dripping with sarcasm when juxtaposed against the text:
US Navy in Kenya goodwill mission
and ending with the extraordinary observation that an American naval officer had "helped suppress the Islamic Barbary corsairs of Algiers," as if ending the centuries-old unbridled and unprovoked savagery of the Barbary pirates and slave owners was a bad thing.
One wonders how the editor who deleted the bit about "wicked imperialists" could possibly have decided that the rest of this biased nonsense represented suitable output from an organization that apparently prides itself on its impartiality. This is the nth example I've found of the BBC siding with radical Islam over the West. BBC hacks have truly become apologists for Islamic terror, whether it is Islamic piracy of the past or the terrorists of today.
#1
Looking at the ethnic diversity of the young American sailors, it was clear that the United States is now following the Roman rather than the Greek model of empire. In ancient Greece, women, slaves and foreigners neither counted nor voted. Rome was less racist: anyone could become a Roman citizen, and even the emperor could hail from Spain or Africa.
Flea infested English Marxists need not apply.
Posted by: ed ||
11/13/2007 8:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
ed - We took the dregs of their societies, the unwanted, and lower class. We even inherited their system of slavery. We took them all. Our fathers and mothers created the largest wealthiest most open society since Rome that not only provided opportunities for its own, but have actually sacrificed its wealth and children on behave of the even the most ungrateful without real expectation of return in kind that they themselves in their own record have sought dominion. What do you expect from them? They're losers and they keep digging. This is their misery.
#3
Brian, I'm pretty sure that crack about imperialists is an interlineated comment from the Freeper who excerpted the article. Either the Free Republic doesn't do that color-highlight thing that Rantburg does, or else he didn't remember to italicize/highlight.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
11/13/2007 10:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Okay, I went and read the original. The author should be on a do not travel to the USA list.
#6
Many things wrong with this article, mr rankin is a joke.
First, and correct me if I am wrong, Roman Citizens were prohibited by law in serving in the Navy (marine boarding party as a soldier, but not working the boat).
Barbary pirates were off of the north africa coast.
"I don't think the Americans really understand clubs," the Sikh colonel confided over curry. Thank you for the compliment your elitist bastardness.
"They returned to the ship, not from Mombasa's brothels, but from a safari..."Whoa! how did that compliment get through editing?
Sinbad, eh? Oh yeah the imaginary stories from this book "The king, Shahryar, upon discovering his former wife's infidelity had her executed and then declared all women to be unfaithful. He begins to marry a succession of virgins only to execute each one the next morning." (wiki entry)
Commander Bob Hall smilingly said it was "just a coincidence". Someone through this hack off of my ship
#7
"I don't think the Americans really understand clubs," the Sikh colonel confided over curry.
I suspect it's that American officers don't partake in pleasures the enlisted men and women are forbidden. But one wouldn't expect either a Sikh colonel or a BBC man to understand that sort of concern for one's people. Especially while sitting on the veranda, drink in hand, enjoying the cool breezes -- all unavailable outside the club.
#8
"They returned to the ship, not from Mombasa's brothels, but from a safari..."Whoa! how did that compliment get through editing?
If Mr Rankin has an ownership percentage in the brothels it might be sour grapes. One wonders if the moral Lions of Islam visit the brothels when they come to blow up embassies?
Would that make the US Navy more moral in the peoples eyes?
#9
Great comments guys. I'm sorry I neglected this fine blog so long. Mitch H. I'm not sure what an interlineated comment is, but the bit about the "wicked imperialists" was definitely part of the original article as it first appeared on the website. That's what got me fired up enough to write this and bring it to your attention. The "Great" is being steadily driven out of Britain, with the treachorous BBC in the lead.
Inayat Bunglawala, Guardian I seem to recall that a California blog received e-mail threats from an office building where Bungy was employed.
The conviction last Thursday of the self-styled "Lyrical Terrorist", 23-year old Samina Malik, marks a further dramatic erosion of our liberties in the United Kingdom. The British public was outraged when the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, complained of "Nazism" in the UK, and did so 1 day before "Armistice Day" (Nov. 11)
In the wake of the guilty verdict, several newspapers printed extracts from her attempts at poetry, including gems such as How to Behead, and The Living Martyrs. The court had heard that on an online social networking group known as Hi-5 Samina Malik had listed her interests as "helping the mujahideen any way I can" and, in the section for her favourite TV shows, she entered "watching videos by Muslim brothers in Iraq, yep, the beheading ones".
However, Malik was also said to have downloaded some material from the internet including The al-Qaida Manual and The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook - it took me less than a minute to find both of these using Google, along with a document entitled How To Win Hand-to-Hand Fighting.
Although she was acquitted of the more serious charge under section 57 of the Terrorism Act of possessing an item for a "purpose" connected with terrorism, she was still convicted under section 58 of the same act which states:
A person commits an offence if ... he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism
It hardly needs stating how incredibly broadly this act can be interpreted. The act does allow a defence for a person to download such material if the person can "prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession". Evidently, the court felt that Samina Malik had no such reasonable excuse and as the Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, of Scotland Yard, remarked after the trial: "Merely possessing this material is a serious criminal offence."
It is to be hoped that this case may yet serve as a demonstration of just how badly-framed some of our anti-terror legislation actually is. In a truly free society, it should not be a crime to merely download and read such material.
During her trial, Malik argued that she was not a terrorist and that she had chosen the online moniker "Lyrical terrorist" simply because it had "sounded cool" and that her poetry, online remarks and downloading of internet material was undertaken in an attempt to attract male admirers. The "poetess" clearly declared her hate for the majority in her adopted homeland, and she more than advocated violence, she expressed an intent to personally act on her hate.
Her story is quite plausible and I am sure there must be many more like her. Countless young British Muslims visit popular internet sites such as YouTube every day to obtain footage of what is really happening in Iraq and come across sickening material such as US soldiers deliberately killing a clearly wounded Iraqi and then appearing to gloat over the murder, a US soldier in Iraq using a loudhailer to taunt Muslims with his expletive-filled mocking of the Islamic call to prayer, footage graphically showing the enormous and terrible impact of the US-led war on Iraqi civilians (this last one has the haunting Manic Street Preachers hit, If you tolerate this your children will be next ... as its soundtrack). If you have not already done so, then do try viewing some of this material - there is a lot more out there - and ask yourself whether, if you were a 23-year-old it might not also have prompted dark thoughts to cross your own mind, however fleetingly, and perhaps even have led you to download similar material from the internet.
Samina has been put under house arrest for the time being, but she must return for sentencing on December 6. As one blogger noted, it will be interesting to see if the judge chooses to make an example of her in order to discourage others or if he chooses instead to make an example of what is undoubtedly a bad and illiberal law whose primary purpose is to punish people for having the wrong thoughts.
There would appear to be something preposterously wrong with our criminal justice system if nearly five years after the Iraq war was launched and hundreds of thousands of wholly unnecessary deaths later, Tony Blair is able to just walk away from his responsibility for the ongoing carnage and unbelievably emerge as a Peace Envoy to the region, while a foolish young woman who did not harm anyone now faces a maximum 10-year term in prison for what can only be described as a thought crime. Free speech? Bungy and the MCB have a habit of demanding "hate" prosecutions of non-muslims who scrutinize his cult. He would jail "islamophobes" if he had the power.
#2
However, Malik was also said to have downloaded some material from the internet including The al-Qaida Manual and The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook - it took me less than a minute to find both of these using Google, along with a document entitled How To Win Hand-to-Hand Fighting.
A person commits an offence if ... he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism
Okay, who wants to dime out Inayat to Scotland Yard? Lyrical Girl needs a cellmate.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean came out for inclusive team prayers in public schools while speaking Sunday to a gathering of thousands of Jewish leaders, according to a leading Jewish news agency.
In another statement likely to stir debate among the evangelical Christians his party is urgently trying to court, Dean also asserted "there are no bars to heaven for anybody," according to the report by JTA, a 90-year-old non-profit organization which calls itself "the global news service of the Jewish people."
The remarks in Nashville, Tenn., come at a time when Democratic candidates in general and the DNC in particular have been increasing outreach to voters for whom faith and values is a decisive issue.
Continued on Page 49
The New Court of the Democratic Republic of Great Void has decided to admit for hearing a petition challenging the imposition of Urgency and the promulgation of the Interim Constitution Order by Big Bro.
A highly placed official told Daily Times that the move by the lordships makes it very clear that the NC is as independent as the Old Court of DRGV and Opposition propaganda to the contrary is slanderous and meant to hurt the national interest of DRGV.
Jurists are, however, in a bit of quandary, although independent sources say this is a normal state of affairs with people of the law. Even so, most jurists Daily Times spoke to said that they could not understand how the NC could adjudicate a matter which, if the verdict were to go against the ICO, would also amount to a judgement against the NC itself.
The NC is a product of the ICO. If it were to adjudicate against the ICO, it would also be judging against itself, said one jurist.
However, the Chief Legal Officer of DRGV, who has a reputation for remaining unruffled in the face of all adversity, legal, political or linguistic, tut-tutted this logic and said that these Houyhnhnms know not what they say.
When asked to explain what he meant by this, the CLO, face at an upward angle, said that the NC was fully qualified to take up this issue and while it was up to the lordships to decide which way the issue would rest in its conclusion, the matter being sub judice, it would make no difference even if the lordships were to give a verdict against the ICO.
Most people think that if the lordships were to decide against the ICO, that would mean the NCs own composition would be called into question. This is superficial reasoning. If we were to accept that a court before which a petition was filed was not the proper legal forum to decide the matter, its very existence having been questioned by its own decision, then the petition filed before such a court would also become infructuous; by that logic, any decision on a writ by such a court would also have no legal significance. That being so, such a court would have been deemed not to have given such a decision and we would be back to the court in its full glory.
When the CLO was told by Daily Times that his logic was immaculate, he smiled and said sotto voce: Imagine what Ill do to the lawyer who has filed the writ; that wretch cant even argue his way out of a paper-bag.
Plus, said the CLO, the precedent says a courts a court by virtue of its being so and not because of any oath or other external factors.
We say, Indeed, sir!
Posted by: john frum ||
11/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Pakistan has always been on a razors edge, torn between its identity as a moderate Islamic democracy that Jinnah had envisioned, and an unstable state that has seen repeated Military rule. But politicians and soldiers have always stood together on one issue- the unquestioning policy of state-sponsored terrorism. This support hasnt abated even when Pakistans very existence has been threatened. But now, that policy is boomeranging on its creators, proved by the events of the last one year.
Pakistani officers joke about how the million- strong Indian Army couldnt even stop terrorists. As they get more hopelessly bogged down in the mess called Waziristan, it probably doesnt sound so funny any more. Today, the Pakistani Army stands battered by the very terrorists it created. Over a hundred soldiers have been captured and many more have died fighting a menace that they created. Fifteen Brigades have been moved to these areas from the Indian border, including Skardu and Mangla, an action that speaks volumes about the seriousness of the situation and the ineffectiveness of Pakistani actions in the NWFP. Morale is low, desertions are rampant, and suicide attacks on Army installations have been devastatingly successful.
In every major engagement that theyve been involved in, the Pakistan Army has lost ground. As professional as it purports itself to be, there is not a single war that the Pakistani Army has won in its history of existence. Failure and defeat seem to come naturally. And yet, it seems almost dyslexic in its inability to learn from its mistakes. The wars with India never went their way. They were able to temporarily pacify the Baluch problem, but the brutality with which they accomplished it has ensured that the problem remains. It has faced defeat after defeat against the fiery Pashtun tribesmen in Waziristan, and its only a matter of time before the issue threatens the very existence of Pakistan.
The first war was soon after the formation of Pakistan. Breaking the standstill agreement, the Army launched an attack on the Independent State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947. Even with the element of surprise and a head start, they were beaten back and Pakistan lost the prime real estate of Jammu and Kashmir Valleys to India. Pakistans second attempt at liberation, the 1965 war, fared no better. Not only did they receive no support from the local populace, but lost vital territory to the Indian Armed Forces, a force they had dismissed as weak and beaten after the 1962 loss. If not for the goodwill of Lal Bahadur Shastri, and the compulsions of International politics, India would have captured Lahore and destroyed much of the Pakistani Army.
The third war was an unmitigated disaster that even the most enthusiastic Pakistanis cannot deny. The beleaguered forces in the East had no chance against an army advancing from three sides upon it, but their collapse and the speed of the Indian advance surprised all. Boxed in, the Pakistani Army launched attacks on the western front, hoping to gain territory that they could barter later. But even that effort met its doom, beaten and destroyed by Indian forces far smaller than the Pakistanis. Yet again, they were saved by American intervention and Indian magnanimity. 93,000 troops surrendered, shattering the morale of the Force and the nation, a disgrace that theyve tried hard to whitewash.
By then, the cracks within were starting to show. Simmering Baloch discontentment at their neglect boiled over in mid 1970s, resulting in the large-scale insurgency. Never familiar with the velvet touch, the Pakistani Army fought and brutally suppressed the struggle, but suffered massive causalities itself. Simmering for the last two decades, the struggle has never been put down. Government brutality has strengthened the ranks of the nationalists and increased their clout.
With the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Pak Army found some hope for success. Teamed up with US, they got weapons, money and training. Even its nuclear activities were overlooked, and with no questions asked, the Pakistani Army traded in illegal drugs, money laundering, prostitution, weapons- anything legal or illegal. Even then, its newfound confidence didnt stop them losing Siachen to the Indian Army, another disgrace that has haunted them since. As the Mujahedeen turned the tide of battle, policy makers in Islamabad saw a new opportunity to spread its influence and destabilize Kashmir. Terrorists were trained and exported around the region. Kashmir, (and later, the CIS states) was the first to feel the sting. To the west, the Pakistan supported-Taliban rolled into Kabul soon after. But all this came at the cost of an increasingly radicalized Pakistani society, a policy that has matured now, with disastrous consequences for its creator.
In 1999, as revenge for Siachen, and perhaps lulled by an all-too familiar sense of hubris, Pakistan launched yet another disastrous attempt to capture Indian Territory in Kargil. The results are there for all to see. And yet again, it was the American assistance and Indian forgiveness that allowed their Army to run and survive. Maligned and beaten, the Army had to rebuild itself. The sanctions would have torn Pakistan apart, had it not been for nineteen Al-Qaeda hijackers.
9/11 forced a decision on Pakistan- choose between the terrorists it had spawned, and its own survival and ambition. They chose survival. Obviously, the terrorists and their mentors in the ISI werent happy. As former allies of the enemy, the Army went soft on terrorists, hoping to play the double game that it had so effectively played in the past. But even its lip-service support to the GWOT didnt help it with either side. American impatience with their inaction only led to more attacks like the Bajaur Airstrike. Anger at their betrayal and Pakistani silence at the Predator attacks turned the local populace against the Army. The short lived deal only helped strengthen the Taliban, and prepare them for the bloodbath theyre inflicting on the Army now. Both ways, the Army has lost control of its own territories.
As the engagements in the FATA bleed it, the Pakistani Army today is in desperate condition. The Talibanized Pakistani Army personnel refuse to fire at terrorists and Baloch freedom fighters, considering them their brothers. The terrorists, angered by Musharrafs actions in Waziristan and Lal Masjid, feel no such affection, and have already brutally executed dozens of soldiers. There is little that the General can do now.
Musharraf stands marginalized, weakened, with international pressure on him to quit his uniform and hold polls. It will be interesting to see if Pakistan is going to lose more real estate in the occupied North West Frontier Province before it realizes the hopelessness of the situation, or will the conflict spill out into the streets of the cities, tearing the country apart.
S. Prasad is a freelance defence journalist. He is currently based in Singapore.
Posted by: john frum ||
11/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
Anyway, the sooner Papkistaqn implodes the better (provide we defang it of its nukes). It is teh fact that Pakistan helds a number of people who have little in common and little love for one another who forces its leaders to play the islamist card, the more islamist as possible in order to make them forget their national identities, the more hateful and paranoid as possible as this incites to stand united againt the infidels.
Split Pakistan and this dynamic goes away. I only fear it is too late.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is master of the double standard. For instance, the regime believes it has the right to establish political groups in other countries, such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, the Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council and a number of groups in Afghanistan. It openly supports Hamas to the tune of millions of dollars -- another example of this general modus operandi. So, by logical extension, the Islamic Republic asserts that opponents of a government have the right to create an armed organization, and foreign governments have the right to supply these opponents with money, weapons and training.
Yet within its own borders, the Iranian government has stifled all dissent. It has shuttered all opposition media outlets. It does not tolerate any independent organizations, even trade unions. If teachers demand back pay, they are dismissed, jailed or exiled. The regime will not accept even nonviolent protest. In order to crush opposition groups with impunity, it brands peaceful, legal activism "soft subversion" or a "velvet revolution."
Iran claims to be a democracy. But in free countries, where the rule of law is respected, political parties vie for control of parliament or the executive branch by means of elections. The Islamic Republic accepts no electoral rivals; any independent party that aims to gain political power is declared illegitimate. What are groups expected to do when they gather? Answer: Extol revered religious figures or lament their own demise.
In truth, the Islamic Republic of Iran rules through quotas, both literal and figurative. Important political jobs are open only to clerics, starting with the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and extending through his appointments to the Guardian Council, the head of the judiciary and the intelligence minister. The Assembly of Experts, which chooses the supreme leader, is composed entirely of clerics.
University admissions too are decided by factors other than academic excellence. Slots are set aside for the family members of martyrs and members of the Basij, the volunteer militia that enforces clerical rule. Those jobs, educational perks and privileges translate into riches for those loyal to the regime. For example, many big infrastructure projects are awarded to the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the most powerful wing of the military. As a result, a segment of the corps has emerged as a new economic class whose financial activity and growing wealth is unknown and unaccountable.
For those who oppose the Islamic Republic, there are reverse quotas of a sort, which ensure the regime's survival. The Bahais, declared heretics for their religious faith, cannot attend universities. Professors who support democracy and defend human rights, such as Abdulkarim Soroush, Mohsen Kadivar and Hadi Semati, are banned from teaching. Question clerical rule and you might be denied the right to travel abroad or to publish books. In addition, a number of activists recently have been beaten in the streets and publicly humiliated.
The regime seems to have a quota for its jails too. A number of opponents must always be imprisoned so that activists will not succumb to the delusion that they are free to engage in political activity. Many are already locked away -- including three students from Amir Kabir University sentenced last month. Prison sentences hang over the heads of others like the sword of Damocles.
And then there are the individuals who must be taken back to jail from time to time, such as Mansour Osanloo, the Tehran bus drivers union leader; Mahmoud Dordkeshan, a political activist; and journalists such as Said Matinpur and Emaddedin Baghi. Matinpur and Jalil Qanilu, both activists for the Azerbaijani ethnic minority, have been held in solitary confinement for about five years with no family visits or access to lawyers.
I was in Tehran's infamous Evin prison from 2000 to 2006. I know what prolonged solidarity confinement can do to a person, and I know the sound of torture. I survived my ordeal in part because global civil society mobilized and pressed for my release. As I write, the Iranian regime is invoking the threat of a U.S. military attack -- which is very real -- and using that as an excuse for a major crackdown on dissidents.
No regime has the right to inflict such indignities on its own people. Those who are not in jail have a moral duty to raise their voice against the detention of all political prisoners. The Islamic Republic may try to dismiss international condemnation as illegitimate foreign interference or an affront to national sovereignty -- but human rights are universal, and we must persevere until all prisoners of conscience are free.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/13/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
See also AMERICAN THINKER > IRAN'S MULLAHS ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES.
Okay, thats nowhere near as good a hed as the Variety classic Sticks Nix Hicks Pix - made famous by Jimmy Cagney in Yankee Doodle Dandy. Perhaps readers can come up with a better one, but you get the point. The public isnt going to Hollywoods antiwar movies and its not just the hicks if you look at the amazingly-consistent comments on Breitbart.com beneath the article: Hollywood is casualty of war as movie-goers shun Iraq films. Its everybody and his brother from Tacoma to Tallahassee, not to mention a large number from abroad. As of last Saturday night, the Agence France Presse report had over 500 comments and counting.
The article itself, not surprisingly anonymously written, is filled with the usual shopworn explanations for the audiences disinterest. For Lew Harris of Movies.com, its the canard that movies are escapism only. Serious films are just too heavy for the great unwashed. For Gitesh Pandya of boxofficeguru.com, its that audiences dont want to pay for what they already see for free on television (Iraq). Veteran television producer Steve Bocho says its hard to gain audience interest in a hugely unpopular war.
The audience members themselves that is the Breitbart commenters are having none of this nonsense. The third one down, Extremely Bored, puts it this way: Let me correct this point - I am not weary of war news at all. I am shunning these movies - and many others- because I am tired of Hollywoods anti-American stance on absolutely everything. However we got into the war, and whatever mistakes were made up to this point, we are one country. We need to win and we need to remain tough against terrorism. It doesnt benefit anyone to do otherwise. I will go see a movie that reflects that point.
He is echoed almost immediately by commenter Lee: The real answer - the obvious one that liberals cant bring themselves to accept - is that most Americans are tired of liberal spinmeisters trashing their country, our soldiers, and our way of life. The Redfords of the world sit in their ivory towers and try to tell us how to think and react based on their own prejudices
And so it goes down the page hundreds, soon thousands.
Now, admittedly, this is Breitbart.com and many readers come via Drudge hence some bias but the box office figures do not lie. These people represent a fair percentage of the (absent) audience. For years Hollywood insiders would joke about the cluelessness of the flyover people between the two coasts. But reading these comments, the flyover people, whether foreign or domestic, seem so much more intelligent than the Hollywood wags quoted in the article, it borders on the pathetic. . . .
Go read the rest of it.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/13/2007 08:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But reading these comments, the flyover people, whether foreign or domestic, seem so much more intelligent than the Hollywood wags quoted in the article, it borders on the pathetic. . . .
Well, considering the average liberal Hollyweird wag has about as much sense and intelligence as a common garbage rat...
#3
They want us to pay money so they can preach to us that we stink. (At least religious services offer the prospect of an eternity in heaven). As consummate liars, they definitely believe in the conman's maxim that there's a sucker born every minute. Except most Americans aren't suckers.
Posted by: Common Garbage Rat ||
11/13/2007 18:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The one thing reviewers haven't really touched is that the Tom Cruise criticized what was supposed to be the "good war" - the campaign in Afghanistan. Anyone who's stupid enough to fund a movie criticizing the Afghan campaign and expect a positive financial return needs shouldn't really be in the investment business.
#8
The killer irony of this is that somebody, anybody, could probably produce a movie right now for less than $1M, with no name actors, heck, use real vets as actors, shoot the movie in Texas, and clear $150M or more.
Show the Americans as being the good guys, and show al-Qaeda as being the vicious, evil bastards that they are.
Can you imagine a scene of the soldiers or Marines trying to rescue the survivors among burnt and mangled bodies of children at some Iraqi elementary school where they had been blown up? You could have half the audience bawling their eyes out.
Sure it would be a rah-rah movie, but it would sell like The Passion of the Christ.
#9
Part of it is the INTERNET [read - YOUTUBE, IPODS, etal], other part is mainstream Amer knows the US is in a WAR FOR SURVIVAL/EXISTENCE. They don't want to hear "Amer is NOT at War ergo must tolerate new 9-11 attacks and depend on third-parties for our security"; NOR the opposite "Amer is AT WAR ergo MUST BE THE ONLY ONE TO CONCEDE = MAKE PEACE WHILE BAD GUYS DON'T HAVE TO - you know, FAIRNESS, VICTORY, etc.".
Progress is a herky-jerky march, and its not always clear which way were heading. I tend to believe it all could be much, much worse, and I still have faith in the future, mostly because I am loath to abandon Youthful Optimism and settle into gouty disapproval. I do know that things are certainly cooler than ever. Things are just cool. When I first started doing the MYS concerts, I was writing on an iMac, calling up the baby internet on a 640X480 screen; last night I was looking over my script backstage, and I realized that I was introducing an opera about which I knew nothing. So I called up wikipedia on the iPhone, got some details a minute before I was supposed to go on stage, and added them to the remarks. And it felt cool.
Anyway. If theres one conviction that afflicts the keenest mind as it ages, its the belief that Things Were Better Then, and Things Are Horrible Now, usually because no one has learned the lessons of your own generation and insisted on experiencing the world for themselves. (Frank Rich provided a neat example of this a few days ago, when he diagnosed Americans as clinically depressed and unable to capture the glories of his demographic, which Took It To the Streets, Man. And blew up a few buildings while they were at it, but you cant make an omelette without breaking into a farmers coop, stealing his chickens, setting fire to the coop and running off with the eggs, all of which you later misplaced because you were high.)
Im so used to being lectured by sour Boomers Ive come to think of them all as the Gratingest Generation, . . .
. . . Here's the odd thing: most of my compatriots and contemporaries - guys who came along in the shadow of the ur-boomers - look fore and aft with more pleasure than the founding boomers. Maybe they expected less, and got more; maybe we were sold so much gloom we checked the aftermarket for optimism. Maybe we watched too much Star Trek. I don't know. I do know that there's a certain swath of American culture - well-educated, well-off, well-situated, well-read, well-spoken - who seem to think we live in mud up to our nostrils. They can't look back except to praise the Brave Few who made the unimaginable artistic and intellectual bounty of the late 60s possible (coff); they can't look at the present without cursing the Perfidious Cabal that makes the foolish electorate go to Wal-Mart on Monday and War on Tuesday, and can't look forward without bewailing the ineradicable damage wrought by whatever the New York Times is fretting about today. They're the champions of Man, but give them a minute and they'll quote Mencken and grin about the booboisie. Well, the booboisie of the 20s had lots of kids, and they were the ones who volunteered to kick Hitler. Someone did something right.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/13/2007 06:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I enjoy pointing out that even the good things that came out of the 1960s happened because things were awful. Air and water pollution were awful, litter was everywhere. It was an article of faith with dirty, filthy hippies that they never bathe and have a loathsome odor. Just cleaning all that up makes today far better.
The music were creative and original because much of America was boring beyond stultifying for young people. The one thing they could afford was musical instruments and to form garage bands. So competition was murderous. The vast majority of teenagers stayed home, and did little more then grow their hair a bit longer.
The golden age of movies had come to an end, as had the studio system of movie production. This meant there was also a surfeit of low budget movies in the general collapse of the industry, and the theaters would take anything they could get.
The Democrat party finally collapsed, so was seized by radicals, and the conservative movement was down in the dumps and in retreat, because the MSM said so, and there was no other source of news than those who supported the radicals.
#2
Ala THE WONDER YEARS, the 1960's was a great time to be a kid. Sure, we didn't have the things, probs and issues that are pervasive today, or even during the 70's or 80's, but we didn't feel "bad", etc. about ourselves, society, or the world like many want us to in the present. The World is what we make of it - despite the WOT and anti-Americanism, there is still a lot of good things that should be preserved or enhanced.
The U.S. Marine Corps versus Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.
That will be a battle. And it should be.
A dispute currently pits the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton, California, against MADD. The Corps wants Marines serving under the age of 21 to have the right to consume alcoholic beverages. MADD is steadfastly opposed, and is spear-heading efforts to block the Corps from accomplishing this feat.
The issue at the heart of this confrontation extends far beyond the base limits of Camp Pendleton and the borders of California. It needs to be addressed nationally, and as soon as possible for the benefit of the men and women serving in all the U.S. Armed Forces.
MADD is misguided.
Military men and women of any age have earned the right to assume the privileges of adulthood by their demonstrated levels of courage, commitment, sacrifice and responsibility. Denial of the legal consumption of alcohol to those in uniform under the age of 21 is preposterous and disrespectful, especially because a large share of those in the U.S. Armed Forces are between the ages of 18 and 21.
It is time for the hypocrisy of the current system to end. It is time for federal -- not state and local -- legislation to be enacted to permit present and former military service members -- including active duty, Reserve and National Guard members under the age of 21 -- to be able to show a valid military ID to be served or to purchase alcohol.
#3
Could they federally allow them to drink only at on-base bars? I know many bases have restaurants and bars there. It could shut MADD up and offer a perk to those signing up at the same time. It should also be carried over to allow them to drink at overseas bases as well, if the legal age is 21 in country.
Posted by: NOLA ||
11/13/2007 4:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Old enough to risk their lives for USA, but not old enough to drink? Gimme a break!
#7
The way that MADD sold the national 21 drinking age was to show statistics for drunk driving. Obviously, 20 and under can't hold their booze, so they got most of the DWIs. Thus, a national drinking age of 21 would solve the problem. Friend of mine's grandfather was killed by a 16-year-old drunk driver.
#8
Heh. Kinda Heinleinesque, but let's say that enlisting with the armed services (including Coast Guard) grants the person the right to alcoholic drink, regardless of age.
Rather like national service was required for the franchise in Starship Troopers.
Or, maybe, we can get MADD to admit that just maybe they should focus on the problem drivers and not just restricting access to alcohol.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
11/13/2007 7:24 Comments ||
Top||
#9
This is how it is here in TN. Military are legal despite their age.
#10
(California) Possession of one ounce (28.5 gms) or less is punishable by a maximum $100 fine;
Underage individuals who purchase, attempt to purchase, or consume an alcoholic beverage will receive a minimum $250 fine and/or at least 24 hours of community service, in addition to their driving privileges suspended or delayed for 1 year.
Guess which of the two CA lawmakers are encouraging young folks to do?
Posted by: ed ||
11/13/2007 8:13 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Argh, hit submit too soon.
Possession of one ounce (28.5 gms) or less is punishable by a maximum $100 fine; Any minor (age under 21) convicted of a marijuana, alcohol, or other drug offense faces a 12-month drivers license suspension, regardless of whether the offense was driving-related.
So kiddies, smoke dope and save $150.
/CA legislsture
Posted by: ed ||
11/13/2007 8:16 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The federal mandates effect state transportation funds. It doesn't effect themselves. Nice loophole.
DoD, by policy, directs [but not 'orders' in the legal sense] commanders of installations to mimic local laws for 'good community' purposes. That is why the consumption of alcohol is restricted as in the general community.
Back in the old days [80-90s], the installation commanders had the authority to grant exceptions to the policy. This by custom was usually reserved for the annual anniversary recognition of the unit, 'Unit Birthday'. This entails a request from the subordinate commander along with specification of proper supervision and provision made for sober transportation subsequently for those who participate. Since consequences of DUI or serious injury had very real repercussion upon the subordinate commander, the proper checks and balances were sure to be in place and enforced.
MADDs simply display themselves as fanatics who are just irrational as any fanatics in any cause.
#14
not become alchoholics like so many I've seen.
Troll alert! More John Kerry creative stereotyping. Just how many have you really associated with who were not part of the old draft era? That old image went out the window in the 80s along with the personnel who were alcoholics. The Army instituted a zero tolerance on DUI, a quick career ender. People might medicate themselves after they got out, but the 'happy hours' at the Senior NCO and O clubs went decades ago. Just who are you associating with McCoy? Obviously not the men and women I've had the privilege of serving with.
#16
I dunno man. A lot of young folks get into the military to get away from destructive influences in the hood. How does drinking at 18 at the base bar help improve a young life, who so far has made the right move in every other way?
#18
Military service was one of the reasons the voting age was dropped from 21 to 18. The argument was that if a man was old enough to fight, he should be old enough to vote. After that, they raised the drinking age from 18 to 21 nationwide.
MADD should be renamed MAAD - mothers against all drinking.
#19
#2: Actually, passing some sort of "maturity test" before one can drink sounds like a good idea to me.
You mean, something like being in the Armed Services?
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
11/13/2007 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#20
no one said that they would be made too drink at the base bar. the problem is if they should choose too then they should be allowed too and not get into trouble unless breaking A law. and that DAMM comment was hoot
#21
Sailors here at NAS Whidbey have been known to actually get into their cars and drive the approximately 80 miles to the Canadian border; several little 'burbs around Vancouver have excellent bars and CA chicks like the Yanks.
Been to several event to race and all my single teammates 'disappear' but return in the morning, crawling, but smiling. (maybe its not just the beer)
#22
USN, that sort of thing can be a problem. I grew up in Pennsylvania where the drinking age was 21, and at the time the drinking age in New York was 18. Lots of kids would drive the 20 miles to NY. Unfortunately, not all of them made it home.
Letting the Marines (or soldiers or sailors) drink on base alleviates this problem. They can walk, stagger or take a cab back to the barracks. If the MPs catch them driving, they will (and should) face serious consequences.
#23
We don't check age, just membership or active duty ID at the VFW and Legion hall.
And trust me, if one of those young ones is back from ashcanistan or the sandbox or even a tour up on the DMZ in Korea, he can drink all he wants in our halls. The old hands will get him home safely. Was that way when I was young, will be that way when I am dust. We vets look after our own.
I beleive that active duty military service and age 18 are all that is needed for drinking age. After all, they start a lot younger in Germany and other places.
only the stupid ones drive home while under the influence. the smart ones get a room ( or something)
So far the Armed Forces hasn't figured out a test to keep the dumb ones out; although many of them opt for a career as a (D) politician. And if they did have a stupid filtration test, the SPCA would be on them like white on rice.
#25
If you don't like your law, then get your law changed. Violating it and being disrespectful of it is not suitable mentoring for your 18 year old buddies.
Personally, some of the 18 year olds I know are not mature enough to drive responsibly and and some are not mature enough to drink responsibly, so anything that may allow a combination of the two is a tragic mistake.
My 19 year old got an underage drinking charge (not driving) here in Pennsylvania a couple of months ago. It cost him $430 in fines and court costs and he lost his driver's license for 90 days. It was a tough lesson, but it was one he needed.
#27
Wawsn't this what changed the drinking age in most states to 18 back in the late sixties / early seventies?
I am all for letting active duty men under 21 drink, and wherever they damn well please. The maturity difference of most of these individuals is so far above their age group it is astonishing (well, no, actually it isn't). Screw MADD.
#28
hawh, a guy used fake military ID to drink, and when he turned 21 he went from 26 to 21 on his ID and the bartender couldn't do anything about it. The bar like all of those military types though keeping out the riff raff, protecting their bar.
Posted by: Jan from work ||
11/13/2007 21:19 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Yeah, right. We have a group of young, strong, intelligent men and women who with the help of God are delivering this nation out of the grip of evil, praying that God keeps them safe, while a bunch of older types are trying to shove a bottle of mind numbing liquor into their hands back home, which could result in alcohol related tragedies on the street could wreck their reputations for life...
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.
The New Court of the Democratic Republic of Great Void has decided to admit for hearing a petition challenging the imposition of Urgency and the promulgation of the Interim Constitution Order by Big Bro.
