Couldnât they see this coming?
A new Dutch law preventing sperm donors from remaining anonymous has resulted in a shortage of donations. It has forced an increasing number of Dutch women to cross the border to clinics in Belgium, where anonymity for sperm donors is the norm. Who would have ever thought that there would be a demand for Flemish sperm?
The new legislation has been 10 years in the making. Dutch sperm centres can no longer accept anonymous donations and children born from a donation can obtain their fatherâs identity when they are 16. But ahead of the new regulations the number of men willing to donate their sperm has declined. Women are facing a waiting list of up to two years at a Dutch sperm bank. EFL
Qatarâs Emir Sheikh Hamad ibn Khalifa Al-Thani said yesterday it was no longer acceptable to link the introduction of political reform in the Arab world to a settlement of the Middle East conflict. âFrom now on it is unacceptable to make the conflict with Israel and the realization of peace with this country a pretext for justifying the slow (adoption) of reforms,â he told the opening of a seminar on âDemocracy and reforms in the Arab worldâ.
Today's statement of the obvious involves the elephant in the Arab living room...
The emphasis on the specificity of each country âis allowing some to avoid engaging on the road of reform,â Sheikh Hamad told some 70 intellectuals and Arab civil society representatives.
Any excuse in a storm for some...
The issue of reform was at the center of last monthâs Arab summit in Tunis, when heads of state made a collective commitment to promote domestic reform at their own pace and in their own manner. âAnother pretextâ that has arisen in the region âis that reforms must be opposed because they come from abroad,â said the emir, calling for âan independent Arab approach to reform.â
"An' there ain't nobody tells us what to do! If'n we wanna drive nails into our foreheads we can do dat!"
âThe problems our region is experiencing are a result of the postponement of reform and the shunning of democracy,â he added. Meanwhile, the Group of Eight industrialized countries has heavily rewritten its plan for reform in the Middle East, giving a prominent place to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and making clear change cannot be imposed from outside. A draft of the plan answers many of the severe criticisms Arabs made when the Greater Middle East Initiative was leaked in February.
"Ruh roh. What do we complain about now?"
It will be one of the main documents under discussion when G-8 leaders meet in the United States next week. The new version, now known as the Partnership for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North Africa, cuts out a long preamble lamenting the current social and economic conditions in the Arab world. On the Arab-Israeli conflict, which did not appear in the original version at all, it says: âThe resolution of long-lasting, often bitter, disputes, especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is an important element of progress in the region.â
Actually, it's an important element in the progress of Paleostine, but has nothing to do with Yemen or Qatar or Algeria...
âAt the same time, regional conflicts must not be an obstacle for reforms. Indeed, reforms may make a significant contribution toward resolving them,â adds the draft.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/03/2004 10:08:07 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What's up with this??? Has somebody been making the rounds in the Middle East with a big clue bat or what?
A foreign community school in the capital is believed to be encouraging anti-Islamic values within the campus. According to an informed source, students and staff at the school are being given unbridled freedom to violate the basic social norms and ethics of the country. Speaking to Khaleej Times, the source said there have been complaints that the schoolchildren were neither being disciplined nor controlled. "Even teenage boys and girls in the higher classes are given unrestricted freedom to mingle with each other, resulting in some immoral and shameless incidents," the source said. "The students get physical, much to the chagrin of some of the teachers. There were instances when proofs were found to be indulging in adult behaviour. The elder boys and girls are being put in the same swimming pool even though parents of many girl students have protested against this," the source said.
Itâs also alleged that the principal and the staff members openly flout their anti-Islamic views at staff meetings by passing rude jokes about the religion and condemning the Arabic language. "The Muslim teachers are treated with contempt by students and staff alike and are not allowed to wear hijabs. The students who wear Hijab are also victimised as they are made fun of and embarrassed. The physical education teacher refuses to teach those students who wear Hijabs and girls are forced to oblige him."
It is also alleged that the study of Arabic is wilfully neglected as the principal himself allows the students to bunk the class and small children are sent two floor upstairs for their Arabic lessons, which is again a breach of the law. The teachers are also criticised for bringing alcohol to the staff parties and meetings conducted within the campus. "These things would be allowed in your home country. But when you are functioning in an Islamic country, you have to give due respect to the religion, customs and traditions of your host country," the source said. It has also been pointed out that the school is entertaining teachers who donât have the needed qualification to teach particular subjects. According to the source, the school has also decided to terminate the services of some well-qualified teachers, simply due to racial prejudice. A written complaint to this effect has been already submitted to The Ministry of Education and Youth.
Posted by: TS(vice girl) ||
06/03/2004 11:08:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Girls and boys mingling? The horror of it all!
Why do muslim kids have to attend an International school? I thought Islam provided for a superior education. After all, everything from Geology to Anatomy is spelled out in the koran.
Saudi Arabia solved the problem of Infidel contamination, by only allowing Saudis to go to an International or the American school for Kindergarten. After that, they have to go to Saudi schools. There are quite a few non-saudi muslims attending the American school but except for Ramadan when the infidel kids cannot eat outside (playground), they (muslim kids) do not complain too much about our depraved ways.
#2
I spent quite some times in UAE (dubai)and would be sad to see it goes the way of the saudis.
I d consider dubai an oasis of relative freedom(not politicaly of course), in that region.
YEEESSSSSS!!! Another wannabe tyrant on his way out!!
Venezuelaâs opposition obtained enough signatures to trigger a referendum on the rule of President Hugo Chavez, electoral authorities said on Thursday. Senior National Electoral Council official Jorge Rodriguez said preliminary electronic results showed 2.45 million valid pro-referendum signatures had been ratified so far, more than the 2.44 million required. "This shows a clear tendency in favor of the possibility of calling a referendum on the rule of the president," Rodriguez said in a broadcast from the council headquarters in Caracas. Final definitive results would be released later. He said electoral authorities had decided to announce the early result to help maintain peace in the country. Before the announcement, violence broke out in downtown Caracas when pro-government rioters torched cars and trucks and gunmen attacked the office of the Caracas mayor, Alfredo Pena, an outspoken critic of left-winger Chavez. Rodriguez did not give a date for when the referendum would be held, but the electoral council had previously said it could be Aug. 8.
#3
The deal isn't necessarily a bad thing. The locale they mention for the factory site is one in deep need of economic investment. As for the product, maybe they'll give Brazil a run for their money.
Four men, including two Britons and a Lebanese, appear in court in Paris Wednesday charged with running a pimping network that supplied male and female prostitutes to wealthy Middle Eastern clients. On the first day of the trial Tuesday, one of the accused - the Lebanese Wissam Nashef - claimed to have provided girls and boys to the son of the Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri and Prince Abdelaziz, son of Saudi King Fahd. The other accused are David Barrett and Ramsey Ataliah from Britain, and the Frenchman Patrice Quedville de Chardois. "Everyone was happy. I didnât realise what I was doing," Quedville de Chardois told the court Tuesday. He admitted putting Barrett in contact with young men who then passed them on to clients. The young men received between USD 300 and USD 500 (EUR 245- EUR 405) for each meeting, he said. When Barrett was arrested in March 2003, police found a large sum of money in his apartment as well as a dossier on some 40 young women including photographs and the results of blood tests. Barrett told the court that the girls and boys were hired as escort agents, and that sex was not part of the arrangement.
From Khilafah, crediting The Guardian
... Jerry Brotton, a lecturer at Royal Holloway College, London, told the Guardian that a hitherto unnoticed letter from Elizabethâs security chief and spymaster, Sir Francis Walsingham, to her ambassador in Istanbul showed that it was Turkish naval manoeuvres rather than Drakeâs swashbuckling which delivered the fatal blow to the Spanish invasion plans. The letter, which ordered the ambassador, William Harborne, to incite the Turks to harry the Spanish navy, was written in the mid-1580s and has been buried in archives ever since because it did not apparently relate to any major historical event.
But Mr Brotton told the festival: "Walsinghamâs plan was ultimately successful. Ottoman fleet movements in the eastern Mediterranean fatally split Philip IIâs armada ... So alongside all the stories weâre told at school about why the Spanish Armada failed to conquer Britain and destroy Protestantism, we should add another reason: the Anglo-Ottoman alliance brokered by Elizabeth, Walsingham [and others]." ....
Walsingham hoped that Islamic forces might keep the Spanish forces "thoroughly occupied" by "some incursions from the coast of Africa", or by attacking his Italian territories from the sea. The Spanish fleet was eventually defeated on July 30 1588 as it awaited the rest of the invasion force off Calais. At the battle of Gravelines, the English navy used fireships before closing in on the confused Spanish.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/03/2004 8:34:58 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So the contribution of the mighty Turks was actually to act as a decoy.
#3
what good would imperial galleys have been in the North Sea?
Story says that the Ottoman fleet was moving around in the eastern Med. Spain had to keep a eye on them and ships in the western Med just in case they moved west. That took ships away that Phillip could have used against England. Nice plan, if true.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/03/2004 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
Iâve received the "Bush Resume" hate mail email from several people recently; EFL
Since President Bush is looking for votes upon his re-election, itâs important and timely to view his resume. Plse fwd to others.
RESUME For George W. Bush
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol....
I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to justice.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my fatherâs library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.
PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERY VOTER YOU KNOW.
ALSO IF YOU HAVENâT VOTED IN THE PAST, GUESS WHAT...
NOW IS THE TIME TO START!
I began receiving these in March 2004 or so. Obviously, the creator of this wasnât too careful with facts (e.g., about 99% of the Texas records are public).
Does anyone know
1. who created this resume
2. has the Kerry Campaign told its supporters not to send this email
3. has anyone in big media (or I suppose small media for that matter) reported on the obvious inaccuracies in the email
#3
tsk tsk....My goodness. What will they come out with next. If the Dims are pinning their hopes on this they know they are in big trouble. Not to worry, this country will not elect Hanoi John.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
06/03/2004 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Perhaps the DNC will turn to "Get your vmagra now" mail to help pay the bills.
Aren't Bush's papers from his days in the Gov'nor's mansion on file? I thought I heard they were right around the same time as the flap over then-frontrunner Howard Dean's locked files.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/03/2004 02:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm glad that Kerry wasn't involved with her so that his defeat can be issues based. Hopefully, she will be satisfied with her 15 minutes of fame and not write a book or become a judge on Star Search.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/03/2004 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/03/2004 01:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Here is the text of my email to that idiot:
Reggie,
I never liked Denver Broncos but you have given me even more reason to hate them. Clearly you no NOTHING about military service and even less about those who serve. When you enter military service you sign a contract (kind of like a Football contract). Well these people agree to play for the Military for four years active duty with an option of two more in what's called ready reserve. So when there option is picked up by the military for another say six months it's not illegal, slavery, or given the current situation not surprising. FYI the Navy has ALWAYS done this with personnel that were deployed on ships when their tour ended. Your buddy Chalmers Johnson (Left-Wing Liberal LOON) should know this too since he served in the Navy. Also the claim that claims everyone joins the military is some undereducated poor Black, Hispanic, etc, is a bunch of Bravo Sierra. I was in the Air Force for 20 years as part of the all-volunteer service and 80% of those who serve are not there because they had no choices back home. I was atypical of those who served: High School graduate, adventurous, wanting to see the world, and yes I liked to play with high-tech gadgets.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
06/03/2004 12:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
And the idiot responds:
Thanks for the message. Up to now, I've tried to respond to every message I receive, but with hundreds of e-mails flooding in each day, I simply can't keep pace.
Although I don't have time to respond specifically, please know that I have read your message, and I do appreciate your taking the time.
Best regards,
Reggie
Care to guess what percentage are of the negative variety?
EFL - Sorry if this is a repeat. I tried to look through the last several days and didnât see any Mike Wallace material only Andy Loony
In a scathing critique of the Iraq war, CBS News veteran Mike Wallace questioned President Bushâs "validity" as commander in chief. Wallace, speaking at a Smithsonian Institution "National World War II Reunion" Friday, denounced the effort to oust dictator Saddam Hussein, saying, "This is not, in my estimation, a good war."
The newsman, who served on a Navy ship during World War II, was on a panel addressing "World War II veterans as journalists," which later was broadcast by CSPAN, reported the watchdog Media Research Center, or MRC. The event was held in a tent on the Mall in Washington the day before dedication of the World War II Memorial. Along with fellow panelist Allen Neuharth â founder of USA Today and a World War II veteran â Wallace cited Bushâs lack of military experience, unfavorably comparing him to George Washington. Wallace also contrasted Bush with President Franklin Roosevelt, but, notes MRC, failed to acknowledge FDR lacked any military experience yet managed to lead the nation during World War II. "George Washington was commander in chief and president of the United States," Wallace said. "Franklin Roosevelt was commander in chief and president of the United States. I donât have to persuade anybody about the validity of those two guys."
MRC said Wallaceâs personal views comport with the disgust he showed toward President Bush in an April 18 "60 Minutes" interview with journalist Bob Woodward, proposing: "The president of the United States, without a great deal of background in foreign policy, makes up his mind and believes he was sent by somebody to free the people â not just in Iraq, but around the world?" During the Friday event, the "60 Minutes" correspondent said: "I donât know how we got into a position where our present commander in chief and the people around him had the guts to take our kids and send them on what seems to be â it sure is not a noble enterprise."
According to MRC, Wallaceâs comments came as he contrasted World War II with today. "We knew what we were fighting for," he said. "We knew how important it was. We loved our country. We loved our commander in chief. We respected the people with whom we worked and we were caught up in a, as I say, in a mutual enterprise, if thatâs the word, the world needed but the Americans were able to bring and when finally Pearl Harbor came and we were, we finally got in, it was a damn good thing that we did." MRC said while most in the audience applauded Wallaceâs sentiments, a few stood up and came forward to yell their displeasure. They were urged by the moderator to wait until the question-and-answer session. snip - Neuharthâs comments
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/03/2004 2:35:57 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Isn't it about time Wallace was retired? Given that he's 86.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/03/2004 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Excuuuuuse me? Isn't Wallace the dickhead who said he would not betray a source who gave him a heads up about an impending attack on Americans because his first 'duty' is as a journalist? As far as Wallace is concerned, the only good war would be one the U.S. loses, as long as he gets the scoop. What a moral vapidity.
#3
Retire hell! I'm gonna roll old Larra King for his gig! Home at last!
Posted by: Mike Wallace ||
06/03/2004 10:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Isn't the duty of a "journalist" to provide information and facts? A little honesty would be refreshing here. Instead of hiding behind the unbiased journalist label, have the decency to admit its all about YOUR causes. These guys are arrogant enough to think they actually have the "expertise" and "understanding" to solve the world's problems.
Posted by: jawa ||
06/03/2004 10:52 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Well, I guess GW will just have to suffer through minus the official "Mike Wallace Seal of Validity".
#6
I heard a few snippets of wallace's comments and he basically bobed from one platitude to another. But without a script to read I'm sure thats all he could do.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/03/2004 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Hold up. I just read that whole article before I realized that Wallace is supposed to be an "objective journalist".
How far you've fallen, old (and in your case, reeeeallllllly fucking OLD) media. Everyone knows what sort of political leanings the Objective Journalists have, and nobody is surprised when they lose their minds and spout off like blathering college co-eds with a political science "degree".
Mike Wallace is an asshat.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
06/03/2004 12:19 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Wallace was (is) one of those "classic journalists" - a sort of zero sum power gamer believing that only by bringing someone down (the higher / bigger the better) can they "move up" and being anything less than critical of anyone in power is treasonous.
#11
Wallace, speaking at a Smithsonian Institution "National World War II Reunion" Friday, denounced the effort to oust dictator Saddam Hussein, saying, "This is not, in my estimation, a good war."
What war is a good war?? Some wars have to be fought, and some don't. But NO war is ever "good".
WE must have found the *one* guy on the entire farking planet who hadn't heard of the World Trade Center being destroyed by terrorists supported by Saddam.....
From The Muslim News, reprint of an article from The Daily Star
The battle for the hearts and minds of Arab-American voters has taken a decidedly negative turn for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry. A raft of statements by Kerry lauding President George W. Bushâs unequivocal support of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has alienated some in a community that, though relatively small, is strategically situated in certain states expected to be closely contested in the November election.
Kerry has recently endorsed Sharonâs Gaza disengagement plan as well as Bushâs April 14 commitment to Sharon, acquiescing to Israelâs retention of large West Bank settlements, and the denial of Palestinian refugeesâ right of return. Previously, Kerry has expressed support for Israelâs assassinations of Palestinian leaders, the construction of its separation barrier and the isolation of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. ...
The relatively small Arab-American community - estimated at 3.5 million - has gained prominence beyond its numbers due to its generally high voter turnout and preponderance in several "battleground" states - notably Michigan. A majority of Arab-Americans voted for Bush in 2000, partly due to a perception that, like his father, he would be relatively evenhanded on the Arab-Israeli issue. But, polls now give Kerry a double-digit lead over Bush, with a large number undecided or leaning toward independent candidate Ralph Nader, who many supported in 2000 and who is of Lebanese descent.
Judge William Shaheen, the head of the Kerry campaign in New Hampshire, is the senatorâs unofficial liaison with the Arab-American community and the husband of former New Hampshire governor Jeanne Shaheen, Kerryâs national campaign chair. Judge Shaheen is adamant that a Kerry presidency would offer hope on Palestine. It would bring "a breath of fresh air" to the peace process Shaheen told The Daily Star. Shaheen maintains that Kerryâs individual positions are less important than his willingness to mediate. According to Shaheen, the real problem is "that we have a president whoâs not engaged in the peace process. ...
Kerryâs recently expressed views have been a letdown to community leaders like James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute (AAI), who is in close contact with the Kerry campaign. At an AAI conference in October, Kerry had won plaudits for labeling Israelâs separation barrier "provocative and counter-productive." But he has since called it a "legitimate act of self-defense." Zogby says that Kerryâs views on Israeli-Palestinian issues risk alienating those for whom that issue is paramount. ...
A poll commissioned by the AAI in late April in four battleground states that have sizeable Arab-American populations - Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio - found that while Kerry leads Bush by 45 to 28 percent, the remainder intend to vote for Nader or are undecided. The number of Arab-American voters in those states - 510,000 - is approximately equivalent to the combined margin of victory in all four in 2000. Some 170,000 of those votes are still up for grabs, says Zogby, and convincing undecided voters to support Kerry hinges on his stance on Palestine.
Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report, says the Kerry campaign is simply deferring to Jewish supporters, who provide significant funding for the Democratic party. And Jewish voters are turning to Bush in unprecedented numbers because of his pro-Israel policies, he says. "Thereâs no question that President Bush is going to get a bigger percentage of the Jewish vote than Republicans normally get, and maybe than a Republican has ever gotten," says Cook. Kerryâs campaigns are "just trying to cut their losses." ...
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/03/2004 3:25:05 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just wait a few days--he'll change his mind. He always does. "I was for Israel before I was against it."
Posted by: Mike ||
06/03/2004 6:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Judge William Shaheen, the head of the Kerry campaign
#3
Would these same Muslims be the ones who danced in the streets on McDonald Avenue and Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn? Hmmm...muslims support Democrats....interesting.
#4
Would these Muslims be the ones who danced in the streets on McDonald Avenue and Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn, NY after 9/11? Hmmm...muslims support Democrats....interesting.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/03/2004 11:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
According to Shaheen, the real problem is "that we have a president whoâs not engaged in the peace process. ...
Ummm, wasn't it President Bush who proposed the 'roadmap to peace'?
Personal aside - my cousin met Jeanne Shaheen three years ago. His unvarnished opinion of her: 'dumb as a box of rocks'. Seems the hubby is equally endowed intellectually.
#7
lol - caught between a rock and a hard place....
zoolo - never heard of this - muslims in the US dancing after 9-11 - sure wouldn't happen in my neigborhood... they would have some real problems....we are a very patriotic bunch ...street parties every 4th.... and please do not try and whine about civil liberties ..what about the rights of the those who died?? especially the ones that had to jump to avoid being burned to death...BASTARDS!NEVER FORGET AND NEVER FORGIVE...RETRIBUTION IS ALL WE CAN OFFER THESE BASTARDS..YESTERDAY,TODAY AND TOMMAROW!
Posted by: Dan ||
06/03/2004 15:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I don't think is that big a surprise, unless the South Koreans chose to ignore the signals from the US. There has been talk, for a while, of moving 2 brigades out of SK. The 12,000 troop withdrawl was proposed last year.
SK has twice the population and 40 times the wealth of NK. Withdraw the rest of the troops and let them defend themselves.
Posted by: ed ||
06/03/2004 15:56 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Dan, Of course you didn't hear about this...the media was too busy ramming down our throats about this being a "tiny minority" of muslim extremists line. They also had the protection of the NYC Police Dept. Liberalhawk, as you can imagine, its even uglier now.
CNN said "there is enormous public interest in scrutinizing the potential disenfranchisement of such a large pool of citizens in what portends to be a closely contested presidential race."
Translation: We need everybody possible to vote early and often for Kerry.
Nice that CNN thinks felons will naturally vote Democratic.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/03/2004 0:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nice that CNN thinks felons will naturally vote Democratic.
Well, um, yeah.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/03/2004 1:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Jen, they do! I've seen 80% but Google will doubtless give you an answer.
Posted by: Phil B ||
06/03/2004 2:12 Comments ||
Top||
"The good news is: Liberals' anti-war hysteria seems to have run its course. I base this conclusion on Al Gore's lunatic anti-war speech last week. Gore always comes out swinging just as an issue is about to go south. He's the stereotypical white guy always clapping on the wrong beat. "
#2
Ann is like a fresh breeze every week. Amen to the Gore comments too. You can also add Senator Kerry to that evaluation too (one step behind). I have to wonder what the History books will say about the WOT and the Iraq campaign?
#3
Being a fan of mosh pits, this was my favorite line: "This guy is always leaping into the mosh pit at the precise moment the crowd parts."
Posted by: Tibor ||
06/03/2004 13:33 Comments ||
Top||
#4
An anti-war stance during a conflict in which the Reserves are called up is the kiss-of-death for an American politician. I wish it worked for New Anchors as well.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/03/2004 16:36 Comments ||
Top||
President George W. Bush delivered the commencement address at the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs yesterday. Here is a transcript of his remarks.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/03/2004 12:53:37 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the dude "gets it"
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
06/03/2004 1:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If you didn't get to see the film clips of Bush congratulating the graduates as they came up on stage - DO IT. Hysterical! Fun! Funny! Cool! It shows Bush is an unpretentious man - a CinC worthy of the loyalty and affection shown to him by the Armed Forces of America.
The guy who stuck his ass out - I'm not sure what he expected Dubya to do, lol! This will be a classic piece of video!
#3
Apparently his speech to reporters club a couple of weeks ago was hilarious. Shame this doesn't come across in TV addresses.
Posted by: Phil B ||
06/03/2004 1:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent and with a few hard blows will collapse in weakness and in panic." GW Bush 6/2/04
"That leaves us with this tantalizing question. Having gone so far on September 11, can we not go further? Will one more push topple the rock?" Belmont Club 6/1/04
Interesting. GW is part of the blogosphere.
Posted by: john ||
06/03/2004 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
would hope so, blogsphere is where bush's most vocal support is
(Hi bush!)
From MEMRI, with regard to the Arab Leagueâs meeting held on May 22-23.
The undersigned organizations express regret over the miniscule results of the Arab summit in the issues [concerning] the Arab world â first among them political reform. .... The Arab govern-ments are insisting on procrastination and time-wasting, by connecting the realization of reform with the resolution of the Palestinian problem and the ending of the occupation in Iraq â as if the liberation of Palestine and Iraq demanded the continuation of corruption, torture, and autocratic rule, and the abolition of democracy, rule of law, and human rights in the Arab world. .... In its present form, the charter does not guarantee an effective mechanism for supervising and protecting human rights in the Arab countries, and does not ensure the right to political participation through objective, free elections, or the right to form political parties and professional and labor unions. [The charter] limits the right to strike, endorses curtailment of womenâs rights, and ignores the existence and roles of human rights organizations. Complaints that the meeting ignored recent suppression of human rights organizations in Syria, Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia.
The summit ignored the wide-ranging killings going on in the Darfour region of the Sudan, and the grave violations of human rights and international law being committed there â which have reached the level of ethnic cleansing â by militias supported by the Sudanese government. [This is being done] in disregard of what was written in the report issued by a fact-finding delegation sent by the Arab League that confirmed serious human rights violations in Darfour by the local Sudanese administration. The summitâs failure to address its obligation in this case can be additional justification for foreign intervention in Darfour. .... The Arab summit was a total failure even in its attempt to ease the pressure for reform by internal public opinion and by the international community. It was confirmed that the task of reform will not begin as long as the Arab peoples, the political parties, and the unions and the human rights organizations, and the rest of the institutions of civil society do not take this task upon themselves, and stop putting faith in rhetorical promises.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/03/2004 2:09:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/03/2004 12:52:40 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Also, Sun rises in the east, scientists say. Film at 11.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
06/03/2004 1:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Part of the problem, the Forum said, is that Africa cannot attract enough investment.
What? I thought with self-rule and having the evil white colonists kicked out, investors would flock to Africa.
Lost continent. Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for self-destruction. However, help is on the way...Kofi Anan and the UN NGO's are trying to control and tax the Internet, so there's re-distribution of money from the West to Africa et al...heck since Kyoto Accord failed, let's try a new Marxist idea on the compassionate breast beaters in the First World...
Posted by: rex ||
06/03/2004 2:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Africans and the leaders are drunk on Marxist philosophies. Who the hell wants to open a women's wear factory, for example, when one half of the African continent will bomb it because they hate women and the other half will steal it because they are a bunch of Marxian losers with no view of the world beyond their own nose?
Africa will remain a sinkhole of genocidal Marxist/leftist despotism and nepotism for some time.
From Front Page Magazine
.... Mary Boyce, Professor Emeritus of Iranian Studies and a scholar of Zoroastrianism, spent a 12-month sabbatical in 1963-64 living in the Zoroastrian community of Iran (mostly in Sharifabad, on the northern Yazdi plain). During a lecture series given at Oxford in 1975, she noted how the Iranian ancestors of the Zoroastrians had a devoted working relationship (i.e., herding livestock) with dogs when they lived a nomadic existence on the Asian steppes. This sustained contact evolved over generations such that dogs became âa part in (Zoroastrian) religious beliefs and practicesâŠwhich in due course became a part of the heritage of Zoroastrianism.â Boyce then provided an historical overview of the deliberate, wanton cruelty of Muslims and their children towards dogs in Iran, including a personal eyewitness account:
In Sharifabad the dogs distinguished clearly between Moslem and Zoroastrian, and were prepared to goâŠfull of hope, into a crowded Zoroastrian assembly, or to fall asleep trustfully in a Zoroastrian lane, but would flee as before Satan from a group of Moslem boysâŠThe evidence pointsâŠto Moslem hostility to these animals having been deliberately fostered in the first place in Iran, as a point of opposition to the old (pre-Islamic jihad conquest) faith there.
Certainly in the Yazdi areaâŠMoslems found a double satisfaction in tormenting dogs, since they were thereby both afflicting an unclean creature and causing distress to the infidel who cherished him. There are grim stories from the time (i.e., into the latter half of the 19th century) when the annual poll-tax was exacted, of the tax gatherer tying a Zoroastrian and a dog together, and flogging both alternately until the money was somehow forthcoming, or death released them.
I myself was spared any worse sight than that of a young Moslem girlâŠstanding over a litter of two-week old puppies, and suddenly kicking one as hard as she could with her shod foot. The puppy screamed with pain, but at my angry intervention she merely said blankly, âBut itâs unclean.â In Sharifabad I was told by distressed Zoroastrian children of worse things: a litter of puppies cut to pieces with a spade-edge, and a dogâs head laid open with the same implement; and occasionally the air was made hideous with the cries of some tormented animal. Such wanton cruelties on the Moslemsâ part added not a little to the tension between the communities. ...
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/03/2004 6:04:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Reminds me of what one of my Armenian friends said about what happened when the Shah fell. The first thing the mullahs did was order all the pigs (which were owned by the Armenians) to be slaughtered. What a bunch of primitive idiots.
#5
It's not sensing evil or being able to identify religion. Dogs have senses of smell so acute that by our standards it's like ESP. They can easily identify members of the same family by smell even if they haven't met a member before. They can identify people by diet. And they can identify emotional reactionâfriend or foeâsimply by sense of smell.
Posted by: Dave Schuler ||
06/03/2004 10:13 Comments ||
Top||
#6
why should you be cruel to an animal cause its unclean. i dont eat pigs. I cant imagine torturing one, however.
Hmmmmm I've always wondered why dawgs always take a liking to me.
Posted by: Ronald McDonald ||
06/03/2004 10:59 Comments ||
Top||
#9
It's hard to get excited about liberating a country of psychopaths who delight in torturing man's best friend. As for viewing dogs as being unclean, have these diaper heads ever checked out a mirror lately? Sick.
Posted by: rex ||
06/03/2004 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#10
No religion that hates the dog could possibly be true or good.
#11
should we not have defended countries where they eat dogs? Should we give up on our country, where cows, pigs and chickens suffer by the millions every day? Look, every culture has its own things about animals. Im more worried about how they treat humans.
#13
"Heaven is by favor; if it were by merit your dog would go in and you would stay out. Of all the creatures ever made [man] is the most detestable. Of the entire brood, he is the only one... that possesses malice. He is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain."
-Twain
#14
no, bulldog, and im not a vegetarian. But it seems kinda silly for folks who think of the PETAniks as loonies to get their panties in a bunch over Muslim views towards dogs. Reeks to me of "cherry picking" if you will.
Look - there are plenty of muslims who are our allies in this thing - from Karzai, to the Kurds, to the anti-Mullah Iranians, to that sane Italian Imam, - etc. If we're gonna turn away from them cause doggies dont like them, we're not serious about this, and we're gonna lose.
#15
Should we not have defended countries where they eat dogs? Should we give up on our country, where cows, pigs and chickens suffer by the millions every day? Look, every culture has its own things about animals. Im more worried about how they treat humans.
We're not talking about killing to eat (survival) we're talking about joy in physical abuse (sadism). All places on earth have people who do this, but what is the overall view of each society? Is our society overall indifferent to animals being kicked?
Re Humans vs doggies-Liberalhawk is right about focusing on the big picture, though. Start with the biggest problems.
#16
Remembering last night's Porterhouse, bone shared with my German Shepherd, and Poodle, and reading this story, makes one realize that there is really a superior and inferior view on matters such as this.
True, we must keep sight of the big picture, but if a young girl feels she is kicking a pup with the approval of some so-called holy-man, then there more evidence that there is something systemic wrong with that religion. Why youth violence against animals who would be generally friendly and bond with you is such a tell-tale sign of evil.
The only middle-easterners who I know who were truly fond of dogs are the Christian Lebanese who own the Liquor Store where I buy my Lotto ticket.
I would like to see dog's revenge. In a building in Iran collapsing, a dog rescues Zoroasters, Christians first. The smell of kindness and appreciation. . .
(Images.Google)
Looks a lot like my "Z", but isn't
#17
Here's the big picture- we have and will continue to have zero values in common with 75% of Iraqis. We invaded Iraq for startegic positioning, not to liberate peace loving people. The sooner all of us, and especially the WH, gets a realistic and dispassionate view of Iraqis, the sooner we can finish the job there and not stay there on an endless quest of winning over their hearts and minds.
As for being PETA-like...how civilized a culture is how that culture treats its most defenceless members, including animals.
As for the Kurds, because they have their roots historically as shepherds, they were one of the earliest cultures to domesticate dogs - to guard their sheep. The Kuvasz - a Kennel Club breed- was bred by Kurds. A popular working sheep herding/protecting dog for Kurds is the Kangal.
Kurds are not dog-haters, nor are they America-haters. Works for me.
As for the Koreans eating dogs - proves what philosophers say about uncivilized nations.
Posted by: rex ||
06/03/2004 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#18
The Native Americans (not sure which particular tribe) have a wonderful story. I'm paraphrasing cause I don't have it with me, but at some point in history man learns to think and reason and so the Great Spirit comes and creates a great divide between man and beast. All animals cross over to the 'animal' side. At the last minute, the dog looks at man and jumps back across to stand at his side. Wish I had the actually story with me, I'll have to look it up. But it's absolutely true. Throughout history and pre-history dogs have always been at our side. They protected early man from predators and helped us hunt. Without dogs mankind would probably not have survived during pre-history. One more proof that muslims are fucked in the brain.
#21
True, we must keep sight of the big picture, but if a young girl feels she is kicking a pup with the approval of some so-called holy-man
1. there are kids who torture animals here.
2. She didnt cite a holy man, merely the general fact of the animal being unclean. She was apparently being defensive, in the manner of 6 years olds being caught doing something everywhere
3. The major evidence in the article refers to a time when violence to dogs was used as a political weapon against Zorostrians. Analogy to folks here calling for burying jihadis in pig skins - using a local culture against its practitioners
4. Yup, there are plenty of cultures that are not as fond of dogs. Plenty of less aculturated Eastern European Jews, for example.
I continue to look forward to the liberation of Iranian muslims. Faster, please.
#22
also i see no evidence that all muslims do this, as opposed to Iranians. Or anything on how they treat other animals, as compared to how westerners do.
IE what i see is "cherry picking" hunting through every islamic country from Morocco to Indonesia, and looking over hundreds of years, for examples of barbaric behavior to confirm an opinion that muslims are barbarians. Something that when it is done by muslim haters of Christians and Jews we (correctly) denounce.
look, muslims world wide are NOT barbarians. They are heirs to one of the worlds great cultures, and are as individuals often good, and refined, people. Now that great culture stagnated, and that stagnation, and the circumstances of that stagnation, led to a political backwardness that has made it hard to turn things around, and that has handicapped most muslim countries to this day. and has led to true barbarism among a far too large minority of muslims, and excuse making for that barbarism among many more. But muslims ARE NOT barbarians per se, and the belief that they are undermines the very policies that are needed to change the situation. See Rexs view of Bush policies in Iraq as a case in point.
#23
Kurds are nominally Muslims, #18, but the saving grace[IMHO]is that Kurds take their Muslim religion "lightly." In fact, Kurds identify more with Zoroastrians. Interesting in light of the article under discussian. For further information: http://www.itnet.org/kurds_islam.html
"The Kurds and Islam" ...many Kurds still feel some connection with the ancient Zoroastrian faith, and feel it is an original Kurdish spirituality that far predates the seventh century AD arrival of Muhammad...Mystical practices and participation in Sufi orders are also widespread among Kurds. Many of these orders are considered heretical by rigid orthodox Muslims. Drawing heavily on shamanism, Zoroastrianism and elements of Christianity, Kurdish mysticism places emphasis on the direct experience of God through meditation, ecstatic experiences and the intercession of holy men or sheiks...
Posted by: rex ||
06/03/2004 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Libhawk, there is a general "consensus" in the Arab world that dogs are bad and cats are good because of what Mohammed did as recorded in the Koran.
And while it's chic for Leftists like you to carry the Muslims water and pretend they're just as "cultured" as Westerners, they're not.
That's why we have this War.
Many of their laws under shari'a and their practices ARE barbaric--chopping off people's hands for stealing, beheading their "enemies" in public, treating women like property, ad infinitum--based on tribal Bedoin life and "laws" formulated for the 7th Century desert.
Even their goal of world conquest is barbaric and not a system designed to cope with a 21st-Century interconnected and populous globe.
Mohammed wanted his tribe to "take over the world" so that they could have the best watering holes and grass for their goats in the Arabian peninsula.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/03/2004 13:54 Comments ||
Top||
#25
rex - sounds like youre describing sufism, which is widespread in the muslim world, not just among Kurds.
Jen - there may well be a consensus that dogs are bad - thats hardly barabarism or torture. Yes there are barbaric practices in historic Islam - as there were in the medieval west - yet the same era that gave us the inquisition, the rack, the auto da fe, also gave us towering cathedrals, amazing music, and beautiful poetry - if you look not at the texts based on 7th c life,but on how muslim states actually existed from the 9th to the 16th century, you see one of the world great civilizations. The challenge for muslims is adapting to the modern world, and so renewing their civilization. Bernard Lewis documents how difficult this has been. Unfortunately the attempt to adapt was hijacked in the middle of the century by muslims who followed the worst of the Wests exports - socialism and fascism. We are fighting not against Islam, but against the hijacking of Islam by those who would take it backwards, with an ideology based on muslim fundamentalism, but with a death seeking ethos rooted in western fascism. President Bush (apparently) correctly recognizes this. Too many on the left do not. I wish Bush well in his struggle to reform the Islamic civilization, and despair of what will happen to that project should the left triumph.
#26
This is the great challenge of our time, the storm in which we fly. History is once again witnessing a great clash. This is not a clash of civilizations. The civilization of Islam, with its humane traditions of learning and tolerance, has no place for this violent sect of killers and aspiring tyrants. This is not a clash of religions. The faith of Islam teaches moral responsibility that enobles men and women, and forbids the shedding of innocent blood. Instead, this is a clash of political visions.
this is eloquent, and true. I suppose im a chic leftist for beleiving it.
#27
My view is realistic, albeit not politically correct, to liberals and compassionate conservatives.
I do not share the latter's infatuation with Iraqis nor do I believe in all the excuses made for their country's failure. ..if only it wasn't for Saddam, if only it wasn't for the poverty, if only only they had democracy, if only ...Not all cultures are of equal value. End of story.
We need Iraq for geo-political reasons. That does not mean we should trust them or like them or expect them to transform themselves into a facsimile version of ourselves.
Posted by: rex ||
06/03/2004 14:11 Comments ||
Top||
#28
I had some considerable experience with, as David mentioned, the largest nation in the Muslim world, spending three years there, three years in Indonesia as the U.S. Ambassador to that country. I know what tolerant people the most of those 200 million Muslims in Indonesia are. And I believe that, in fact, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who really aspired to, but to what we enjoy, freedom and the prosperity that freedom engenders
I had some considerable experience with, as David mentioned, the largest nation in the Muslim world, spending three years there, three years in Indonesia as the U.S. Ambassador to that country. I know what tolerant people the most of those 200 million Muslims in Indonesia are. And I believe that, in fact, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who really aspired to, but to what we enjoy, freedom and the prosperity that freedom engenders
I suppose admiring this mans views makes me a chic leftist, despite every chic leftist I know despising this man.
#29
I had some considerable experience with, as David mentioned, the largest nation in the Muslim world, spending three years there, three years in Indonesia as the U.S. Ambassador to that country. I know what tolerant people the most of those 200 million Muslims in Indonesia are. And I believe that, in fact, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who really aspired to, but to what we enjoy, freedom and the prosperity that freedom engenders
I had some considerable experience with, as David mentioned, the largest nation in the Muslim world, spending three years there, three years in Indonesia as the U.S. Ambassador to that country. I know what tolerant people the most of those 200 million Muslims in Indonesia are. And I believe that, in fact, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who really aspired to, but to what we enjoy, freedom and the prosperity that freedom engenders
I suppose admiring this mans views makes me a chic leftist, despite every chic leftist I know despising this man.
#30
Liberalhawk,if you despair of what will happen should the Left triumph, then quit helping them by carrying their water!
I think the jury's still out as to whether the barbarism and primitive thinking is confined to just radical Islamism or is true of Islam as a whole.
The Koran doesn't address democracy, but pushes some government by the people ("ulema") which no modern Muslim ruler has ever implemented.
Apparently, they believe it's Allan's will that some rule and others obey and that the status quo shouldn't be questioned.
The idea that all people (men AND WOMEN) have equal rights given to them by God is not really in their world view.
Our Enlightenment brought this idea to the West in the 18th Century!
Islam is against the charging of interest which they say is "Jewish" and which obviates capitalism.
The West, under Christianity, did make mistakes...1,000 YEARS AGO and we learned from those mistakes!
(It would be as if Spain was still having the Inquisition and America kept the Salem witch trials, if we were like the Arab world.)
The Muslim views about women are absolutely medieval--they don't want women to vote because they say their judgement is impaired by menstruation!
Islam is the very definition of Insanity=doing the same thing over and over and getting the same bad result.
That's a big part of what we're doing over there now--teaching the old Muslim dog some new "tricks" about how to live free in the modern world.
And the Arab world hasn't had more than a few accomplishments in art, literature, science, math and medicine in a long, long, long time.
Ask around.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/03/2004 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Liberalhawk says: ". . .what i see is "cherry picking" hunting through every islamic country from Morocco to Indonesia, and looking over hundreds of years, for examples of barbaric behavior to confirm an opinion that muslims are barbarians . . ."
Yep. That's what we do here at Rantburg. And we have to look far and wide for those "juicy" little tidbits of anti-Islamic propganda, I tell ya--because most of our "lookin' has to do with things those Moslems did hundreds of years ago. It's a campaign! A dirty campaign against our peaceful Moslem neighbors. It's nothin' more than a witchhunt, and we should be ashamed of ourselves suggesting that Moslems are "barbaric." They drive cars. Hell, they even have video and such. I saw it myself--when Perlman and Berg were put through the Moslem penal system. Their system of govronment is jist a little diff'rent, is all. Why most of them A-rabs are just good, decent, "down home" folk. It's the radicals among 'em that are makin' all the trouble . . . the radicals--who hate dogs, who consider Jews dogs, who rape little boys and girls, who blow up thousands of civilians (especially Jews), who state intentions of world domination, who practice "honor" killings, who subjugate women, who ruthlessly persecute anyone different from themselves, especially Jews, who have organized into terror units to carry out armed attacks against civilization . . . but they're really pretty much like them Nazis were--a misunderstood lot--with a proud heritage and culture that we shouldn't overlook. Though stagnated, Arabia will rise again! All this talk of a "War on Terror." It's jist not worthy of our time. And our nit-picky investigations--we should stop 'em. Besides, the kooks on Rantburg like to lump everyone together. Yep. "All Moslems are bad Moslems." That's what they say.
Liberalhawk: Are you for real today? No one thinks all Moslems are barbarians. Maybe you're afraid that the Jews are next? What gives? We are concerned about that "far too large minority of muslims, and the excuse making" (as you put it) that goes on, as the Islamofascists use barbaric attacks, as well as other tactics, aimed at realizing their goals of destruction and world domination. I don't think you understand Islam at all. The average "Moslem" is only nominally so, and the good things about them come from a culture that pre-dates Islam.
Hey Bulldog: Shut-up about cats! People who don't like cats are insecure and uneducated (about cats). Like dogs, cats are awesome. Unlike dogs, they are more self-sufficient.
Jen: What is the connection between Moe-HAM-mud and cats?
#32
ex-lib, apparently, Mohammed talked about his cats in the Koran so ever since then "cats are good" has been the rule in the Moslem world.
I think they connect dogs with being scavengers and think they're all mongrels and "jackals" or something.
Clearly, they need to go to some top flight dog shows here!
I'm sure you've noticed, that when they insult each other, one of the first things they'll call their enemy is "dog" right after "pig."
(Excellent whaling on Lh! He's channelling Maureen Dowd today!)
Posted by: Jen ||
06/03/2004 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#33
jen - im not carry the lefts water, im defending the point of view of this admin.
and no the nazis didnt have a great culture, but the Germans did. Auschwitz, and Martin Luthers antisemitism, dont cancel out Beethoven or Bach or Mozart or Goethe. Similarly the muslims DO have a great culture. How big is the problem among muslims? Id say its very big - about 10 - 20% of muslims are willing to support killing of all kaffirs. And probably another 50%, while not that bad, take a "we muslims are all victims of imperialism" stance, which is dysfunctional. But many do not. And i will not charecterize a group, or a great civilization, that way.
ex-lib - no, that kind of cherry picking is NOT what we usually do here at Rantburg. Its the specialty of LGF, where they do it very well. RB is where we actually delve into the operational and strategic details of the WOT.
#34
Apparently, they believe it's Allah's will that some rule and others obey and that the status quo shouldn't be questioned
"render unto caesar..."
BTW, Dowd is an idiot. Im not channeling anyone other than Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Austin Bay, Amir Taheri or other supporters of this administration.
#35
 "jen - im not carry the lefts water, im defending the point of view of this admin. "
NO. You're not.
You're defending your POV and coincidentally (?) that of the Liberal Left.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/03/2004 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Libhawk, you're bordering on being truly evil to me, to quote and twist scripture.
The whole crux of Christianity is CHOICE.
You have to choose to accept Christ to enjoy eternal life.
The same is true of the whole Bible and God's relationship with Man, hence the reason Eve had to CHOOSE to eat the apple from the Tree of Life and thus choose sin.
Individual choice and freedom to choose are the bedrock of Judaism and Christianity.
The belief that everything is the "Will of Allah" is quite a different thing.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/03/2004 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#37
jen, do you actually know the sources of the two lefty quotes above?
#38
This is a clash of political visions.
Believing this doesn't make you a chic leftist, liberalhawk. Perhaps hopeful or naive. I think you hold to the idea because it is important to you not to be biased. With this belief, you have a manageable problem to be solved.
But for me, believing it is wishful thinking. One example of how you can't make it work: sharia law. Imposing sharia law and not imposing sharia law cannot exist in the same place and time. And the ideas behind different systems of law are not equally valuable. In a huge effort not carry biases against others, we cannot alter facts to fit our philosophy. We have to adjust philosophy to match the facts.
#39
jen - in traditional judaism the line is "Everything is in the hands of G-d, except the fear of G-d" theres only ONE choice, and after that everything is submission. It took a lot of reinterpretation to make that fit democracy, and a few people still havent gotten there to this day.
#40
Liberalhawk -...if a young girl feels she is kicking a pup with the approval of some so-called holy-man
Approval does not mean she was personally told, the fact that she said dogs were "unclean" had to come from somewhere, directly from some whacked Imam or her parents. Approval was what she was seeking by abusing the pup. How she came to that conclusion. . . .
#41
jules - uh, you can believe in sharia as binding on yourself, but not appropriate for the State. as i believe about Jewish halacha. Or you can beleive in applying only certain portions of Sharia, as is now the case in Israel wrt to BOTH halacha AND Sharia.
Big ed - yeah i know she got the idea of the dog being unclean from an imam. SO what. My daughter KNOWS that pigs are unclean, from me and our rabbi. If she used that as exuse to kick a pig, that would be her own childish self. Now maybe Islam spends less time telling children not to torture animals, than ours does, but i dont see much difference there, since my daughter and myself routinely eat the meat of cows and chickens raised in far worse conditions than most dogs in muslim countries undergo.
#42
evidently no one here recognizes the quotes in 28 and 29.
Im so sorry for your cognitive dissonance. Its a real pain when somebody you like very much, who you think is a great political leader, holds opinions on one subject that are diametrically opposite to your own, isnt it? But pretending that said political leader doesnt believe what he says is a foolish way to deal with it.
#43
Libhawk, the Jewish faith has been blessed to have brilliant scholars with inquiring (and dare I say ARGUING?) minds.
Hence the word "Talmudic" to refer to expostulations on the true meaning of the Pentateuch and in the general population, of anything.
Islam has no such scholars or scholarship, which is part of their problem and why they've had no "Reformation" like Jews and Christians.
Apparently, they don't argue about the meaning of Allah's word and dictates as found in the Koran, they mainly just memorize it.
All of Mohammed's dictates are "gospel" to them, including the hatred of dogs and preference for cats.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/03/2004 15:21 Comments ||
Top||
#44
jen - in fact they DO argue about the meaning of the koran and hadiths. There are four principle schools of Jurisprudence among the Sunnis, and there are disagreements about specific points of law even within these schools. There are also massive disputes about the legitimacy of sufi mysticism, rationalizing philosophy, etc which are analogous to those among Jews and Christians.
They had no reformation like Luthers, since they had no central church to rebel against. As for a Calvinist reformation, Id say thats pretty spefically a christian thing, having to do with christian issues. Jewish "reformation" happened in the specific context of the Jewish confrontation with modernity. Thats precisely the context in which muslims must change. Derogating their civilization is no more insightful into that process, than derogating jewish civilization is to understanding jewish historical processes.
#45
oh, and if you want to indicate that 90% or more of ordinary madrassah students just memorize, i can assure you thats true of orthodox judaism as well. The inquiring minds are much fewer and farther between, human nature being what it is. And of course in traditional judaism, even those who chose to question and argue were expected to memorize first. with a text that constantly refers to itself, that has subjects coming up in the oddest places, it would have been impossible otherwise prior to the invention of the computer.
#46
You can believe in sharia as binding on ourself, but not appropriate for the State....
But do they? Again, you are wishing what is a logical conclusion to you were FACT for another. Anyone care to enlighten me--how many Muslim majority countries are enforcing sharia law on people who prefer to just choose it for themselves?
#47
if by sharia, you mean the whole nine yards, including chopping hands off of thieves and stuff like that, the only ones i can think of are Saudi, Iran, Sudan, and certain states in Nigeria. If you mean imposing muslim family law on MUSLIMS, well most do. So does Israel, by the way. Not my cup of tea, but not necessarily incompatible with democracy.
#48
Liberalhawk, I'll derogate their "civilization" when and if they have one.
So far, there's no sign of Civilization in sight; the Arab world is just a bunch of Taliban-like oil-fueled oligarchies, dictatorships and military juntas with shari'a being used and abused to keep the sheeple in line.
You are most certainly NOT arguing the viewpoint of the Bush Administration so don't pretend that you are!
President Bush doesn't condemn all of Islam but he doesn't have a hernia (unlike you) being the apologist for the goodness of Islam.
What Bush and we GOP mean about tolerating Islam is that it takes its place as just another option of personal faith and belief in a secularized and democratic political system.
This, of course, obviates their dedication to (violent) jihad, the "6th pillar" of Islam and to a government ruled by shari'a and Islamic law.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/03/2004 15:39 Comments ||
Top||
#49
Not my cup of tea, but not necessarily incompatible with democracy.
But also proof of a clash of religions, civilizations. A political clash is just an untidy consequence.
#51
Lh, nope-no source about Indonesia quote, but the Indonesian Muslims have been almost singular in their vocal condemnation of Islamist terrorism and their willingness to be "moderate" Muslims.
President Bush doesn't ignore that "sort of thing,"
He acts as President of all Americans, including American Muslims and he knows his words are being noted by all of the Muslim world and many of the world's 1 billion Muslims.
He expects Americans to be at least smart enough to figure out that there is a vast difference between the secular democratic governments of this planet and particularly that of the USA and that of Islamic theocracies like Saddam's Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan.
Most people have only to look at the burkas and the goon squads of the Islamic religious police "For the Prevention of Vice and the Promotion of Virtue" to know what they're dealing with.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/03/2004 15:49 Comments ||
Top||
#52
28 is bush, his speech at the air force academy today. 29 is wolfie.
Yes i agree with that about Indonesians. But i dont see how they are less real heirs to islamic civilization than are the Saudis.
#53
I'm tired and tired of arguing with you--I've been without power due to storms here for 2 days and I'm exhausted.
You've completely hijacked this thread about dogs to argue about God-knows-what except that you've always gotta be right about whatever the hell you think you're talking about.
Mazeltov.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/03/2004 15:58 Comments ||
Top||
#54
it takes two to obsessively argue, jen :)
and the post was a charecterization of muslims. I never veered from that topic.
#55
"...and the post was a charecterization of muslims. I never veered from that topic."
Bullshit.
We all said that it was based on Mohammed's characterization of cats and dogs in the Koran.
You went off on a tear about how "valid" the Muslim beliefs were and how "rich" their culture and I was dumb enough to take you on (erroneously thinking I had the energy) because you're so patently wrong and misguided in your thinking.
The Muslim hatred for dogs is as primitive and poorly thought-out as the rest of their so-called "culture."
Posted by: Jen ||
06/03/2004 16:12 Comments ||
Top||
#56
I responded to the following:
"It's hard to get excited about liberating a country of psychopaths who delight in torturing man's best friend. As for viewing dogs as being unclean, have these diaper heads ever checked out a mirror lately? Sick. "
A deliberate and direct attack on the Presidents policies, as i see it.
"#10 No religion that hates the dog could possibly be true or good. "
Perhaps not a direct attack on the Presidents policies, but an unfair charecterization of islam, and not at all reconcilable with Wolfowitzs position.
I said nothing about the validity of their beliefs. If i made political alliances based on my judgement of others religious beliefs, id have damned few allies. Surely you realize that.
as for the richness of their culture, i do suggest you read Bernard Lewis.
#57
I have read several of Lewis's books, but I like others, too, like Daniel Pipes, Dore Gold, Stephen Schwartz and Serge Trifovic.
Lewis is more of a scholarly, historical approach which doesn't give me the tools I need to fight the war of the memes in the WOT.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/03/2004 16:28 Comments ||
Top||
#58
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
-Mahatma Ghandi
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/03/2004 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#59
wanton cruelties on the Moslemsâ part
That pretty much sums them up on any subject, doesn't it?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/03/2004 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#60
I responded to the following: "It's hard to get excited about liberating a country of psychopaths who delight in torturing man's best friend. As for viewing dogs as being unclean, have these diaper heads ever checked out a mirror lately? Sick. " A deliberate and direct attack on the Presidents policies, as i see it.
LH, why are you put out that I dared to question the President's view of Iraqis ? Are you suggesting that in order to vote Republican or to be a conservative,one must mindlessly agree with every policy, every viewpoint of the current President; see anything emanating from the WH as being the result of "divine" inspiration?
You bet I disagree with the President's naive and rather optimistic view of Islam. Perhaps it comes from his personal "born again" Christian experience that he chooses to ignore the dysfunction of Islam and instead forgive and put an optimistic spin on the future of Islamic peoples. It's that sort of romantic notion about Islam that will get more of our American GI's killed...ever hopeful, never critical, always looking at Iraq as some sort of greenhouse experiment where with a little TLC, beautiful flowers will bloom out of sand and camel dung.
Posted by: rex ||
06/03/2004 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#61
"And they can identify emotional reactionâfriend or foeâsimply by sense of smell."
I knew it. My mailman is hauling packages for Al-Qaeda. And to think I pooh-pooh'd my poor pooch all this time for bad behavior. Will I never learn? She gets a pig ear tonight. Just as soon as I can catch my neighbor's slippery porker.
#63
60 - you certainly have the right to disagree with Bush, though i disagreed with you. I was having trouble with some folks who thought my disagreeing with you showed me to be a "lefty"
#64
Lh, you show yourself to be a Lefty alright, but in many more ways than just your multi-culti embrace of Islam.
For starters, your name begins with "Liberal..."
Classic Liberalism, as it is known, died with LBJ or even FDR and had certainly devolved into Socialism by Clinton.
"Liberalism"=Socialist Marxism=Transnational Progressivism=Communism Lite
Posted by: Jen ||
06/03/2004 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
#65
The Muslim hatred for dogs is as primitive and poorly thought-out as the rest of their so-called "culture."
Yes, Jen, especially when you consider a dog I had that died. He was a white boxer that was as "CLEAN" as ANY animal I knew. We even let him sleep on the bed with us. However, we had to adjust the position of his head when he got snoring too loud. He never woke up when we did.
So there Islamofacists : TAKE THAT! The "unclean" boxer-dog that slept on the bed with my wife and me.
#66
Thanks for the clarification. Here's the irony...you are lefty when you agree with President Bush's view of Islam and his foreign policy in Iraq...because Bush himself is lefty in some respects. Bush Sr. is an East Coast Republican and Bush Jr. is not too disimilar from his dad.
I think Lawrence Auster says it best in a letter posted June 3/04 in reply to Andrew McCarthy's article in NRO: With endless apologies for sounding so illiberal, you argue that we are in (or should be in) a war with militant Islam, not a âwar on terrorism.â Fine. This is an important point youâre making. But that leads to the âthereforeâ question: Therefore, what? In the end, after running on at great length, all you say is that we should distinguish between moderate Moslems and radical Moslems and favor the first and marginalize the second. Fine. But what does that mean? What does the war against militant Islam consist of? In fact, in your reliance on âmoderateâ Islam as the cure for militant Islam, youâre still living in the same liberal escapism that your entire article is supposedly rejecting...The point is that there is no moderate Islam. Yes, there are Moslems who are personally less aggressive, more peaceful, just as there are Communists who are personally affable. But Islam as such stands for jihad, just as Communism as such stands for the expropriation of private property. Which means that the only way Moslems can become truly âmoderateâ is to cease being Moslems in any real sense...
Posted by: rex ||
06/03/2004 18:21 Comments ||
Top||
#67
You're right, rex.
But while a lot of us hold these beliefs privately, President Bush knows that we're not at the stage to say that publicly yet.
And that perhaps it's not for the President of the United States to say, as powerful as he is or because what he says is so very powerful.
BTW, I dislike the terminology of "Bush Sr. and Jr." and prefer Bush 41 and Bush 43, which is accurate.
Posted by: Jen ||
06/03/2004 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#68
rex - The point is that there is no moderate Islam. Yes, there are Moslems who are personally less aggressive, more peaceful. . .
Jen - . . .while a lot of us hold these beliefs privately, President Bush knows that we're not at the stage to say that publicly yet.
This line of thought is a lot deeper than we may realize. I find myself drifting that way. I took computer programming courses from an Egyptian fellow who is type-described well by rex, but guess what? He went to the same Mosque in Orange Co Ca attended by the goat-farmer from Riverside, now FBI-wanted list Adam Gadahn. The leader of that mosque, Siddiqi has said some odd things, in the least. The fellow I knew was a personally decent seeming fellow, but after Gadahn's story came out, how can we know? Even with the ignominious way Gadahn was kicked out of that mosque.
#69
I'm tired and tired of arguing with you--I've been without power due to storms here for 2 days and I'm exhausted.
You've completely hijacked this thread about dogs to argue about God-knows-what except that you've always gotta be right about whatever the hell you think you're talking about.
Mazeltov.
#70
blimey chaps and ladies we aint RANT'ed for ages > I have just come off holiday . nice to see active healthy discussions . Unfortunately I have nothing too constructive to add as Im jetlagged and drunk ,but glad to see active boards
ps Could never imagine L/H wearing an multi coloured pullover , swapping yogurt weaving techniques round a campfire whilst watching a missle ruin the sunset :P
Muslim leaders have praised late former president Idi Amin for the contribution he made to the establishment of the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC). While celebrating 32 years of the inception of the UMSC at Old Kampala on Tuesday, they praised Amin for forging unity among Muslims. The UMSC was established in 1972 and has had eight leaders since. The celebrations, which started with the inspection of the construction of the national mosque, were presided over by Mufti Sheikh Shaban Mubajje. Mubajje also hailed President Yoweri Museveni for enabling UMSC to acquire the land title of the national mosque and President Gaddafi for financially supporting its construction.
Posted by: TS(vice girl) ||
06/03/2004 11:01:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Muslim leaders have praised late former president Idi Amin . . .
But I thought human meat was not Halal. . .
Those who consume have qualifications for the 72 in question.
Why did Idi know it was saltier than beef?
Muslim Halal is not the equal to Jewish Kosher. Jewish Kashrut laws have many more requirements and quality controls built in.
That's why a muslim can eat Kosher food with no problems, but a Jew who is observing Kashrut would not eat Halal.
#5
Thanx, DS, I had the comarison made to me by someone Jewish, so I hereby stand corrected.
River Styx? Just place a coin in the hand of Charon, the ferryman, when you reach the river. When you reach the other side, you will see a hut in the distance. In front of the hut is a large barbecue pit. The daemon, known in life as Idi Amin will roast you and consume you if you draw close. It is important that you do avoid the hut.
A Jordanian man has reportedly shot his unmarried cousin dead as she recovered in hospital after delivering a baby. The 35-year-old who has not been named then surrendered to police, saying he acted to "cleanse his familyâs honour". Stunned medical staff were present as the suspect and his two brothers ran into the womanâs room and opened fire. The 25-year-old mother was hit by six gunshots, the Jordan Times reported, quoting official sources. The day-old baby lying next to her was unharmed. The two brothers reportedly turned themselves in later on. None of the people involved were named by the paper. EFL
#1
None of the people involved were named by the paper.
Wouldn't want to embarrass them and their family.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/03/2004 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Why does cleansing the family's honor always take place on the body of a woman?
In that world, women are forbidden from having premarital/unwed sex. So let's see, if that law were obeyed, who would men-50% of their population-be having sex with? Must be men having sex with:
a.) Men (Allah save us!)
b.) Women, but anally (Allah burn us!)
c.) Themselves (masturbation) (Allah cut off our hands!)
d.) Celibacy (the ONLY choice sanctioned by the Quran, right?)
Apparently, men in that world have no honor to cleanse?
#6
Sheep and goats: no witnesses needed. The asshats think it's consensual. God help those poor animals (and I'm not talking about the asshats!)
So the little boy--only one day in this world--is without his mother, and the mother is deprived of life, and of the joys and difficulties of raising her child. They needed each other, but "Mr. Izlamoid" didn't think of that . . .
What a beautiful world Islam creates . . .
And "cleansing" the family's "honor"? Tell that to the little boy who just lost his mother. BTW: The police won't do anything about it, since the murder was an "honor" killing. Poor guy. He just had to do something. We can hardly blame him . . .
EFL - I was intrigued by yesterdayâs post of David Warrenâs comments about how the rapid disolution of the IGC was a brilliantly planned move to seize the initiative and effectively transfer sovereignty early to prevent outside interference. This excepted section from a CPA background brief lends credence to Warrenâs commentary. Note: evidently there were mike problems so the transcript is hard to read.
Snip- Intro
SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: One thing I did want to say in that regard is, I noticed -- you all are in that -- (off mike) -- but I noticed that several days ago, somebody wrote that Pachachi was the American choice; some of you wrote it, maybe even somebody in this room. And then every other story said this. I think this is -- (off mike). Itâs not true. In the middle of last week, when it looked as if these two were the strongest contenders -- (off mike) -- were those two gentlemen, Ambassador Bremer and I went back to Washington for guidance. We asked our -- the top of the administration -- these are the two; please express whatever preferences you might have. And fairly rapidly, within, indeed, I think, several hours, the answer came back, either of them would make an excellent president of Iraq, and we donât have a favorite. And therefore, as these discussions went on, we lobbied for either one. You wonât find any of these people that we talked to who will tell you -- truthfully, anyway -- that we went to them and said you should choose A or B. By the way, there were some other stories, although theyâre fewer in number, that had exactly the opposite argument. We didnât lobby -- (off mike.) We said that we thought either one of them would make a fine president of Iraq. So Iâve corrected that, for what itâs worth...
Q (Name off mike) -- from National Public Radio. Thank you. Do you expect the Governing Council to dissolve? Thereâs been some discussion --
SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: My best understanding is it did.
Q (Off mike.)
SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I think it dissolved this morning.
STAFF (?): Yes, they dissolved this morning. (Off mike.)
SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Okay. It dissolved this morning. It dissolved itself, I believe, if Iâm not mistaken. It dissolved itself.
Q: Did they make a statement or anything?
SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, Iâm --
STAFF (?): (Off mike) -- we can set up --
SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Okay. I know I -- (off mike) -- youâll have to -- (off mike).
Yes, sir?
Q (Off mike.) So who is running things on the Iraqi side -- (off mike).
SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: The prime minister and cabinet.
Q: Theyâve actually taken (things over ?)
SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, thereâs a ceremony today, as you know, which we all, if we can, will go see, at -- this afternoon at 4:00. And then, theyâre the interim government of Iraq until the election.
-snip I expect that Brahimiâs negative comments about Bremer were a reflection of the fact that he had been effectively sandbagged.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/03/2004 3:47:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
interesting how silent the blogosphere has been on the transition in Iraq. Everyones too confused, not sure if Dubya won or lost - which is, unfortunately, the principle preoccupation of BOTH sides of the blogosphere, rather than the actual progress of the people of Iraq. The lefties have been concerned that Brahimi got sandbagged - the conservatives seem wary that the US got sandbagged - and the neocons, who should be happy, are wary of Allawi.
I think its taking some time to sink in that A. Having the Iraqis sand bag Brahimi on the top posts was FAR superior to having the US get its picks, from the US point of view. B. That Allawi is really NOT a baathist stooge (I rely on Kanan Makiya on this issue) C. That on those areas where Brahimi may be right - the appointment of secular technocrats to the more junior cabinet posts - Brahimi largely DID get his way. D. How revolutionary a cabinet this is, with its large numbers of women, Kurds, Shiites, and genuine democrats E. How positively this is being received on the street in Iraq. Even NPR (!!!!!!!) this AM reported that Iraqi reaction ranges from supportive to wait and see. The hostility to the new govt is NOT coming from the Baghdad street, its coming from game players in DC, NY, Europe, and the Arab world.
#3
There are a lot of ways that this could turn out badly, but taking the wind out of jihadi plans for a bloodfest on the 30th was an important victory. It may still happen, but this move is about the best move that can be made in preperation for it.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/03/2004 16:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Gee, do you think someone might have been misunderestimated again? :-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/03/2004 23:16 Comments ||
Top||
I found this after a reading a piece of alarmist claptrap in a Savanah Georgia newspaper about how nuclear power was really bad and what you should do is put solar panels on your roof, which amongst other things ignores the fact that the bulk of domestic electricity consumption occurs at night.
The MIT study of the future of nuclear power, as summarized by Jim Dawson, (Physics Today, December 2003, page 34) states that "the management and disposal of high−level radioactive spent fuel from the nuclear fuel cycle is one of the most intractable problems facing the nuclear power industry throughout the world." In reality, it is a problem that exists only in peopleâs minds.
For the first 20 years or so of operation, a power plant stores spent fuel underwater in a small pool. When the pool becomes full, the older fuelâfor which much of the radioactivity has decayed awayâis removed from the water and stored in dry casks on site. An area the size of a football field is adequate for storing the spent fuel from hundreds of years of a power plantâs operation. Considering the huge number of kilowatt hours that are produced, the problem should be regarded as insignificant, rather than "intractable."
The spent fuel is valuable and should be kept in a manner that allows easy retrieval. It still holds about 97% of the original potential energy but may be even more valuable for the fission products it contains. To give one example, rhodium, a platinum metal, makes up about 2% of the fission products, and the price of rhodium fluctuates between the price of gold and 10 times that.
Rhodium has many uses and would replace platinum in many applications if the price could be reduced to a more reasonable value. Fresh fission−product rhodium contains traces of isotopes with half−lives of 2.9 and 3.3 years. It is just a matter of time until these radioactivities decay to negligible levels. The material in US spent fuel is worth billions of dollars and gets more valuable every day as the shorter−lived activities decay away.
Posted by: Phil B ||
06/03/2004 3:43:24 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't know why people keep posting Nuclear "solutions" to global warming
1) global warming cannot be stopped now: it's too late to do anything about it! Forget Kyoto, just keep burning oil and coal and deal with the problems as they come to hand. There is considerable debate actually about whether it will even cause a problem at all, or whether humans really are the cause of it.
2) Nuclear power has severe problems the main one being it is too expensive due to hidden (ie: uncosted) health, disposal and environmental costs.
Those costs get foisted onto the government and us the taxpayers.
environmental: there are many spills, leaks and minor accidents at reactors. Easy to find info on the net, it's not just Chernobyl you know.
health: radiation causes cancer. It causes defects. the effects are cumulative. Once it gets into the environment it cannot easily be cleaned up. Increasing the background radiation increases the cancer rate.
This means the taxpayer pays more for health care/disability care for those who can't afford it.
disposal: nuclear waste is dangerous for thousands of years. It is hard to find a good storage site for it. Nobody wants it in their back yard for good reason.
Even if you find a good site, there is no guarantee that the warning signs you put there will still be there in 1000 years. In fact there is no guarantee society as we know it will be around in 5,000 years. But humans will probably still be around. What a stupid idea to lump those future generations, all distantly related to us, with cancer-causing waste that they don't know about.
They may not be technologically superior to us, they may be backwards by our standards. That doesn't give us the right to foist radioactive waste on them.
Especially when there are alternatives. Up front costs associated with natural gas/solar/wind/geothermal/wave/hydro/ethanol/methane power may be higher than nuclear on paper. But that is ONLY if you discount the "hidden" costs that are very very high.
Nuclear is dead. just accept it isn't the golden power source of the future everyone thought in the 50s. Time to move ON.
#2
forgot to add: in today's world a nuke reactor is a security hazard.
If 9/11 had flown planes into reactors instead of the towers and the pentagon, you would have had 3 chernobyls in mainland USA.
After Chernobyl, the downsyndrome rate quadrupled in IRELAND because the wind was blowing west over Europe. Do you know how far away Ireland is from Chernobyl????
Imagine the thousands upon thousands who have had their lives filled with grief from cancer and birth defects all over Europe by Chernobyl and multiply that and apply it to the US in the event of terrorist strikes on a reactor.
#3
One last point: It is absolutely untrue that the waste problem is insignificant as this article claims.
Just because the spent fuel rods don't take up much physical space doesn't mean anything. The risk is in how radioactive they are.
They are so radioactive that machines have to be used to move them, humans cannot go near them.
They are extremely dangerous and remain so for hundreds of thousands of years.
It would be extremely ignorant and shortsighted to think that just because you can guarantee the security of the storage facility for the next 60-100 years that means the problem is over. You are simply foisting it onto future generations.
There are areas of land (ex-reactor sites) in the old USSR that are so radioactive as to be deemed uninhabitable for thousands of years. They used to have fences, warning signs and guards preventing people from entering these sites.
Of course with the collapse of the old soviet union, nobody wants to pay the wages of these guards anymore.
Signs come down and don't get replaced.
you want that for future generations of Americans?
Over time the whole reactor takes on radiation and becomes a waste hazard, not just the fuel rods.
#4
This has nothing to do with Global Warming and everything to do with energy security and not funneling trillions of dollars to nutball Islamofreaks.
A few days ago I asked you why if nuclear power was such a failure, the world's largest producer of nuclear energy (France) is also the worlds largest exporter of electricty, and as far as I can recall has never had a serious nuclear incident. In fact it must be at least 20 years since the last serious nuclear incidence. In the mean time 100,000s have died as a result of burning fossil fuels(respiratory diseases, pollutants, fires, explosions, etc.).
And BTW, I realize science is not generally a strong point of greenies, but it is not possible to increase the total amount of radiation emitted by any material (short of nuclear fusion which can). All you can do over a short period is increase (or decrease) the amount of radiation released , resulting in a decrease in radiation released over the longer term.
I realize the fact that nuclear power actually decreases the amount of radiation released into the environment is a difficult concept for greenies, but it is none-the-less true.
Posted by: Phil B ||
06/03/2004 6:44 Comments ||
Top||
#5
And,
natural gas - still reliant on imports from unstable places and massive infrastructure costs
solar - Passive solar works really well in high sunshine places. Solar panels are a joke that consume more energy than they produce in most places.
wind - questionable energy economics, i.e. they consume more energy than they produce and extremely unreliable.
geothermal - Despite 40 years of research it hasn't taken off. Ergo its not feasible except in limited locations.
wave - all attempts at wave tidal and tidal energy never reached economic i.e. net energy producing, viability
hydro - limited potential and huge environmental consequences
ethanol/methane- These are not primary energy sources and require more energy to produce than they deliver - as a rule of thumb twice as much. Hence they are a good way of increasing oil imports.
My apologies to Rantburgers (and Fred) for using up bandwidth on this dingbat, but its important to understand we are funding both the terror and the WoT, and the way out is energy independance.
I did find out something interesting today which is that the Lawrence Livermore laboratories have developed a carbon fuel cell that runs on coal. Just possibly the energy Killer-app.
Posted by: Phil B ||
06/03/2004 7:03 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Phil,
Acceptance of nuclear power as an alternative to oil puts the greenies out of business and they know it. They can no longer espouse socialist proposals and they can no longer wreck the American economy with regulations.
These leftwingers are really long on 'alternatives' to 'fossil fuels'; they want the government to subsidize these 'technologies', and when the technology turns out to be too expense, or not ready for the open maket, they blame government and demand more money, never willing to admit these 'alternatives' would have been put into production and widespread use were there enough profits involved in doing so.
In other words: greenies are a buncha yammering losers who are unable to get a clue about markets and about socialism.
Firstly there isn't definite evidence of global warming.
Secondly, even if there were it may not be due to human activity. If we put our minds to it could we actually influence global temperatures? This isn't certain by any means with current or near future tech. Unfortunately the USA decided to have NASA instead of a space program.
We are roughly in agreement on this.
Yep, there are accidents at nuclear reactors People get run over by trucks at the loading bay, drop things on their feet etc . These are defined as "nuclear accidents"
Causes cancer, yes in high doses. Low doses?nobody really knows. The natural cancer rate is so high, likewise defects. Take a look at www.jerrypournelle.com for last week. The article "proof hormesis works?"
No, low level effects aren't necessarily cumulative. The body has repair mechanisms.
Detection of spills, easy use a radiation counter. There are lost of nasty chemicals which have far higher carcinogenic and mutagenic potential than radioactivity, which are far harder to detect. These things can have half lives of effectively forever.
Waste disposal? Reprocess and what is left is less radioactive than the rock you mined it from in 500 to 600 years.
Using the late unlamented USSR as an example is a bad idea. Gangster government is unlikely ever to be any good at anything except killing people. The sites you mention are probably weapons producing reactor sites from Stalin's days. He really didn't care. A well run civilian nuclear program doesn't have to be like that.
Posted by: Aussie Mike ||
06/03/2004 7:32 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Anon1 simply has not read the article, but is spouting the standard line. I have talked to people at the local nuclear power plant, and they told me the problem is a people problem, not a technical problem. People like Anon1 CREATE the problem, then declare that the problem they created is innate to nuclear power. His felt need to make multiple postings, rapid fire, one after another, reflects a desperation to make sure technical solutions are NOT considered.
For instance, the security issue surrounding nuclear plants perfectly reflects his personal view that we should not be proactive, but react only after terrorists strike us first. He posits a ludicrous and suicidal methodology to fight the war on terror in one forum, then turns around and admits that that same suicidal methodology is inadequate and presents that as an argument that nuclear facilities are vunerable. His solution? give up. Yield. Lie down. Don't fight back. Listen to HIM, dismantle what HE tells you, and let him BE OUR MASTER. F*ck him.
It appears that waste from a nuclear plant is UNLIKE waste from a fossil fuel plant. In a fossil plant, if you burn twice as much fuel, you get twice as much waste. it turns out that the amount of long lived waste in a nuclear plant is dependent on the power level, NOT ON HOW LONG OR HOW MUCH YOU FISSION. The same processes that split the uranium atoms also split nuclear waste atoms at the same rate! The amount of really long term and dangerous materials from each load of nuclear fuel, I've read, amounts to several pounds. I was told that it is possible to take the waste from 20 reactors operating in 2002, process it out, put it in a separate reactor in 2003, operate with it for 2004, and by 2005 find that the amount of waste left amounts to ONE reactor's worth: the process of fission burned away to nothing the waste from the other 19 reactors.
This is called nuclear incineration, and is the secret to dealing with nuclear waste that people like anon1 either want us to ignore, or whose ignorance prevents them from seeing. it is obvious that the incinerator must be run by the government.
Plutonium? Turns out that plutonium is created during the fission process in the presence of U-238, and accounts for more than half of the power production of a nuclear plant. I was told it could be blended back into fresh fuel, but because of its chemically poisonous nature, it would require changing the way nuclear fuel is currently assembled (by hand, not machine).
I'm with Aussie Mike: Anon1 is a leftie pining for the good old days, and forgets the atrocious environmental record of the soviets, right along with the atrocious human rights violations and murders of tens of millions of people.
#9
Anon1 may be an unreconstructed 'blue' greenie, but she isn't a 'red' greenie. Her posting history makes that clear. There are still a huge number of people, like Anon1, who have an irrational aversion to nuclear power, but attitudes do seem to be changing swiftly in a more sensible direction. I suspect it's only a matter of time before Anon1 'sees the light' on this issue. (Sees the throbbing green glow?)
I have no idea how well solar and wind work on an industrial scale but they work well enough out at my compound (this small array produces 160 watts/hour on a good day). My windmill puts out (400+ watts/hour)in a 25-30 mph wind. Plenty of sun & wind in northern Nevada; generally when you lack enough of one you've got a lot of the other. I have a good sized battery bank stuck in an old trailer. On an average day I don't even turn my generator on unless I need to make some coffee or run the washing machine.
Total cost of batteries, windmill, and solar: $4000
Having power off of the grid: priceless
And, oh yeah, I can get up in the morning and shoot 100 rounds of 9mm through my Walther P-99 in my private range before I get dressed! Not that it's an attractive sight; I kind of look like a cross between Willie Nelson and Steve Buscemi.
#16
there are many spills, leaks and minor accidents at reactors.Easy to find info on the net, it's not just Chernobyl you know.
I'm too lazy, could you please provide a link?
And what about the spills, thrills, leaks and accdents? Were there any adverse biological affects from these events? What sort of spills and leaks are we talking about? A packing leak on a high pressure coolant injection pump? Yawn. (Isolate the leak/spill, secure ventilation, conduct surveys, wipe up the spill or paint the spill with removable paint(it works really), bag/tag it, show your friends, properly dispose of the bag, more surveys, remove the barriers, get on with life, net biological damage...Zip Zays Zpaz.)
And that is the story, you say spill/accident to define nuclear power as bad. That is not the standard for decision making. The standard is biological damage to individuals in the public and damage to property. And what is the net amount of damage to the public from the use of nuclear power in the western world? Diddly P. Squat.
If it is Carnage you want Anon1, then I suggest you spend some time cleaning up accidents sites on the highways. Shall we all give up driving because of the bloody mayhem on our highways? Please, Anon, can I get a copy of the antiseptic bubble you live in. I feel so dirty or should I say contaminated. Radiation causes cancer? Holy smokes, I'm giving up bananas, too much radiaoacitve Potassium.
They may not be technologically superior to us, they may be backwards by our standards. That doesn't give us the right to foist radioactive waste on them
I guess we should not foist automobiles on them either.
Nuclear power has severe problems the main one being it is too expensive due to hidden (ie: uncosted) health, disposal and environmental costs
#17
The cooling tower produces water vapor - "a green house gas."
Posted by: Super Hose ||
06/03/2004 16:53 Comments ||
Top||
#18
SM, I know that if you have the space and expertise you can make solar and wind work on a local scale, especially if you can't or don't want connection to the grid. I have spent time in northern Australia where large distances and sparse population means solar + batteries is a good option, but you still need a generator when you have cloud for a few days. Since solar can only work for less than half the time (and far less than than half in a lot of places) you need a truly massive power storage infrastructure - Think a million trailers full of batteries for an average city, which the greenies completely ignore. That is what I meant by a joke.
Posted by: Phil B ||
06/03/2004 17:24 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Phil B:
Ahhh, good point. But that just goes to show that the good Lord meant for us all to live in isolated double-wides!
#20
Here's what I never see the environmentalists talking about. Any type of energy generation on a large scale is going to have repercussions. The solar power you are using to power your appliances would otherwise have gone into the earth or somewhere and had some effect, which it will not now have. The wind that is turning your wind mill will not reach the destination it would originally have reached. On a small basis, that might not matter. On a large basis, I'll bet it's going to mess some stuff up. I'm not saying it couldn't work; I'm just saying there's going to be a downside and I don't see that downside being considered by the proponents of these methods.
And large-scale wind farms in England have been causing lots of health problems for people living near them.
Posted by: Kathy L ||
06/03/2004 21:46 Comments ||
Top||
BUKAVU, Congo (AP) - Renegade commanders captured this strategic Congolese town Wednesday, setting off a crisis that threatened the fragile transitional government and a peace process that ended five years of war. Congo President Joseph Kabila accused neighbor and rival Rwanda in the takeover, and went on national television to declare he had begun implemention of a state of emergency across Congo. Rwanda denied any involvement.
"Lies! All lies!"
The renegades behind the capture of Bukavu - who had complained of mistreatment by the region's military commanders - said they were prepared to negotiate, but were also ready to fight. "I've been in charge of Bukavu militarily since 11 o'clock this morning," renegade Brig. Gen. Laurent Nkunda told reporters at the governor's mansion.
Another General wanna-be. Bet he has a nice uniform.
The forces that captured Bukavu are loyal to Nkunda and Col. Jules Mutebutsi, former rebels who joined the army after the civil war. Mutebutsi told The Associated Press the government's military commander in the region, Brig. Gen. Mbuza Mabe, had run away fled. "Many of his troops have joined us, others have shed their uniforms and are staying at their homes, and a few have fled with Mabe," Mutebutsi said by telephone. U.N. officials estimate Nkunda has between 2,000 and 4,000 troops, while Mutebutsi controls several hundred fighters. Both men were members of the Congolese Rally for Democracy, a former rebel group that controlled large swathes of eastern and northeastern Congo and was backed by Rwanda before it joined the government. The two are also members of the Congolese Tutsi. Nkunda said the Tutsi had been mistreated by army officers in the region.
"We're so mistreated!"
In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher denied claims of an "orchestrated mass killing" of Tutsi, in the runup to the offensive by the two Congolese Tutsi officers. "These reports are idiotic false, according to U.S. Embassy people in Kinshasa and the United States people who are there," Boucher said, adding, "Suggestions that a genocide or a mass killing of Congolese Tutsis has taken place are irresponsible and unnecessary, inflammatory." U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan condemned the capture of Bukavu and called on the region's warring parties to abide by an earlier cease-fire. There are some 10,800 U.N. troops in Congo, mostly in the east and northeast where they have a mandate to use force to protect civilians. The 800 U.N. troops in Bukavu did not intervene to stem the fighting.
They must be Uruguayans.
The United Nations defended its troops' inaction, saying the mandate did not extend to battles.
Yep, they're Uruguayans!
Col. Clive Mantel, commander of the U.N. force in Kinshasa, said U.N. reinforcements would be sent to the region and will then proceed not to fight. Hamadoun Toure, spokesman for the U.N. mission in Congo, said U.N. officials were trying to resolve the crisis while succeeding in making things worse. Hundreds of people rioted outside U.N. headquarters in Kinshasa and in the main northeast city of Kisangani, correctly blaming U.N. forces for failing to stop Bukavu's fall. The crowds in Kinshasa threw stones at U.N. headquarters and set vehicles afire, while protesters in Kisangani burned U.N. vehicles and a U.N. office.
That'll inspire the UN forces.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/03/2004 12:40:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
