#1
BAM! - Emeril Adrian! - Rocky Balboa Shazam! - Captain Marvel Go-o-olly! - Gomer Pyle "Off with his head!" - The Red Queen Help Me Mr Wizard! - Tooter the Turtle Leave us exit, stage left! - Snagglepuss "Hold on to your lugnuts, it's time for an overhaul!" - The Mask "God says he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're fucked." - Stephen
Why is tourism from the U.S. at a 25-year low this summer?
Some have blamed the rise in gasoline prices. But that doesn't make sense. Travelling from city to city within the U.S. is often a longer drive than heading up to Canadian cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, all close to the border. More to the point, the sharp drop in tourism was measured in August -- before hurricane Katrina spiked gas prices.
Some have blamed the strengthening Canadian dollar, saying it has eroded Canada's economic attraction to Americans. But that doesn't make sense, either. The Canadian dollar is worth roughly 85 U.S. cents today. Last October, it was 81 U.S. cents (and it was 84 U.S. cents last November). Is an extra cent or two really the reason we have the lowest tourism from the U.S. in a generation?
If the dollar is the reason, then one would have expected to see this tourism drop last year -- because between October 2003 and October 2004, the Canadian dollar rose from 76 cents to 81 cents -- a bigger jump than in the past year. And in the year before that, the Canadian dollar positively leapt from 63 cents to 76 cents, or 13 cents in just one year.
How can a three- or four-cent rise in the Canadian dollar over the past year be to blame for falling U.S. tourism, if an 18-cent rise in the previous two years didn't flatten tourism?
The obvious answer is that American tourism wasn't hurt by gas prices or currency fluctuations. It was killed by something else that Americans are thinking about when it comes to Canada in the past year.
Gee -- what could that be?
Could it be that Paul Martin's policy of unrestrained anti-Americanism has had an effect?
Could it be some Americans -- not all, but certainly enough to cause August's 5.9% drop -- have made a political statement with their vacation plans, just like they have stopped drinking French wine?
Granted, Jean Chretien was anti-American, too. But not with the same bellicosity as Paul Martin. Chretien didn't threaten to divert oil exports from the U.S. to its hostile rival, China, as Martin did.
Chretien was sullen toward the U.S. but he was predictable. Martin started as prime minister claiming to be pro-U.S., stating support for continental ballistic missile defence. Then, at the last minute, he did a spectacular about-face, embarrassing the U.S. as it was trying to build international support.
True, Chretien was against the war in Iraq. But it was Martin who turned his opposition into a negative attack ad in the 2004 election, smearing the war as an aggressive and hostile venture. Was his target Stephen Harper or George W. Bush?
Liberal strategists might claim privately that anti-Americanism is just a campaign trick for domestic political consumption, a way of appealing to NDP voters and demonizing the Conservatives. But Americans are noticing. Their media certainly noticed when Carolyn Parrish denounced George Bush, and wasn't removed from the Liberal caucus until she later committed the only unpardonable sin in the Liberal party, denouncing Martin himself.
It's a little rich for Canadian officials to complain about a drop in U.S. tourism, after the spectacle of official anti-Americanism. As retaliations go, a drop in tourism is about as gentle as it gets. But if Martin and company start acting out their threats to interfere with Alberta's oil exports to the U.S., don't be surprised if Condoleezza Rice responds with something a little tougher than a drop in tourism -- say, a one-hour "security inspection" of every Canadian truck crossing the border.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/26/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I recall when Martin "came to power" - and there were several articles about him, mainly positive. It was a load of he was pro-business, he wasn't a looney, he was going to be such an improvement over the usual Kool Aid Swilling Swine, yadda³.
Lasted about a month, IIRC, before the shine was off and he was clearly just another asshole leading the Northern Asshole Alliance.
I'd prefer to do a bit more than boycott Qanada as a vacation destination, y'know? Something with some punch to it... like negotiate with Alberta for statehood or something. A little oomph is called for in our future dealings with Nanook of the Ninnies.
#2
[L]ike negotiate with Alberta for statehood ....
I spent a summer wandering around Alberta, BC, & the Yukon a couple of years ago and was very surprised at how prevalent that sentiment was among Canadians.
#3
My experience with the Westerners was similar - much longer ago - I met quite a few because we were all in the oil biz in one way or another. Solid folks, smart folks. And the Calgary Stampede was a blast, lol - prolly cuz I still drank back in those daze...
#4
Canadians forget we can watch their CBC news. Blatant anti-us crap prevails just as it does in their big city press. Most Canadians are smart. They should be able to figure this out.
Posted by: bk ||
10/26/2005 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#6
From experience, I have no use for the place, it's government, it's products, it's services, and alot of it's people. Small minded, nasty, greedy, bellicose, grandiose, and ultimately idiotic.
#7
Iâve owned property in Ontario for many years. Over that time I have made some lasting friendships; many of them own resorts and lodges that depend on American tourism. They have always lamented the policies made by their liberal politicians. Their ire traditionally has been directed at Provincial laws designed to alter trade policies. But in the last few years they all have seen a steady drop in American dough. They attribute this decline to a couple of issues. First they believe the decisions to promote more âeco-tourismâ as an offset to declining revenue is not only misguided but directly affects their bottom line. Second is the increase in Anti-American rhetoric at a national level. I believe them to be sincere when they tell me that those decisions are made by the liberal voters mostly in the urban areas and donât reflect their views. Unfortunately they are on the front line and feel the brunt of those decisions.
bk Canadians are Americans. They live in North America, that makes them Americans. Using the term "American" to describe US citizens is lazy, a tool of lazy journalists and the as press too cheap to print out or say United States Citizen in full.
When you say Canadian or Mexican it's easy. Saying US Citizen or United States Citizen is a mouth full. Lets quit being lazy. Anyone who lives on the northern or southern Continent is as American as I am. They are citizens of a country with a real name however.
I am having my Canadian friends come here this year.
#10
The buffoons to the north do not realize we dislike thier snooty elistist socialistic bullcrap attitude, and would rather spend the tourist bux elsewhere.
One sees by the election map that Canada is more politically regionalized than we are. Without Quebec the liberal pary would be a weak sister.
The Quebec seperatist party roughly splits the vote with the un-liberals - this is their (liberal) margin over the more reasonable (conservative) Harper, Day, etc... So the liberal problem is a Quebec-Ontario axis, if you will...
Martin has to lick just enough Quebecii backsides to keep enough of them in the fold so they don't pick up and leave. If that were ever to happen, as the AzCat suggests, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and maybe a couple of others might look south to be on a "winning team"...
#11
Worked with Canadian Marconi in a previous life and had to make many trips to Montreal. Not a fun experience for an English speaker. I can think of no compelling reason for any American to vacation in Quebec, Ontario, or any of the other eastern provinces. The best parts of Canada are the sparsely populated regions in the West.
#13
If you lump together the Liberal vote with the New Democratic Party vote, the only western Canadian province you'd be interested in...is Alberta.
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/26/2005 17:47 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Why yes they are! FU very much Canaduh.
Posted by: Gir ||
10/26/2005 17:47 Comments ||
Top||
#15
The Maritimes are delightful to vacation in. Fortress Louisbourg is especially interesting. Alexander Graham Bell Museum and Bay of Fundy are also quite interesting.
Because the Maritimes are so dependent on tourism, I have always found them pleasant to visit. They also exchange US$ at a very favorable rate. Can't say the same for Quebec or Ontario. Had my car vandalized in Victoria. It was just like being in Portland. Until you get above Jasper, the Canadian Rockies are as crowded as Colorado.
#16
But Rafael,if Canadians were to join the US, they each would be required to have a microchip implant to turn sweet moose lovers into bloodthirsty killbots. It's the law.
Posted by: ed ||
10/26/2005 18:21 Comments ||
Top||
Perhaps the most persistent policy and legal problem for our democracy as we wage the global war on terrorism is the classification, treatment and interrogation of suspected terrorist "detainees" that we hold outside the United States.
Rather than just beating up on the Defense Department for it's custodial handling of these detainees, the Congress has the power to address the problem comprehensively. And this is required, because the "detainee problem" is going to be with us for some time - at least as long as there are radicals bent on attacking us.
There are really three basic "detainee problems:
Abu Ghraib
While embarrassing and a public relations nightmare, the soldiers from Abu Ghraib prison committed straight forward military crimes and are being punished for them; the longer term "corrective action" required - already under way - is much better training, closer oversight and leadership accountability for these kind of custodial duties. These abuses are addressable within the military, but Congress should continue to inquire about these matters to make sure that the military to does it right.
The categorization or 'status' of detainees
This is far more technical and requires a more deliberate and exacting approach. This begins with carefully crafted definitions that are most amenable to statute. This is by far preferable to allowing the federal district courts, on a case-by-case basis, to determine such policy laden international legal issues when they are asked to hear habeas corpus petitions of an individual prisoners' detention status. More fundamentally, the access to a U.S. court by a non-U.S. person detainee held overseas should probably be prohibited by statute - Congress can do this in such matters of national security and the Supreme Court has traditionally not interfered with these determinations. Finally, more precise definitions of detainee status would also determine how, or where, detainees could be prosecuted for terrorist related crimes.
Interrogation
The enablement of authorities and procedures by which detainees are interrogated for valuable, terrorist related information should be established by statute, even though the president no doubt has the inherent authority to establish such rules, at least for non-U.S. persons held outside the U.S. Congress, for example, could establish a procedural framework for interrogation rules and a system of oversight similar to what it has created for intelligence operations and other specialized activities.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., held a hearing last July on detainee issues with panels of experts, including former Attorney General Barr and the service Judge Advocates General. Sen. Graham, himself a reserve Air Force Judge Advocate and Military Judge, clearly wants to help solve these intricate problems in a way that will keep U.S. courts away from detainee operations in general and allow a full spectrum of detainee human intelligence activities, which is so critical to rooting out terrorist planning and support.
But Graham didn't get a lot of support for his ideas.
Mr. Barr, while fully understanding the issues, was far more concerned about protecting traditional presidential prerogatives - for example, determining who is an "unlawful combatant" - than acknowledging the inherent value of Sen. Graham's offer to help. This is somewhat understandable: The Justice Department's traditional view (regardless of administration) is that it must defend and protect all Presidential prerogatives at all costs, even if it means fighting protracted legal battles that ties the Defense Department in legal knots as it tries to fight the war on terror. The lawyers have "won this one," apparently, because the administration has officially said that it would veto legislation that included these kinds of provisions and renewed this threat last week, in reaction to much milder amendments offered by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Still pending is an additional amendment from Sen. Graham that even more comprehensively addresses the core detainee legal and policy problems, as described above.
It's time for cooler heads in the administration to direct the lawyers to get on board with what Graham wants to do. Instead of opposing his initiatives, the Defense and Justice Departments should sit down and work with the senator to help craft an acceptable legislative solution to the myriad definitional, custodial and interrogation problems that now beset our detainee operations overseas. If we can't do this, we risk becoming the world's courthouse for unending litigation on detainee issues - a no-win situation for us.
Daniel Gallington is a senior follow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/26/2005 15:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They're enemy combatants fighting out of uniform. They should have been interrogated and then shot immediately after capture.
The lack of blowback associated with this time tested method is worth giving up a little intel.
It also gives us 100% assurance that jihadis won't be released back into the swamp by some soft judge.
But I guess that horse is already out of the barn...
As someone who makes such a lavish living in the First Amendment industry, you might think I'd subscribe to the fashionable, enlightened, extend-your-pinky-to-drink-tea position on free speech issues. But the truth is I don't have much use for guilds.
Few professions crave special badges and flip-open credential cases more than the reporting business. Currently, the ink-stained wretches are slavering over moves in Congress to pass federal journalist shield laws. This idea got an extra shove by the investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald in the alleged White House leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative. Some journalists didn't want to reveal their sources, claiming the Constitution gives them an absolute, adamantine and eternal right to protect their sources even if their sources committed a crime and the reporter in question made the commission of that crime possible.
Other than the obvious problems that the First Amendment is not a blanket protection to conceal crimes and that nowhere in case law or in the Constitution itself has such a right been established, there's a sticky public policy problem. Who gets to be a journalist? And that question is why federal shield laws are the camel's nose under the tent of journalism licenses. If everybody can be a journalist simply by pecking away at a keyboard, then tens of millions of bloggers, newsletter writers and coupon-clipper weekly editors are journalists. If that's the case, such a sweeping right is unenforceable and dangerous. If, on the other hand, only some people get to be called "journalists," then we've got the makings of a trade guild here.
There's been some interesting economic research in recent years on the role of guilds (professional associations, including some unions, which work with the state to require licensing for people seeking similar occupations). Morris Kleiner, a University of Minnesota economist and visiting scholar at the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, recently summarized some of his findings in the Wall Street Journal. Even though guilds don't lead to better or safer service, they're on the rise because guilds have been very successful in persuading the public they're better for the consumer even though much of the time they're really better for the members of the guild themselves. In states where a license is required to become, say, a hairdresser, salaries are higher by some 10 to 20 percent. This is partly because the licensing - the fees, extra training, etc. - becomes a barrier to entry for others seeking employment. In states where strict state licensing isn't required, job growth is 20 percent higher.
The same dynamic would surely play out if elite journalists got their way. The resentment and vitriol aimed at bloggers and the "new media" at journalism school symposiums and panel discussions is palpable. Is there any doubt that the keymasters of any new state-sanctioned journalism guild would translate that animosity into higher wages for themselves and fewer opportunities for the untrained masses nipping at their heels.
This illuminates the fundamental problem with the "enlightened" media's fashionable pose on the First Amendment: It's anti-free speech for anyone without keys to the clubhouse. They want special rights for "real journalists." Well, special rights for some means weaker rights for others. The editors of The New York Times rightly demand untrammeled opportunities to criticize politicians, but they want complex rules and regulations for everyone else - including other politicians! They think the First Amendment offers blanket protection to strippers "expressing" themselves, but citizens eager to criticize a candidate by taking out an ad can be muzzled if they want to take out that ad when it will be most effective - i.e. near election day.
The First Amendment was intended to keep political speech free - everything else was open to debate. Today, the leaders of the First Amendment industry see it exactly the other way around.
Examiner columnist Jonah Goldberg is editor at large at the National Review Online and a syndicated columnist.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/26/2005 15:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No journalist should be protected. You can say what you want, but don't expect to get off scott free after yelling "fire" in a movie theater. Libel and lies still should be punished as well as cover ups for crimes.
The stories about the video of US troops burning the bodies of dead Taliban are disgustingââbut not because of anything our troops may have done to the corpses of fanatical murderers. Whatâs disturbing is the groveling reaction of our government and military officials, who are falling all over themselves to apologize to people who cheer every time an American is killed.
Remember what type of people the Taliban are? Like the jihadists we are fighting in Iraq, they are murderers whose religious beliefs warrant any kind of brutality and atrocity against the âinfidel.â These are the people who, when they ran Afghanistan, tortured and murdered their own citizens in a soccer stadium built with Western money. These are the people who behead and murder, the people who kill women and children. And these are the people whose corpses we are supposed to worry about mistreating, whose religious beliefs, the ones that justify murder, we are supposed to be respecting.
I know all the rationales for the apologies and investigations and anxious assertions of how much we respect Islam. We need to win the âhearts and mindsâ of all those alleged âmoderateâ Muslims who hate us only because they donât understand us, donât realize how much we admire their wonderful religion, donât quite get everything weâre doing for them, and who are abetted in their misunderstanding by the bad behavior of some of our troops. So the State Department has issued âtalking pointsâ to U.S. embassies âto explain to foreign journalists and officials that the alleged misconduct was an aberration that did not reflect American values,â as the New York Times reported.
The idea that all those millions cheering for the terrorists in Iraq, cheering for bin Laden, cheering for the Taliban are all just misinformed is a monumental delusion, and the most dangerous mistake we are making the war against jihad. The millions of Muslims who support jihadist murder do so not because theyâre ignorant of our beneficent intentions and enlightened tolerance, but because of spiritual beliefs that validate jihad, beliefs ratified by 14 centuries of Islamic jurisprudence and theology. We need to get over the peculiar arrogant belief that everything the enemy does is a mere reaction to what we do, as though these people donât have their own motivations for their actions. They know that we rescued the Muslims of Kuwait, the Muslims of Bosnia, and the Muslims of Iraq. They know that we are sacrificing our own citizens to create an ordered society that will allow Muslims to worship in peace and prosper in freedom. They know that Muslims are killing Muslims all over the world, that the greatest threats to the safety and well-being of Muslims are other Muslims, as we currently see in Sudan. They know all these things, but they donât care, because whatâs important is the jihad against the infidel, the divinely sanctioned struggle to compel the people of the world to accept Islam, live as second-class citizens, or die.
This false belief that Muslims only react to Western deeds also puts a powerful weapon into the hands our enemies, who can then deflect their true intentions and manipulate our behavior, as the jihadists of Palestine have been doing for decades. How else explain the bizarre spectacle of the terrorist Mahmoud Abbas being welcomed to the White House, at the very moment we claim to the world that we are at war with those who use and endorse terrorism? When has Abbas ever condemned terrorism as categorically evil and unacceptable in any circumstance, rather than condemning terrorism for being the wrong tactic at the wrong time? How can we keep saying terrorism âwonât workâ when we are giving financial and moral support to a Palestinian regime that incorporates terrorists like Hamas that say explicitly they want to destroy Israel and will use any means necessary to do so?
More important, when our enemies compel us to apologize and investigate and assure the world how much we really respect Islam, they validate their estimation of our spiritual weakness and corruption. From their perspective, why else would we apologize, unless we had doubts about the rightness of our cause and the beliefs that drive our actions? The jihadists, after all, are convinced of the rightness of their belief, one validated by Islam and its traditional intolerant and arrogant disdain for the infidel. So why should they ever apologize? They believe they are right, and that Allah sanctions their slaughter. Christians can be brutalized, as is happening right now in Alexandria, where Egyptian Copts are being murdered and terrorized by Muslim mobs. Christian churches can be desecrated, Christians and Jews murdered and mutilated on videotape, and we never hear even from secular Muslim leaders the sort of anxious protestations of regret that the leaders of the most powerful nation on earth indulge in.
We may think we are projecting the strength of our values when we chastise our troops for sometimes resorting to unpleasant actions in order to win against a brutal enemy. But in fact, the message we send is that because we have doubts about our cause and our beliefs, we will second-guess and scrutinize our own behavior in the midst of a hard fight. Wars are ugly and cruel, as all violence is. To think that one can fight a brutal enemy within utopian parameters is to court failure and defeat. This does not mean that anything goes, obviously. But we have to be realistic about where those impassable limits lie, given the sort of irregular war being fought. We can argue about those limits later, but burning the bodies of dead murderers to my mind is a long way from actions completely out of bounds, especially if such actions will save the life of even one American and take us one step closer to achieving our goal. After all, weâve had ample proof for decades that being nice and tolerant doesnât cut any ice with those who fancy themselves the warriors of Allah.
All means cannot justify all ends, but some means can justify the right ends. Every war this country has fought employed terrible means that none of us would want to choose, but that were justified by the rightness and goodness of the end. If we truly believe that our goals in Iraq are just enough to kill and die for, then we should stop undercutting and second-guessing our troops in the field who are laying their lives on the line to achieve those noble ends. And if we donât really believe in those goals enough to grit our teeth and do what must be done, as our fathers and grandfathers did in World War II, then we should pack up right now and go home.
#1
And these are the people whose corpses we are supposed to worry about mistreating,
Aha. So let's stoop to their level. Is that the answer?
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/26/2005 22:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Is that all you took from this? Open your fucking eyes
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/26/2005 22:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
apologize and investigate and assure the world
No apologies, investigations, and assurances are needed...but...I disagree with the following:
burning the bodies of dead murderers to my mind is a long way from actions completely out of bounds
The Russians did that sort of thing in Chechnya. It wasn't pretty. It wasn't necessary. Let's not go that route. And...
especially if such actions will save the life of even one American
How the hell he reached that conclusion is beyond comprehension.
Let's just kill the bad guys. Let's just take 2 two steps forward, without taking one step back. This is just giving more ammo to the enemy, and I have in mind the ones at home more than anything.
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/26/2005 23:43 Comments ||
Top||
Earthquake was the last straw on Pakistanâs democracyâs back. It occurred at a time when disarrayed democratic forces wanted to launch a movement against general Musharraf to bring democracy to dictatorship ridden country.
Even the mullahs who helped general Musharraf to incorporate 17th amendment in the constitution of Pakistan were together with democratic forces to oust general Musharraf through popular movement.
Earthquake changed this scenario.
Now, monkeys are all over.
There is no more hope for democracy. Popular leaders Mian Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto toned down their rhetoric against military rule in Pakistan. MMAâs internal divisions became more evident as Chief Minister Sarhad, Durrani, attended NSC meeting with the approval of Fazl Ur Rehman regardless of Qazi Hussain Ahmadâs objection.
Pakistani nation always had a strong commitment with democracy, constitutionalism and rule of law. However, the ruling elite, the army in the forefront, always had a stronger will power to keep democracy, constitutionalism and rule of law out.
Pakistanâs internal and external balance of forces always remained tilted in favor of ruling elite. Sometimes, internal circumstances helped ruling elite to maintain balance in its favor and sometimes, external forces helped it to continue undermine democracy, constitutionalism and rule of law in the country.
This earthquake has made the future of people of Pakistan even bleaker.
As earthquake cripples half of Pakistan, the monkeys further strengthen their rule in Pakistan. General Musharraf, a despicable character, time and again shows his despising face on TV screens talking nonsense all the time.
A nation that made so many sacrifices for democracy over the period of last 50 years is left with the only defiant voice of Qazi Hussain Ahmad the rightwing zealot disguised in democratic garb.
Is there any hope left for Pakistan?
None whatsoever!
These monkeys have made Pakistan synonymous with nightmare. Pakistan is a nightmare for its people living inside and outside.
Those living inside are being helplessly killed by these monkeys, natural disasters, epidemics, terrorists, poverty and hunger. If they do not commit suicide, earthquakes hit them and destroy them.
Those living outside, they receive constant blows of shame and insult coming from monkeys in control of Pakistan.
âThere is difference between âreshtorashonâ and ârehabilitashionâ the big monkey tells them over the TV waves.
Perhaps Washington Post is right to depict him as âSillyâ and âStupidâ. He let thousands of innocent people die while buried under rubble, but talks about âreshtorashonâ and ârehabilitashionâ.
Why these monkeys think the people are stupid? They donât understand the difference between ârestorationâ and ârehabilitation.â They know all this and they also bear the witness of the death of thousands of Pakistanis who died due to the negligence and incompetence of general Musharraf and his sissy-sassy prime minister.
Now, even nature has moved against Pakistan. These monkeys need to get off the back of the nation and let it survive as a normal society.
Posted by: john ||
10/26/2005 17:38 Comments ||
Top||
The mother of Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer is lucky that her son is an hypocrite. Her son is a leading proponent of excising the undesirable â the imperfect via abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. The disabled would fall under there, also, sometimes, the elderly.
Peter Singer's mother has Alzheimer's.
Peter Schweizer reports in his new book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy that "far from embracing his own moral ethic, Singer hired a group of health care workers to look after her."
Good for him, he can't even buy his own poison. (When your ideas are destructive, at least a little hypocrisy saves a life here and there, despite the widespread damage you may be doing.)
Singer isn't the only hypocrite on the Left. Hoover Institution fellow Schweizer exposes a handful of popular Lefty hypocrites in his new book. He recently talked to National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez about his latest book and the Left's deficiencies.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: Michael Moore makes money off oil and war? Why would he bother lying about owning stock? Is Peter Schweizer the only person who bothered checking?
Peter Schweizer:Michael Moore is constantly trying to prove his and the Left's moral superiority, so he says things about himself that are patently not true. He's pathological about it. How else to explain that he's loudly proclaimed no less than three times that he doesn't invest in the stock market because it's morally wrong while quietly picking up shares in a whole host of companies. A portfolio that includes Halliburton, Boeing, and HMOs doesn't fit the bill so he lies about it. I think he assumed that no one would poke around and investigate. When it comes to the MSM he was correct in making that assumption. He never responded to my questions. I'm dying to know how he explains away this one.
Lopez: Where did you get the idea for Do As I Say...? Did you just know the line of inquiry would be productive or did something fall into your lap?
Schweizer: I got tired of having discussions and arguments with people on the Left who operate on the assumption that they possess the moral high ground. They're not greedy, they're the only ones who truly care about the poor, minorities, you name it. Knowing quite a few people on the Left I knew that wasn't true. So I started poking around â looking at tax returns, IRS filings, court documents, etc. Frankly, it's amazing how easy it was to find examples of lefties being completely hypocritical.
Lopez: Given the hypocrisy you expose on this front, please tell me Nancy Pelosi at least isn't a Wal-Mart basher.
Schweizer: Nancy Pelosi bashes everyone who doesn't allow unions to call the shots. Everyone that is except herself. It's takes an amazing amount of gall to accept the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions while using non-UFW workers on your Napa Valley Vineyard. It takes the same to praise the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union and take massive sums of money from them all the while keeping them out of your Hotel and chain of restaurants. But again, I think Pelosi correctly assumes that no one in the media will challenge her on this.
Lopez: I'm all for having a little legitimate fun with liberals. But doesn't revealing Barbra Streisand's water bill feel a little like going through her garbage? Actually: Did you have to go through her or anyone else's garbage? Where did you get this stuff?
Schweizer: I didn't go through Bab's trash. All the info in the book was obtained legally and ethically. Streisand's annual water bill of $22,000 to keep her lawn green is relevant because she made it relevant: She's constantly lecturing ordinary Americans about the need to cut back on our consumerist culture. Maybe if she turns off the taps she'll have some legitimate grounds for making the claims she does. As Kermit the Frog said, it's not easy being green.
Lopez: Um and the Clinton's underwear? Though the Clinton's claiming $4 per pair of used underwear among their charitable contributions does seem like it is begging for a New York Post cover.
I suppose there was not blue dresses. Something like that would make a lot more on ebay.
Schweizer: Ah, yes, the Clintons, who profess to pay the maximum amount on their taxes every year because it's the right thing to do. The Clintons are simply amazing in their ability to lecture Americans about their need to pay more taxes while at the same time finding lucrative tax shelters and taking outrageous tax deductions. Again, the media gives them a free pass.
Lopez: What else about the Clintons do you want to hand over to RNC op research before 2008?
Schweizer: I think their record of greed, jilting poor people out of their money, and their avarice are a sight to behold. Let people see how they have made their money over the last couple of decades and it speaks for itself.
Lopez: Tell me the great hypocrisy of that greatest of all public intellectuals according to one recent depressing survey: Noam Chomsky.
Schweizer: Noam Chomsky thinks he's the Moses of this age and even those on the Left who don't agree with him on everything accept his moral authority. But Chomsky is a socialist who practices capitalism, and an anti-militarist who has made millions off of Pentagon contracts. Wonder what his followers would think of that? Then there is his constant lecturing about "tax gimmicks" and "tax shelters" that "the rich" use to avoid paying their "fair share." He must have forgotten about that when he set up his tax shelter.
Lopez: And he wasn't a lot of fun when you got in touch with him, was he?
Schweizer: I give credit to Chomsky for responding to my questions. His excuses were something to behold. No wonder he teaches linguistics. It's amazing how he twists his words. By the way, he said it was okay to criticize other rich people for setting up trusts and setting one up himself. After all, he explained, he's been fighting for poor people his whole life.
Lopez: Did anyone ever take Al Franken seriously anyway? Why shouldn't anyone?
Schweizer: I'm not sure that most people take Franken seriously, but the media most assuredly does. He professes to be more than a comedian. He claims to be a political analyst and apparently wants to be a U.S. senator. (His former writing partner says he really wants to be president. Yikes!) His vicious attacks against conservatives as racists are not meant to be funny. He really does think that we're bigots. So questions about his absolutely abysmal record when it comes to hiring minorities should be exposed. (For those who want a hint, less than one percent of his employees have been black. That's a worse record than Bob Jones University, which Franken claims is "racist.")
Lopez: So he lies you say? At heart, he's a comedian. Does it really matter?
Schweizer: Yes it does matter. Among the liberal/Left base, they see Franken as some sort of prophet who speaks the truth. And again, the media gives him a free pass. I caught him on The Late Show with David Letterman last Friday. They chuckled a bit and Franken went on to explain his twisted and distorted view of the world. He wasn't challenged on anything he said.
Lopez: About Franken, he wanted to fight our Rich Lowry. You nervous now that your book is out?
Schweizer: I tried to get Franken to answer my questions. I wanted him to explain some of the outrageous comments he made a few years ago about disliking homosexuals and the fact that he was glad one had been killed. (Imagine if a conservative had said that?) And I wanted to ask him why he considered conservatives and Republicans racist because they hired so few blacks when he had such a horrible record himself. Alas, he never responded.
About the Lowry-Franken fight: Rich is too classy to take him up on it but I wish he had. He could have taken him easy.
Lopez: Any Lefties you checked into who came out with flying non-hypocritical colors worth lauding for at least practicing what they preach?
Schweizer: I really thought that Ralph Nader would be that man. He lives a monk-like existence and tends to shun the material things in life. But then I discovered that he fired some of his employees for trying to form a union and I realized he wouldn't fit the bill. I'm still looking....
Lopez: Another say-something-nice question: Is there anyone on the Left you admire? Or are you a hater?
Schweizer: I don't admire the ideas of the Left but there are some individuals that I think demonstrated integrity and honesty. Senator Paul Wellstone â say what you will about him, but he seemed to at least try to live a life somewhat consistent with his principles.
Lopez: Were you depressed or invigorated by the big wigs of the Left's hypocrisy?
Schweizer: Invigorated. It's another reminder that the ideas the left want to impose on the rest of us are so fundamentally bad that they don't even try to live by them. At the end of the day, when all the fun is done, I hope people view this as a book about ideas and the failure of liberal/Left ideas. They don't work for the leading lights of the Left. How could they possibly work for our country?
Lopez: One overarching kinda question: We all have our moments of hypocrisy. That we don't practice what we preach doesn't make what we preach any less valid. People are human, etc. Is there something about your book that is somewhat fundamentally unfair?
Schweizer: Yes, we are all hypocrites and I talk about that in the book. But liberal hypocrisy and conservative hypocrisy are quite different on two accounts. First, you hear about conservative hypocrisy all the time. A pro-family congressman caught in an extramarital affair, a minister caught in the same. This stuff is exposed by the media all the time. The leaders of the liberal-Left get a complete pass on their hypocrisy. Second, and this is even more important, the consequences of liberal hypocrisy are different than for the conservative variety. When conservatives abandon their principles and become hypocrites, they end up hurting themselves and their families. Conservative principles are like guard rails on a winding road. They are irritating but fundamentally good for you. Liberal hypocrisy is the opposite. When the liberal-left abandon their principles and become hypocrites, they actually improve their lives. Their kids end up in better schools, they have more money, and their families are more content. Their ideas are truly that bad.
Lopez: Is there something about the book that sums something up philosophically about the Left?
Schweizer: After researching the book I really truly believe that the leading lights of the Left â Moore, Franken, Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy, etc. â really honestly don't believe what they are selling us. Their own experiences teach them that their ideas don't work.
Lopez: So I can't stand Michael Moore anyway. I really don't need any more anger aimed in his direction. Ditto with some others who get chapters in your book. Why should I read your book anyway? How might a Michael Moore fan get something out of Do As I Say...?
Schweizer: All I would ask a Michael Moore fan do is look at the facts. Moore professes to hate capitalism ("the last evil empire" he's called it) but practices it in spades. Moore condemns people for their racism and claims to support and practice affirmative action, but has a lousy record of hiring minorities. He outsources post-production film work to Canada so he can pay non-union wages. I could go on and on. I would ask his fans: is this really a sincere person?
Lopez: You always seem to have projects going on. What's next for you?
Schweizer: Right now I'm working to promote the book. I have some ideas for future projects but nothing set in stone. I wrote a novel with Cap Weinberger that came out a couple of months ago called Chain of Command. Cap is a class act and I enjoyed writing fiction. Maybe another novel at some point. We'll see.
Lopez: What's the funniest story you learned while compiling the book?
Schweizer: It has to be one about Michael Moore. In his books Michael Moore goes on and on about the fact that Americans are racist because they live in white neighborhoods. It's an example of latent segregationist attitudes in his mind. When I checked the demographics on Michael Moore's residence I burst out laughing. Michael Moore lives in a town of 2,500 in Michigan. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there is not a single black person in the entire town.
Lopez: Do you like any Streisand songs?
I've lately been partial to "You Don't Bring Me Flowers." It makes me think of the president's relationship with conservatives of late. (Don't judge me for my weirdness.)
Schweizer: Yes, that song does seem fitting these days. Streisand has a pretty voice but I don't really listen to her. Not because of politics, but I like something with a strong beat.
Lopez: One more before we go: Can't you just be happy for Gloria Steinem, man?
Schweizer: I am happy for Gloria Steinem. She finally found her man. My question is why couldn't she just be happy for other women who got married? A classic example of Do As I Say, Not As I Do.
Qn.... so a smiley face (as they are known) are concatenated to the sentence to show the writers mood.
As chatting on the Internet is becoming evermore popular for muslims when socialisng with friends and relatives instead of using the telephone, a trend has been emerging that people have been giving a blind eye to. Ask anybody who chats on the internet regularly and they will tell you that sometimes it is difficult to transfer your expression to your chatting buddy,
Answer
Chatting on the internet is similar to speaking on the telephone. It is not permissible for male or female to speak on the telephone to the opposite gender who is a Ghayr Mahram (not prohibited in marriage) freely and without necessity. If there is a genuine need which is valid in Shariâah, then members of the opposite gender may speak through the telephone with modesty and confine the discussion to the need.
To speak freely and beyond necessity is a sin. The same rule applies for chatting on the internet. No person should decide him/herself what is a valid reason in Shariâah to speak on the phone or chat on the internet. Many people have their own interpretations of genuine need which is not acceptable in Shariâah. We are aware of many such people who have caused ruin to their lives especially by chatting on the internet with the opposite gender. The expression of smiley faces and sad faces through internet chatting falls in the category of drawing pictures of animate objects which is prohibited. As an alternative, one may express his/her happiness and sadness in words.
#1
"We are aware of many such people who have caused ruin to their lives especially by chatting on the internet with the opposite gender."
Really? No shit? Wowsers, wotta bummer, d00d.
"The expression of smiley faces and sad faces through internet chatting falls in the category of drawing pictures of animate objects which is prohibited."
Well of course it is. Those same keystrokes are okie-dokie in sentences and such, but as isolated characters, expressions of mood, they magically become different, somehow, and become drawings. Fuckin-A, Bubba, yewbetcha, lol.
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.
