From the WSJ:
If President Barack Obama He ain't President yet, Ralphie
wants to stop the descent toward dangerous global climate change, Hell, The One said he could stop the oceans' rise - surely he can stop the climate from changing....
and avoid the trade anarchy that current approaches to this problem will invite, As opposed to what we've got now....?
he should take Al Gore's proposal for a carbon tax and make it global. So now OBambi is not only the President of the US (even though we've already got a President for the next month or so), he's king of the world? Figures.
A tax on CO2 emissions With the money being siphoned off by going to the UN kleptocrats, no doubt-- not a cap-and-trade system -- offers the best prospect of meaningfully engaging China and the U.S., I don't think that means what you think it means, Ralphie....
while avoiding the prospect of unhinged environmental protectionism. Do you promise it will get rid of the unhinged "environmentalists" around the world, Ralphie? Starting with you and your butt buddy AlBore?
China emphatically opposes a hard emissions cap on its economy. That's 'cause they're smarter than you are, Ralphie.
Yet China must be part of any climate deal or within 25 years, notes Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, its emissions of CO2 could amount to twice the combined emissions of the world's richest nations, including the United States, Japan and members of the European Union. And he "knows" this how, exactly....?
According to the world authority on total bullshit the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it will cost $1.375 trillion per year to beat back climate change and keep global temperature increases to less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). $1.375 trillion - that's undoubtedly exactly the cost of their champagne, caviar, whores, limousines, private jets, overpriced homes and apartments, and assorted bribes. How do they do it?
Cap-and-traders assume, without much justification, Just like your assumptions, Ralphie. It might behoove you to remember that "assume" always begins with an ASS.
that one country can put a price on carbon emissions while another doesn't without affecting trade or investment decisions. This is a bad assumption, given false comfort by the Montreal Protocol treaty, which took this approach to successfully rein in ozone-depleting gases. Chlorofluorocarbons are not pervasive like greenhouse gases (GHGs); nor was the economy of 1987 hyperglobalized like ours today. Hell, the economy of December 2008 isn't as hyperglobalized as the economy of January 2008.
Good intentions lead straight to Hell, Ralphie - and I wish you and your buddies would hurry up and get there
to limit big polluters in some countries but not others will turn any meaningful cap into Swiss cheese. Mmmmmm, cheese. Though Danish Havarti's better.
It can be avoided by relocating existing and new production of various kinds of CO2-emitting industries to jurisdictions with no or virtually no limits. I think we've already done that, Ralphie. Do China, Thailand, Vietnam, et at., ring any bells....?
This is known as carbon leakage, And your pathetic, pedantic, uninformed-by-actual-science rantings are known as bullshit leakage. I wonder where we could find a big-enough stopper....
and it leads to trade anarchy. I'm thinking we're already there. Idiot.
Read the rest at the link if you're a masochist you want to - it doesn't get any better (just like Ralphie).
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/03/2008 13:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sorry, mods - forgot to change the category to Opinion. :-(
And I'm sure you all know my opinion of Ralphie and his fellow travelers....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/03/2008 14:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I saw a fantastic bumper sticker the other day: "Stop Continental Drift".
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
12/03/2008 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Global carbon tax for a world government and new world order?
#8
We had the coldest January in 50 years, the coldest March and April in 30 years, the coldest June in 25 years, and we've had unusually cold temperaures for October and November including more snow (the statisticians haven't come back with the results for Oct/Nov)and I'm pumpin' all the CO2 I can right now trying to stay warm. Go blow a dead bear, Ralphie.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/03/2008 18:59 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Someone tell Ralphie he's late to the global warmingclimate change variable weather party. All the good endorsements and book deals are taken.
Posted by: ed ||
12/03/2008 20:33 Comments ||
Top||
#11
What will he and Al Bore do when the next ice age arrives and the only thing stopping delaying it has been all the CO2 that countries have been pumping into the atmosphere?
Of course, the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is dihydrogen monoxide vapor, and I haven't heard anybody talk about reducing that.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
12/03/2008 20:55 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Tell ya what Ralphie, when you and the other fuckwit enviros figure out how to collect the carbon tax from China, and the third world, give us a call for our "taxes".
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law.
The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws." The case, involving Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005.
"It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that represented the defendant Felix Kha in a case that the City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Perhaps, in the future local government will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state."
#1
Sovereign California, a very interesting precedent. One which may open the door for many for the State(s) trumping of other Federal statutes and laws, not the least of which may involve revenue sharing, immigration, military service, and taxes. Events at the University of Alabama in June of 1963 involving Gov Geo Wallace might point to something of a conflict in Federal legal views.
#2
Yes, but the usual leverage for 'non-participation' is the withholding of funding. Wonder what concessions Congress will extract from CA with Arnold shows up like the Big 3 asking for the big handout bailout?
#3
Sovereign California, a very interesting precedent.
Well, we *are* the United States of America, after all.
US Constitution - Bill of Rights - Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
#4
Steve: Ref Prop 215; Take a read of the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. Bottom line, interstate Commerce Clause as well as the Necessary and Proper Clause both apply.
#5
I think if the federal govt. should enforce their own federal laws, if they can. Otherwise, almost everything has a state criminal/civil version.
If the hippies and cancer patients in Calif. want to get loaded I really don't care, there are much worse things going on in CA than Felix Kha smoking his skull bong and watching Gilligan's Island all day.
#6
You can't be for States rights and then think that the Federal government can trump any and all state laws. I am and always will be a States rights supporter. So if the (not so)Good people of California want medical mj, that's their right. In my most unlearned opinion the courts use of the Commerce Clause is a reach. But, they have spoken and that's the law. States' Rights have consistently been eroded away and will probably just get worse under Nobama.
#8
I believe the line should be drawn at trade over state lines. If someone is just using/selling at state level, then the state takes care of it. Going over state lines, you can guarantee the FBI will be there to smack you down. Of course, the local state asking the FBI to help with a case is always allowed and can help track down a web of interstate and international crime as well.
Basically, I believe that if a state wants to legalize something, the Feds have no right to step in and force it on them.
#9
The question becomes "Can the feds enforce federal law in a State that doesn't accept the law?"
That's why the Donks demanded and got the removal of federal troops from the South over the Hayes-Tilden election compromise. Then insured they wouldn't return with the passage of Posse Comitatus. It's also one of the major reasons the blacks lost their 14th and 15th Amendment rights for nearly a hundred years. Just remember the continuation of your arguement is that if State Rights are not constrained they can also trump individual civil rights. Otherwise we're engaged in picking and choosing what we want, which is basically a game of power not principle.
#10
One of the most clever instances of giving a party what they want at a price they can't afford since Marbury v. Madison. Nonetheless, I expect the changes in the next 10 years will make this decision moot. Just as these United States became the United States after the civil war and the legislative power of the Congress became unconstrained after the switch in time that saved nine, I expect the transition of the states to administrative appurtenances of the federal executive to be complete within the decade. That is why I object to the domestic use of Federal troops for any reason including the enforcement of school attendance policies. This is a slippery slope and I doubt this opinion will be sufficient to prevent or even delay our descent.
#11
P2K, my argument with this is that the reasoning SCOTUS uses is contained in Commerce Clause. Clearly, the Commerce Clause would not apply to Civil Rights. I'd say that is comparing apples to oranges. I just don't see how growing pot in your backyard for your own 'medical' use falls under interstate commerce. Also, please note, I am not a supporter of 'medical' mj, but I am a proponent of States Rights.
The action in Casablanca takes place on December 2, 3 and 4, 1941. . . . Part of the beauty of the script, though, is that it can be understood on many levels. It is the story of three little people. It is also an allegory about America's entry into WWII. Rick is America. Weary, cynical, with an idealistic past but unwilling to get involved. Rick says that he sticks his neck out for noone. Ferrari tells him that isolationism is no longer a viable foreign policy. Ilsa, Laszlo, Strasser and Renault are the various faces of Europe. Old enemies, old allies and new victims, all eager to know what American will do. Will America act selfishly or will it act idealistically? Of course, by 1943, when the film was released, that ending was already known. Casablanca was rushed out to coincide with the American landing in North Africa and the fighting for Casablanca, which is what led to its initial success. It is, of course, no accident that the movie is set during the first week of December, 1941. . . .
"Round up the usual suspects!"
Posted by: Mike ||
12/03/2008 07:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, to find there's gambling going on here!"
"Here's your winnings for tonight, monsieur."
#1
The article says that 50% of the people at the CIA are open minded. I wonder...
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
12/03/2008 16:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
A high profile position, where you can be totally micromanaged and then tossed to the wolves when anything goes wrong. Yeah, I really want that job.
The world is decidedly poorly made," Asif Ali Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto and president of Pakistan, must be saying to himself. The French expression Le monde est décidément mal fait sums things up quite nicely. For it was at the very moment that Mr. Zardari was attempting to modernize his country -- to break with the equivocations of the Musharraf years and move forward with a peace process with India for which he took the initiative -- that the tragedy of Mumbai occurred. But what's done, unfortunately, is done. And if the authors of the carnage are, as it seems, linked to the Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, we can already draw a certain number of appalling and unquestionable conclusions.
The Lashkar-e-Taiba is one of the jihadist groups with which I became familiar while working on my book "Who Killed Daniel Pearl." This group is, without a doubt, based in Pakistan. It is likely that the Lashkar-e-Taiba has within India ideological or religious "correspondents" in the vast Muslim community that sees itself (not without reason) as discriminated against by the Hindu majority. Still, there is very little doubt that the initiative, strategy and money for the assault on Mumbai came from terrorist leaders inside Pakistan. Far from concentrating only on the cause of Kashmir's independence, and most of all, far from existing only in the notorious and officially ungovernable "tribal zones" on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Lashkar-e-Taiba is an all-terrain group with great political influence. It includes militants in every city of the country: Peshawar, Muzaffarabad, Lahore and even Karachi (Pakistan's economic capital).
Since its creation 15 years ago, the Lashkar-e-Taiba has been linked to the ISI, the formidable Inter-Services Intelligence agency that operates like a state within a state in Pakistan. Obviously, this link is not widely publicized. However, from the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl to the July 2005 attack on the Ayodhya Hindu temple in Uttar Pradesh, there is abundant evidence that the jihadist wing of the ISI has assisted the Lashkar-e-Taiba in the planning and financing of various operations. Worse yet, the Lashkar-e-Taiba is, as I discovered while researching and reporting my book on Daniel Pearl, a group of which A.Q. Khan, the inventor of Pakistan's atomic bomb, was a longtime friend. Mr. Khan, one may recall, spent a good 15 years trafficking in nuclear secrets with Lybia, North Korea, Iran and, perhaps, al Qaeda, before confessing his guilt in early 2004. Later pardoned by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Mr. Khan remains perfectly free to travel within Pakistan, as he was just admitted this Monday, under the protection of the ISI, to the most elite hospital in Karachi. No, this is not a dream -- it is reality. Pakistan is home to a man both father of his country's nuclear program and known sympathizer of an Islamist group whose latest demonstration has netted at least 188 dead and several hundred wounded.
The Lashkar-e-Taiba is, ultimately, one of the constitutive elements of what is conventionally called al Qaeda. For too long we've told ourselves that al Qaeda no longer exists except as a brand; that it is only a pure signifier, "franchised" by local organizations independent of one another. Yet there indeed exists in our world what Osama bin Laden called the "International Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders," which is like a constellation of atoms aggregated around a central nucleus. These atoms find themselves, for the most part, clustered in this new zone of tempests that forms the whole of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Three days after the massacre, in a moment of anger and frustration that rings true, Pakistan's President Zardari said: "Even if these activists are linked to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, who do you think we are fighting?" The problem, unfortunately, is beyond him. Like his predecessor, President Zardari lacks the means to break the back of criminal elements within the ISI and Pakistani military. To an even greater extent, he lacks the backing of those who associate it with the darker side of his own administration. And therein lies the challenge -- perhaps the most frightening of our era. After the bleeding of Mumbai, it is time the entire international community -- not just those in the region -- took notice.
#4
See, once again the folly of disarming civilians, no one was able to fight back, just the "Railway Police" with antique weapons and NO time at the range to practice.
Posted by: Rednek Jim ||
12/03/2008 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"Rednek" was a typo, but I like it, Redneks kan't spel.
Posted by: Rednek Jim ||
12/03/2008 14:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Jim correct me if I'm wrong but those "antique" weapons are more accurate and more powerful than the AK47s the terrs were using. The only ability lost is that spray and pray mode of aiming that I damn well hope the cops wouldn't use.
Now, to your point about practice...............
From what I've read they would have been better off with slingshots cause the never fire real rounds or have any range time at all.
Chalk this all up to the people not the hardware. Remember "Guns don't kill people, people kill people (except when they don't know how to use the damn gun!)"
So, why kill the rabbi? There is a branch of apologetics - which I take crudely to be the belief that the crime is the fault of the victim - that assumes a milder form, and which I'll call explanetics. So the explanatists view of the Mumbai massacres last week is that the cause lies in what concretely has been done to, or in the vicinity of, the young, cool-looking men with the grenades and the machineguns.
On the day after the attacks began the Indian writer, campaigner and serial explanatist, Arundhati Roy, lambasted her own country on The World Tonight on Radio 4, for its rural poverty and its fluctuating support for Hindu nationalism. These, she seemed to suggest, were root causes of the terror. Elsewhere, analysts have pointed to the 60-year-old Kashmiri crisis as fuelling the jihad. More exotically the writer Misha Glenny now suggests that organised crime in the Pakistani city of Karachi is "the operational key" to such attacks (he has just written a book about international organised crime), but that the origins of last week's nightmare lie "in the deterioration in relations between Hindus and Muslims in Mumbai and India". Well, these things are bad. Kashmir is bad. Hindu communalism is bad.
Poverty is bad. You can see the reasons for warfare in Kashmir, for riots in Hyderabad and for Maoist uprisings in the deep rural areas of India. But why kill the rabbi? Why invade the small headquarters of a small outreach sect of a small religion, which far from being even a big symbol of anything, you would almost certainly need a detailed map and inside knowledge even to find?
From what has been learnt from the one surviving attacker, the baby-faced and variously pre-named Mr Kasab, his group came largely from the rural southern Punjab in Pakistan. It is therefore unlikely that any of them had even encountered a Jew, or knew anyone else who had.
Yet last week, Nariman House was chosen for special murderous attention, alongside the Oberoi and Taj hotels, the railway station and the Leopold café. It reminded me of the 2003 Istanbul bombings when - post Iraq war - specifically British and American targets were augmented, for some reason, by the blowing up of the synagogues belonging to the much diminished Jewish population of that great city.
#4
Michael Toten had some interesting observations of AQI prisoners he visited in Fallujah:
These guys are like Arabic Hannibal Lectors.
Is it safe to be in here? I said.
Well, Sergeant Dehaan said. Theres five cops. And me.
Most of the men in this room looked like they were perfectly willing to murder us all with their hands. I could see it in their eyes, in the sinister way some of them squinted at me, in the tightness of their jaw muscles. I wished I had a gun of my own.
The nastiest ones are the little guys, Sergeant Dehaan said. The little rat-looking bastards. They're the ones who have done the worst things to people.
Ive seen how cruel Iraqi kids can be when they fight over candy the Marines hand out to them. The little rat-looking insurgents most likely were mercilessly picked on as children. When they joined Al Qaeda their bottomless hatred was unleashed against Iraqis even more than it was unleashed on the Americans.
Another interesting study was published by the DOD. It looked at Islamic suicide bombers, and discovered that they were largely 4th, 5th or 6th sons in a family. When you look at the high unemployment and stagnant economies in Arab countries, most of the jobs, inheritance etc. is going to go to the first or second sons.
Becoming a suicide bomber can be seen as a desperate attempt to get some positive aclaim from the family and the community.
I believe that Islamo-terrorists are murderers first and Muslims second.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
12/03/2008 15:57 Comments ||
Top||
Reacting to criticism in India and an isolating media trend inside Pakistan, President Asif Ali Zardari has asked India in an interview to Financial Times on Monday not to blame Pakistan for last weeks attacks in Mumbai, saying non-state actors could not hijack nations. The next sentence is even more significant: Even if the militants are linked to Lashkar-e-Tayba, who do you think we are fighting?
Mr Zardari also pointed to a development that the media in Pakistan was ignoring: that the attack could be a tactic to divert attention from the real war going on in the Tribal Areas between the terrorists and the Pakistan army. He came very near to saying that it was in fact a plot to force the army to vacate the Tribal Areas and deploy along the Indian border because of the Indian threat to mobilise forces as they did in 2001.
The interior adviser, Mr Rehman Malik, was clearer in his diagnosis: he said in Lahore that the Mumbai attacks were designed to force Pakistan to deploy its troops on the countrys eastern borders, thereby clearing the western borders for infiltration into Afghanistan. Although the PPP government has praised the Pakistani media for being balanced, the fact is that by reacting so emotionally to the fear and loathing spread by the reckless and xenophobic Indian media, the Pakistani media has tended to isolate the government at a critical point.
The Indian government has given our High Commissioner in Delhi a formal protest note linking the Mumbai attack to Pakistan, which the latter has rejected because of lack of proof. The single terrorist caught by the Indians is said to have confessed that his group landed on Mumbai harbour by a boat. He has also confessed to training imparted to his group by the Pakistani banned terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Tayba. But confessions being no more credible than confessions in such situations, if the media war subsides and there are signs on some channels that it is subsiding one can get down to objective analysis.
Pakistan is going through its toughest anti-terrorist phase. The army is making inroads in the Bajaur stronghold of the Taliban who are apparently desperate to find a way to relieve the pressure on them. Realising that the people of the Tribal Areas were tending to accept state authority and assist the Army, they have offered ceasefire and even gone through the motions of a unilateral one. Although they have benefited morally from the unanimous parliamentary resolution asking the army to get out of the Tribal Areas, their reversals have not ceased.
The Taliban have resorted to a more intensified wave of suicide-bombing and have targeted Peshawar and areas close to Peshawar as a deterrent but with no palpable results. The Army is still effective in its operations. This is when the vectors of higher planning seem to have come together. Taking account of the widespread media campaign that the war against terrorism is not Pakistans war, we can logically speculate that an authority higher than the Taliban
An interesting description
may have commissioned a plot to push the Army out of the Tribal Areas on to the border with India.
Taking account of the widespread media campaign that the war against terrorism is not Pakistans war, we can logically speculate that an authority higher than the Taliban may have commissioned a plot to push the Army out of the Tribal Areas on to the border with India.
The Mumbai attackers were all suicide-bombers out of whom one has actually chickened out and has allegedly started to sing.
Mr Zardaris statement that the attack could have come from non-state actors and that his government was actually fighting against these same actors reveals how isolated the PPP government has become in the wake of the attack and the media war that has followed it. Retired generals, pointedly two ex-ISI chiefs, have come on TV to describe what the next war with India will look like. Tragically, what has come out is a visceral non-professional exaggeration of the bravery of Pakistani Muslims when they battle Indian Hindus.
The brilliance of Pak ISI strategic thinkers
Once this fever subsides, more cold-blooded analysis should make Pakistanis realise the real predicament they are in. If the Indians mobilise and Pakistan mobilises in response, the western border will be unprotected. It will be unprotected against two forces: the NATO forces arrayed across the Durand Line and the Taliban who cross the border and raid inside Afghanistan. The war between these two forces will intensify in the absence of our troops, and CIA drone attacks may not only extend further inside Pakistans settled areas but also might escalate to air force attacks, followed by boots on ground.
If the Indians mobilise and Pakistan mobilises in response, the western border will be unprotected. It will be unprotected against two forces: the NATO forces arrayed across the Durand Line and the Taliban who cross the border and raid inside Afghanistan. The war between these two forces will intensify in the absence of our troops, and CIA drone attacks may not only extend further inside Pakistans settled areas but also might escalate to air force attacks, followed by boots on ground.
Welcoming this kind of eventuality on the Indo-Pak border is not a wise gambit for our war mongers. Commentators who rejoice over the fact that any concentration of Indian troops on the border will hurt India economically and meet with international criticism should consider this: what if the Indians should deploy to merely provoke American attacks from Afghanistan, targeting locations where these non-state actors are known to be ensconced? The media should consider that its emotional response may give India the initiative to cause harm to Pakistan without actually getting into a fight.
The PPP government should not feel uncomfortable in this brief period of political isolation. It is handling the crisis in the right way and its policy of cooperation with India and coordination with a very pro-India international community is based on wisdom
Posted by: john frum ||
12/03/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh yes. They always have good excuses. And if they can't invent some for themselves, there's plenty in the "West" who'll do it for them.
#2
PAKISTANI-/INDIAN DEFENCE FORUMS/WORLD AFFAIRS BOARD/TOPIX/OTHER > PAKISTANI TALIBAN PLEDGE TO JOIN FORCES WITH PAKI ARMY, GOVT. IN FIGHT/WAR AGZ INDIA. Talibs proclaim to fight agz the Paki Army-Govt only becuz of the latter's unwanted incursions and MILOPS in Taliban areas.
Other MUMBAI-related Artics, to wit:
*INDIAN DEFENCE MINISTER ANTHONY TO ARMY: BE PREPARED FOR WTC-TYPE OF TERROR ATTACKS, +
* HINDU FUNDAMENTALISTS [Group Rally = Street democtration]STRIKE AT [visiting[PAKISTANI DELEGATION, +
* THOUSANDS MARCH ACROSS INDIA, DEMANDING/
SHOUTING "WE WANT ACTION NOW", +
* HINDU CROWDS SHOUT/DEMAND INDIA MILITARY ACTION AGZ PAKISTAN, +
* UK LABOUR PARTY: BRITISH BBC IS "BRITISH BIASED CORPORATION" - TERRORISTS IN LONDON ARE LABELED "GUNMEN" OR "MILITANTS" IN MUMBAI!?
You can just feel another BRIT TORY-LABOUR, etc. FOR-PEACE, ALL-LONDON POL BARBECUE being scheduled, can't ye????
#3
OOPSIES, my bad, forgot to add PAKISTAN REJECTS INDIA'S DEMAND TO TURN OVER MUMBAI SUSPECTS + PAKISTAN PREPARES ITS OWN TERROR SUSPECT LIST FOR INDIA + PAKISTAN: INDIA MUST CONTROL ITS OWN HINDU, OTHER MILITANT EXTREMISTS.
Also, PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > OBAMA: IFF THE US CAN BOMB PAKISTAN, WHY CAN'T INDIA!?. India has the right to engage in CROSS-BORDER MIL RETALIATION in its own self-defense.
Last week in Mumbai we witnessed as clear a case of carefully planned mass terrorism as we are ever likely to see.
The seven-venue atrocity was coordinated in a highly sophisticated way. The terrorists used BlackBerrys to stay in touch with each other during their three-and-half-day rampage, outwitting the authorities by monitoring international reaction to the attacks on British, Urdu and Arabic Web sites. It was a meticulously organized operation aimed exclusively at civilian targets: two hospitals, a train station, two hotels, a leading tourist restaurant and a Jewish center.
There was nothing remotely random about it. This was no hostage standoff. The terrorists didn't want to negotiate. They wanted to murder as many Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists and other "infidels" as they could, and in as spectacular a manner as possible. In the Jewish center, some of the female victims even appear to have been tortured before being killed.
So why are so many prominent Western media reluctant to call the perpetrators terrorists? Why did Jon Snow, one of Britain's most respected TV journalists, use the word "practitioners" when referring to the Mumbai terrorists? Was he perhaps confusing them with doctors?
Why did Britain's highly regarded Channel 4 News state that the "militants" showed a "wanton disregard for race or creed" when exactly the opposite was true: Targets and victims were very carefully selected. Why did the "experts" invited to discuss the Mumbai attacks in one show on the state-funded Radio France Internationale, the voice of France around the world, harp on about Baruch Goldstein (who carried out the Hebron shootings in 1994), virtually the sole case of a Jewish terrorist in living memory?
#2
The media did the exact same thing during the Beslan attacks up in Russia. They absolutely refused to call them 'terrorists' or even 'muslims'. Instead they called them 'gangsters' or 'hostage-takers'.
The f-king New York Times still refuses to call them what they are.
Deliberately and with full knowledge of their intent, and knowing that it will encourage even more of these acts, covering up for the terrorists once again. The editors of the NYT have blood on their hands.
Now to find out that the mother in the jewish center was 6 months pregnant as she was tortured and murdered. And the 2 year old baby had been beaten. Via Atlas Shrugs.
#6
Unfortunately in recent years we have become used to leftist media burying their heads in the sand about the threat that Islamic fundamentalism poses, in much the same way as they once refused to report accurately on communist atrocities.
Grosss analogy is spot on. However, this is not a recent phenomenon as he suggests. The medias PC reporting is a symptom of the long held refusal, for many (Left and Right), to acknowledge that Islamic fundamentalism is an ideology that is grounded by a religion. Similar symptoms appear every time the Hearts and Minds crowd argue that placing the Taliban on the US Terrorist list would be a mistake. And even though Sheik Rahman after the 93 WTC bombing correctly citied passages that proved the Koran justified his deplorable actions, many experts display comparable symptoms as they continue to say that AQ simply perverts the Muslim religion. Until the civilized world comes to grips with the fact that the Underlying Cause Theory is not identified simply by supporting dictators, poverty, oppression, or some other esoteric cause we will continue to have leaders like Obama say, We dont want to make Bin Laden a martyr.
#8
As has been noted elsewhere, the damage done by the BBC is incalculable - it has all that programming in all those languages, and carries a presumption of legitimacy and accuracy in many quarters (esp. those far less likely to be aware of its systematic, extreme, and even bizarre bias).
I still recall hearing a BBC broadcast late at night in DC - the local NPR carried the first morning news show (there's double poison - NPR and BBC). I was driving on an empty interstate. The host was doing a live interview with an Israeli military spokesman about an IDF raid in a West Bank town (this was during the extended - and successful - response to the Palestinian terror offensive capped by the Netanya Passover massacre). The IDF guy was not "English," but clearly a Hebrew-speaker, English a second language.
The host asked whether the IDF had discontinued operations in the town because (exact quote) "you have killed enough people?". I almost swerved. There was incredibly powerful "dead air" as the IDF spokesman, surely, struggled to make sure he had heard the question correctly. He mumbled some sort of reasonable response.
At home, one is amazed and appalled at the MSM-inspired nonsense that comes out of peoples' mouths. Abroad, we have the BBC carrying water for dictators, fascists, racists, genocidal maniacs, bigots, and murderous religious fanatics - so long as they're anti-US or anti-western or anti-Israel. Anyone really wonder how we elect non-entities at home, and deal with mass hysteria abroad?
#5
He absolutely sums it up. The worldwide problem is that we have no leadership that can see the obvious, act upon the threats, AND communicate it all to the populace. Lack of leadership and a press that has sunk to a marketing and propaganda tool is killing is, literally and figuratively.
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Nikolaevsk, AK ||
12/03/2008 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
#6
So enough. No more empty talk. No more idle promises. No more happy ignorance, half measures, or appeasement-minded platitudes. The time for hard-nosed, uncompromising action hasn't merely come it's been overdue by seven years. The voice of our brothers' blood cries out from the ground.
I enjoyed the artilce, but I'm disappointed the author did not say what "hard-nosed, uncompromising action" he recommends we take.
#7
Bravo! I'm right there with this guy. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. The stakes are too high now. To tolerate the intolerate is no longer tolerable.
Not when you are facing the kind of threats these monsters are intent on seeing through.
#8
My gosh! The next thing you are gong to tell me is that we don't have a president-in-waiting who is going to lead us to Paradise. Please! Enough of the reality. We've lost our financial bubbles. At least allow us our PC bubbles.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
12/03/2008 16:35 Comments ||
Top||
#11
All of Asia and large parts of Africa, and even Europe, is slowly turning into a mini-Iraq or Afghanistan - even if Prez Barack sends US troops into Pakistan, the Militants will had weakened and carved out locally controlled areas elsewhere in Asia by then. IMHO if the US is still involved in heavy fighting in Afghanistan or Pakistan 2010-2012, and Iran successfully goes nuclear by the same time, the US would've lost the GWOT, Asia, and maybe even Africa. US global superpower status will be seriously affected and damaged - the US will be on the defensive around the world.
#2
Considering that home equity loans paid for a lot of tuition and that there is no more home equity in many locations ... I can see how that can happen.
#6
How much of that 'paper' requirement is lazy and ineffective personnel management who do not want to have to work in determining qualifications? It's so simple - must have a [paper mill] college degree.
#7
Yer all correct. "Higher" education should crash and rightly so. Tenure should end. Most jobs don't require college degrees, let alone graduate degrees (and I am writing as one who has 3 largely unnecessary degrees, acquired because I was stupid, not smart).
Unfortunately, a lot of primary and secondary education is also a crock. One of my grandfathers had only an 8th grade education yet retired (early 1960s) as head accountant for a mid-sized steel company. My other grandfather didn't finish even 8th grade as he was a farm boy and needed at home. The point is, both learned reading, writing, and arithmetic in primary school and, through hard work in tough time, were able to succeed. Nowadays you've got to stay in school until you're 25 or so and still don't know enough to be useful.
#9
If anyone's ever filled out a FAFSA form, the EFC (Expected Financial Contribution) from the parents (regardless of whether you're on speaking terms with them / moved out at age 18, etc.) is 20 percent. It's assumed that the parents will take out home equity lines or otherwise liquidate other assets to cover this percentage.
#10
I liken this situation to people buying more house than they can afford. Most kids don't need to go to Harvard or Yale. Two years of community college ($5,000 each here) and two years at a state university ($14,000 each here) gets you a college education for $38,000. I know a few people who have more outstanding student loan debt than that in a major that is available at most state universities.
#11
Why not outsource to India? They speak English and have some good education facilities. The food's great too, if you like curry. For the price of one year of education here, you can get four in India and live in a nice hotel.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
12/03/2008 16:28 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I think that one of the strangest aspects of a college education is that the curriculum is one that was tailored to the world of the rich where you went to brush up on your culture and network with your peers to be.
100 years ago no one went to college for "vocational" training. So why do we pretend that the same silly courses in the humanities and social sciences are what are needed today?
#13
As well as becoming unaffordable, college education has become largely irrelevant. It has become irrelevant for many reasons: 1. embracing social engineering, 2. being used as a forum by professors to espouse personal beliefs instead of providing an education, 3. political correctness, 4. multiculturalism, 5. offering courses that have no content, 6. overpaid professors and administrators, 7. the proliferation of federal mandates required in universities such as OSHA, EPA, etc., and 8. elitism. The administrative burden in universities has increased tremendously over the years; thus adding to the cost of attending.
#14
Very astute observations, everyone. My prediction is that the educational establishment will be as rigid as the UAW in resisting any and all attempts at reform. But as long as they have control over the state legislature like they do here in California they won't need to worry about their jobs. Er, that is until the state goes broke.
#15
<i>100 years ago no one went to college for "vocational" training. So why do we pretend that the same silly courses in the humanities and social sciences are what are needed today?</i>
Maybe in the vain hope that some portion of the public is actually educated about the history, literature, philosophy and theology that made the West great for a millenium.
There is stupidity in academia. But you are kidding yourself if you think that ignorance is any improvement.
#16
Name a place where you should pay $150,000 to be ostracized for 4 years by foolish socialists in order to get a degree that will be no good when they take over anyways?
#17
Spend half that much at a state university or college getting a salable degree instead of one in French Medieval Love Poetry (unless one plans on acquiring a professorship in French Medieval Literature, of course). On the other hand, I've a girlfriend who, upon getting a degree in English Literature from the University of Chicago -- her senior thesis was an analysis of the lyrics of The Band, which will be familiar to some Rantburgers, I'm sure -- that gentle, cultured, and well read California girl was immediately snatched up by a white shoe investment bank in Boston to handle customer accounts. She apparently did this quite well, and was able to pay back her very large student loan.
I believe that the price of an undergraduate degree has increased more, and faster, than any other measured "thing" in the last few decades - far outpacing even "health care". Naturally the actual cost to the consumer is often affected by things such as scholarships, differential tuition rates, loans, etc. But still.
Meanwhile, as johnqc points out, many college experiences, and substantial portions of most college experiences, have become nothing short of bizarre. Not irrelevant - pernicious.
Ebbang, I think you've got CA about right. "Education" is one of several "public service" complexes here that has a stranglehold on the legislature - seemingly, regardless of services delivered. I believe a survey showed CA public teachers received greater total compensation than their private sector equivalents (and that of course wouldn't factor in near total job-security and other advantages).
Nationally the problem may continue to be that, because there is such a massive de facto subsidy of "higher education" - and how will that do anything but increase given the incoming crew in DC? - there will be zero or greatly reduced "price/demand correction".
We may avert a ridiculous auto bailout, but the rathole of over-priced, politicized, over-abundant, subsidized "higher education" looks set to consume ever-increasing amounts of resources. Another dark failure of present day America. More to follow.
In the PBR the Chancellor, at a stroke, doubled government debt to more than £1 trillion. The Conservatives warned at the time that this sort of economic recklessness would weaken market confidence in the UK economy.
Figures released this afternoon appear to show this is already happening and as a consequence the market view of the risk of the UK Government defaulting on its debt has reached a record high. The Tories say...
"The markets now rate the default risk for UK Government debt higher than that of Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Finland, Germany and Norway, a judgment largely based on the government's decision to take on unprecedented borrowing in last week's Pre-Budget Report. Over the last year, the perceived default risk for the UK has increased almost 15-fold.
"The cost of hedging against default on bonds is shown by the credit default swap spread (the CDS spread). On December 1st, the closing spread on UK 5 year government debt was 99.4 basis points. On December 2nd, Bloomberg reported that the intra-day credit default swap spread for 5 year UK government debt had reached a new record high of 106.5 basis points. On December 3rd 2007, the CDS spread was 7.2 basis points.
"German government credit default swap spreads on December 1st were 38.1 bp, Norway: 32.3 bp, Finland: 48.4 bp France: 54.4 bp, Netherlands: 66.1 bp. Belgium: 74.5 bp and Portugal: 99.2 bp."
No wonder Fox News had that ticker about Britain going bankrupt. Can Gordon Brown really keep a straight face next time he tells us that our economy is better placed than our main competitors? He must know what an outright lie he is telling, or is he doing the equivalent of a spolit child sticking its fingers in its ears and shouting "La la la, not listening!"?
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.
