Hi there, !
Today Sat 12/11/2004 Fri 12/10/2004 Thu 12/09/2004 Wed 12/08/2004 Tue 12/07/2004 Mon 12/06/2004 Sun 12/05/2004 Archives
Rantburg
531690 articles and 1855967 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 95 articles and 465 comments as of 11:38.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Opinion           
Israel, Paleostinians Reach Election Deal
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 3: Non-WoT
0 [] 
0 [] 
0 [] 
4 00:00 Frank G [1] 
7 00:00 Sock Puppet of Doom [] 
0 [] 
0 [] 
2 00:00 Shipman [] 
7 00:00 Weird Al [] 
6 00:00 Dragon Fly [] 
9 00:00 Stephen [] 
22 00:00 Alaska Paul [] 
15 00:00 Uleque Hupavise4887 [] 
1 00:00 Bomb-a-rama [] 
2 00:00 Homer [] 
12 00:00 Xbalanke [] 
64 00:00 2b [] 
0 [] 
7 00:00 cingold [] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
3 00:00 gromky [1]
1 00:00 trailing wife []
0 []
9 00:00 Alaska Paul [1]
1 00:00 NotHardly []
0 []
1 00:00 Shipman []
1 00:00 Shipman []
0 []
0 []
0 []
10 00:00 gromky []
1 00:00 2b []
5 00:00 Uleque Glavise4887 [1]
1 00:00 Dreadnought []
1 00:00 MacNails []
0 []
20 00:00 Jarhead []
4 00:00 Bomb-a-rama []
0 []
0 []
2 00:00 mojo []
5 00:00 Seafarious []
0 []
7 00:00 Gromort Shutle8431 []
0 []
2 00:00 Ptah []
18 00:00 Uleque Glavise4887 []
Page 2: WoT Background
1 00:00 Anonymoose []
2 00:00 2b []
0 []
8 00:00 lex []
0 []
0 [1]
2 00:00 cingold []
3 00:00 JosephMendiola []
5 00:00 Poison Reverse []
0 []
1 00:00 gromgorru []
3 00:00 Bomb-a-rama []
2 00:00 Desert Blondie []
4 00:00 Phiter Glolung1555 (aka Jarhead) []
3 00:00 Uleque Hupavise4887 []
3 00:00 Carl in N.H. []
4 00:00 Uleque Glavise4887 [1]
0 []
3 00:00 Scott R []
1 00:00 MacNails []
1 00:00 Frank G [2]
1 00:00 mojo []
1 00:00 Don []
9 00:00 Shipman []
17 00:00 anonymous2U [1]
0 []
0 []
2 00:00 RWV []
4 00:00 chicago mike []
10 00:00 Bomb-a-rama []
0 []
5 00:00 trailing wife []
10 00:00 Sock Puppet of Doom []
2 00:00 Poison Reverse []
4 00:00 gromgorru []
10 00:00 Zhang Fei []
4 00:00 Mrs. Davis []
3 00:00 trailing wife []
16 00:00 Capt America []
2 00:00 Jack is Back [1]
11 00:00 chicago mike []
7 00:00 .com []
6 00:00 jackal []
10 00:00 Jules 187 []
3 00:00 Robert Crawford []
13 00:00 reesh [1]
Page 4: Opinion
0 []
19 00:00 eLarson []
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Philly Legend Dick Clark Has Stroke
EFL. Some of us seem to be getting older. There is a link to a Jerry Blavat interview I could not make play. Posted this using the new toolbar helper. What is really cool is not only does it title and source your post, but it copies whatever you have highlighted into the text. Very well done!
Legendary Philly entertainment entrepreneur Dick Clark has had a stroke, according to his spokesman in California. The spokesman, Paul Shefrin, said Clark, 75, is recuperating from the health scare suffered earlier this week. "The doctors tell me I should be back in the swing of things before too long, so I'm hopeful to be able to make it to Times Square to help lead the country in bringing in the New Year once again," said Clark in a statement. No other details about Clark's health were released in the statement. Last April, Clark, 75, announced he had type 2 diabetes, formerly called adult-onset diabetes, since 1994, but kept it a secret from everyone except close friends and family. Clark graduated from Syracuse University in 1951 with a degee in business administration, and he moved to Philadelphia in the early 1950s.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis || 12/08/2004 8:11:29 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Va. man coats motel room w/14 jars of petroleum jelly -- Update
EFL & HT to WorldNetDaily
A Virginia man who admitted Monday to coating his motel room with the contents of 14 jars of petroleum jelly in May will have to pay $3,886 for damages to the motel. He didn't have much of the goo -- typically used as diaper rash ointment or as a balm for chapped lips -- in his possession when he was booked in at the county jail, a correction officer said. "He looked normal," booking officer Anthony Rando said. "He didn't look slippery," Rando said, but he carried the smell of petroleum jelly with him into the jail.
No comment.
Posted by: Dragon Fly || 12/08/2004 10:33:00 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Pretty slick for a rash act, but he slipped up in the end.
Posted by: Mike || 12/08/2004 10:36 Comments || Top||

#2  Mike - You are a very bad man.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats || 12/08/2004 11:06 Comments || Top||

#3  Just another case where petroleum jelly has landed someone in deep sh*t.
Posted by: BH || 12/08/2004 11:48 Comments || Top||

#4  In jail and smelling of petroleum jelly. Definitely not a good thing.
Posted by: Jonathan || 12/08/2004 12:06 Comments || Top||

#5  I would have bet money that this was an M4D post.

BTW: Got you a good coach gator boy.
Posted by: Shipman || 12/08/2004 13:10 Comments || Top||

#6  im pleesd we have um gud coach for gators!
Posted by: Dragon Fly || 12/08/2004 13:21 Comments || Top||


-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Muslims Locusts Swarm Europe
ELF, read the whole article
For months, vast swarms of locusts have been buzzing through Africa, eating everything in sight. Now, they have reached European shores. Can the plague be stopped?
Prob'ly not...
It was like deja vu, a flashback to that all-too-familiar invasion of feathered-friends from Hitchcock's thriller "The Birds."
Locusts don't have feathers. It's more like a flashback to the no-longer-very-familiar biblical plagues...
The difference: this time, the attackers had four wings and six legs, and there were 200 million of them. A steady rustling noise like silk paper filled the air last week when a cloud of locusts swarmed over Fuerteventura and Lanzarote, two holiday-paradise islands of the Canaries.
"Herbert! My vacation is being ruined! Do something!"
"Locusts turn holiday into horror trip," screamed the headline in Germany's mass-circulation tabloid Bild. Strong winds had literally blown the 6-centimeter (2.5-inch) long animals over from Africa. Shocked vacationers barricaded their holiday apartments -- hardly surprising, as they weren't exactly in the mood to watch this miracle of nature.
"Helga, splash some lamb's blood on the doorjam, just to be safe!"
Then again, few would have imagined that these ever-munching insects, Schistocerca gregaria in Latin, are normally very peaceful desert inhabitants. Tainted brown-beige, the locust in its solitary form resides in the deserts of Africa, living as a loner. But inside Dr. Jeckyl looms an ominous Mr. Hyde -- and through a seemingly magical transformation, the insects morph into the orange and yellow colored vandals straight out of the Book of Revelations that are now invading Portugal's coastline in masses in addition to the Canaries.
Posted by: tipper || 12/08/2004 11:16:19 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Well, if you can fry 'em like cicadas in Md. and Pa., gourmet fast food stands can become prosperous!
Posted by: BigEd || 12/08/2004 13:42 Comments || Top||

#2  Quality breading and peanut oil is all important. Dredging in onions is also a good idea.
Posted by: Shipman || 12/08/2004 17:14 Comments || Top||


Britain
BBC staff are left in the cold -- job cuts announced
THE price of preserving the BBC is the pain of job cuts, which could lead to 10,000 staff leaving, the Director-General announced yesterday. Staff were shocked and unions threatened strike action as Mark Thompson announced one of the biggest reforms in the corporation's history. BBC employees who supported Greg Dyke's methods are now facing the consequences after Mr Thompson criticised "four years in which we haven't stressed productivity and efficiency very much".
What? We cannot discontinue Euro laziness. Are you out of your mind?
The first to go are 2,500 staff working in human resources, finance, marketing, training, legal services and other non-programme-making departments. The department, known as "professional services", takes the brunt of the savings, losing nearly half its staff and facing a budget cut of £57 million.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Poison Reverse || 12/08/2004 10:08:23 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Awwwwwww - ain't that just too bad. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 12/08/2004 11:56 Comments || Top||

#2  Out in the cold?

Here, they would whine about the "CHILLING EFFECT" of the silenceing of divergent voices would have on public perceptions of current events...


Posted by: BigEd || 12/08/2004 13:30 Comments || Top||

#3  start in the HR dept.
Posted by: Frank G || 12/08/2004 13:46 Comments || Top||

#4  It's all about the money. These "ponces" have antagonized the government they depend upon to extort "license fees" from all Brits that own a TV or radio. The charter is up for renewal in 2006 and quite possibly may not be. It will be a lot harder for BBC elitists to look down their noses at their audience when it's no longer compelled to pay their salaries.

A statement from the National Union of Journalists, Amicus and the broadcasting union Bectu read: “Far from preparing the BBC for charter renewal, we believe a policy that requires such colossal job cuts, reductions in programme commitments and the sale and privatisation of core sections of the BBC risks destroying its ability to continue as Britain’s leading public service broadcaster, and poses a substantial risk to the BBC’s continuing right to the licence fee.”
Posted by: RWV || 12/08/2004 14:46 Comments || Top||

#5  It is not a good sign, for the BBC, when the British Navy kicks them out and replaces it with Sky News broadcast.
Posted by: Poison Reverse || 12/08/2004 14:48 Comments || Top||

#6  Maybe they can get Le Carre to hire them...
Posted by: mojo || 12/08/2004 15:38 Comments || Top||

#7  total employment at the BBC is (per the article) 27,000

so this 10,000 loss, even if shaved by various measures, will be biting
Posted by: mhw || 12/08/2004 16:14 Comments || Top||

#8  This is the deserved backlash for trying to bring Blair down and subvert the government. How could the BBC expect that this would not happen. They are being gutted and moved out of thir cozy digs at the same time. The selling off of "core assets" is mostly dumping non broadcast activities. The re organization will perhaps save the BBC.

My spanish text book was published by the BBC. Is this a core activity of a Broadcaster?
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 12/08/2004 16:41 Comments || Top||

#9  Unlike US networks,the BBC itself made most of it's programming. By buying more programs from outside sources,the BBC no longer needs so many production people. W/less production people employed there is less administrative overhead needed,hence the layoffs among administrative personnel first. The production people will prob finish off programs currently in production,then they're gone. In a fine bit of irony,the strongly anti-capitalist BBC is going to a free-market system of obtaining programs in the hopes of saving money.
Posted by: Stephen || 12/08/2004 17:39 Comments || Top||


Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia
Russian Parliament Passes Bill to End Election of Governors
President Vladimir Putin's plan to end the election of governors by popular vote passed its final legislative hurdle Wednesday when the Russian parliament's upper chamber approved the bill. The law, which has been criticized as a step back from democracy, would give the president the right to appoint governors, who would then be confirmed by regional legislatures. If lawmakers reject the president's candidate twice, he could make a new nomination, appoint an acting governor, or dissolve the legislature. If a candidate is rejected for the third time, the president can dissolve the legislature without waiting for consultations to play out.
"The Imperial Senate legislature will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor President Putin has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away." "But that's impossible. How will the Emperor President maintain control without the bureaucracy?" "The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local's in line."
The Kremlin-loyal upper house, the Federation Council, approved the legislation by a vote of 145-1, with two abstentions. Putin must now sign the measure into law. "The most important thing now is that we can promise the population that the mere possibility of corruption is excluded, because the president himself takes responsibility for the person he entrusts with power as the head of the region," said Yuri Chaplin, a member of the upper house.
Then his lips fell off.
The Federation Council also approved legislation that raises the bar for political parties to get registered, requiring 50,000 members instead of the current 10,000 members, and setting a minimum membership of 250 in regional branches, compared with 100 now. The bill is expected to make it much harder to register new political parties. The vote was 131 in favor, with one abstention. Once that bill is signed into law, parties will be required to reregister by 2006.
Posted by: Steve || 12/08/2004 9:12:36 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Putin is becoming has become a monster
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 9:43 Comments || Top||

#2  Putin's not the problem. It's an institutional problem that goes back to Yeltsin and, really, the CPSU. Russia's government doesn't really govern. It can't pass laws, enforce the laws, administer justice, protect its borders, put down mickey-mouse insurrections, or pay pensions (unless oil's >$40/bbl) or fund hospitals or schools.

Our incompetent MSM journos are incapable of reporting on this, the truly important story in Russia, but the fact remains: Russia is a failing state.
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 10:18 Comments || Top||

#3  Compare the current situation in Poland and Russia. Poland took the hard medicine to evolve their economy, government, and society. The Russians took a dead end.
Posted by: Don || 12/08/2004 10:24 Comments || Top||

#4  Back to the Soviet model, since that worked so well, eh Vladdie?
Posted by: mojo || 12/08/2004 10:32 Comments || Top||

#5  Someone pointed out that Americans are far more shocked by this than Europeans. America is almost unique in wanting governors to be "independent" of the ruling party. For the most part, governors are seen as being much like a cross between cabinet ministers and subordinate prime ministers assigned to regional governments, almost like liasons with the national government.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 12/08/2004 10:35 Comments || Top||

#6  So this is managed democracy?

Lex, I suggest you read Pipe's "Russia Under the Old Regime." The Russian notion of governance was learned under Mongol tutelage and hasn't improved since.
Posted by: Dreadnought || 12/08/2004 10:36 Comments || Top||

#7  I know it well, Dread. Informs much of my analysis.

Don, Poland's communist stooges were never able to destroy civil society, as Stalin did. In Poland you have strong and independent free associations of citizens-- unions, the Church, farmers' groups-- that can involve the public in the business of governing themselves and serve as a defense against tyranny.

In Russia, no such associations exist. There are no unions of any consequence. The Church is completely corrupt and commands no allegiance from anyone under 60. Independent farmers were literally killed off in Stalin's war against the peasantry. Russia is quite simply a failing state with vast oil and gas wealth. Nigeria north. But with brilliant scientists, hackers and beautiful women.
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 10:49 Comments || Top||

#8  If Russia was just a "failing state", the problem would have been much smaller than it is. If it was just like Nigeria or Pakistan, the problem would have been small.

The problem however is that Russia is not only a failure in itself, but also the cause of failure in other countries.

(ObRef to Henry IV.)
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 12/08/2004 11:02 Comments || Top||

#9  Russia is not only a failure in itself, but also the cause of failure in other countries

Typically eurocentric remark. Pakistan has been and still is a cause of "failure" in Afghanistan and NW India. Failed and failing states are always toxic to their neighbors because their governments typically can gain legitimacy only through pointless adventurism directed at their immediate neighbors.
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 11:13 Comments || Top||

#10  Pakistan has been and still is a cause of "failure" in Afghanistan and NW India.

Pakistan AFAIK has stopped from being a significant factor in harming Afghanistan. And as for Kashmir that's a) localized, only a small part of India, doesn't affect democracy in the rest of India b) not sure I'd blame *only* Pakistan for it.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris || 12/08/2004 11:27 Comments || Top||

#11  Pakistan has ceased to destabilize Afghan only because we've threatened Musharraf with political extinction. Again, there's nothing unique about Russia's failure and its effect on foreign policy. Saddam's failed state invaded and terrified his neighbors in order to show his people that ba'athism was the leading edge of pan-Arabism. Castro's failed state sought to destabilize Central America and Bolivia and sent troops to Angola as well.
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 11:42 Comments || Top||

#12  I think it serves us all well to remember that Pakistan pursues its own national interests. First, second, third and fourth on that list of national interests is countering India. Much of the prior support of the Taliban was predicated on securing a base to train jihadis to infiltrate Kashmir. There are undoubtedly elements in ISI that would love to see Karzai fail so that they can go back to dominating Afghan politics, but the Pakis probably aren't actively meddling...for the moment.
Posted by: Dreadnought || 12/08/2004 11:49 Comments || Top||

#13  What Putin is really afraid of is having to deal with the Russian equivalent of this governor:





Posted by: BigEd || 12/08/2004 13:28 Comments || Top||

#14  Back to the Soviet model, since that worked so well, eh Vladdie?

Maybe he's insan^H^H^H^H^H expecting a different outcome the next time around?
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 12/08/2004 15:57 Comments || Top||

#15  once a RED KBG, always a RED KGB
Posted by: Uleque Hupavise4887 || 12/08/2004 21:40 Comments || Top||


Who poisoned Yushchenko?
Doctors at the Austrian clinic that treated Ukraine's opposition leader confirm there was a plot to kill him. ... "This is no longer a question for discussion," Dr Korpan said. "We are now sure that we can confirm which substance caused this illness. He received this substance from other people who had a specific aim." Asked if the aim had been to kill him, Dr Korpan said: "Yes, of course."
Follow the Title link to read 2 pages of details.
Posted by: Sobiesky || 12/08/2004 10:38:47 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Special Ops of the FSB! Maybe even one of their female agents!
Posted by: smn || 12/08/2004 3:44 Comments || Top||

#2  I read the poisoning happened at a dinner thrown by the Ukrainian secret police.
Posted by: ed || 12/08/2004 4:21 Comments || Top||

#3  It doesn't matter whether the culprit was a bribed Ukrainian chef or a turncoat Moscow sympathizer; they have Putin's interests at heart!If I were Yushchenko, first I wouldn't eat anything not from a can; have a taster (like Saddam), and shoot the person who took the food off the stove and brought it to him!
Posted by: smn || 12/08/2004 4:57 Comments || Top||

#4  This news oughtta kick the votes his way. Some numbnutz in the FSB or Ukrainian equivalent is gonna eat his gun over this.....
Posted by: Frank G || 12/08/2004 7:50 Comments || Top||

#5  Now you've got to wonder if he's affected mentally, but I suppose that will be clearer once the poison is named.
Posted by: Tom || 12/08/2004 8:41 Comments || Top||

#6  Probably it was the former KGB.
Unless it was the Ukranian secret police.
That would be my guess.
I'm not certain, however.
Nobody knows for sure.
Posted by: Tibor || 12/08/2004 18:14 Comments || Top||

#7  Tibor, LOL. Spot on.
Posted by: cingold || 12/08/2004 18:35 Comments || Top||


Down Under
Lips sewn in refugee hunger strike
THREE Iranian men have sewn their lips together and a further 13 started a hunger strike in the latest protest by detainees aimed at forcing a review of their asylum claims.
Anyone else want some of this chicken?
Refugee advocates today warned that the men, held at the Baxter detention centre in South Australia, were prepared to die as a result of their protest, with the hunger strikers declaring they had few options left. "Many others will join the strike in coming days and we will continue until our situation is resolved," the detainees said in a statement issued by refugee advocates.
"Many of us have been here (in detention) for four or five years and we are tired, frustrated and extremely depressed. "We are peaceful people and will harm nobody but ourselves in our quest for freedom. "We simply ask to be recognised as genuine refugees and to be granted protection so that we can get on with our lives."
Refugee advocate Jack Smit said three of the hunger strikers had climbed on a roof at the detention centre and were vowing to stay there indefinitely. He said many hunger strikers had sent their "last will and testaments" to friends in the belief they would die. "They will definitely hunger-strike until they die - they have nothing to lose," Mr Smit said.
Yummm, cold-slaw!
The latest protest follows a decision by 11 Sri Lankan detainees on Friday to end their 10-day hunger strike, after refugee groups claimed their cases would be reviewed.
Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone has denied the reviews were linked to the hunger strike. The Australian Democrats today blamed the Government's mandatory detention system for forcing asylum seekers to take such extreme protest measures. "When you put people in a situation where they have no hope, when the live in fear over months and months and months, it is inevitable that you will get not only severe psychological damage but it's inevitable you will get these acts of desperation like hunger strikes," Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett told parliament.
Gee, sounds like one of our Democrats.
An immigration department spokesman blamed misinformation spread by refugee advocates in relation to the Sri Lankans' hunger strike for the latest, similar action. "The misinformation is encouraging harmful behaviour among some detainees," he said. "Several detainees have placed two stitches in their lips and detention facility staff are closely monitoring the detainees."
"How's he doing, George?" "Don't know, I can't understand a word he's saying."
Detainees on the centre roof were "being handled carefully by centre staff", the spokesman said
."A fiver sez he lands face down!"

He refused to elaborate on what actions had been taken.
last time they climbed up high they jumped head first into the ground and bounced like a tennis ball on concrete. [fingers crossed]
Posted by: God Save The World || 12/08/2004 3:26:32 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "Why, he's no fun - he fell right over!"
Posted by: mojo || 12/08/2004 11:05 Comments || Top||

#2  Mmmmmm...... ummmmm....

MMMMMMMMuUUUUUUUUUUUU
Posted by: Homer || 12/08/2004 16:25 Comments || Top||


Europe
Mitterrand's Son Convicted of Tax Fraud
The eldest son of late President Francois Mitterrand was convicted Wednesday of tax fraud and sentenced to a 30-month suspended prison term. Jean-Christophe Mitterrand was found guilty of not having declared revenue paid by billionaire businessman Pierre Falcone between 1998 and 1999. He was accused of having evaded $798,000 in taxes.

Falcone is the central figure in an investigation into alleged illicit weapons sales to Angola. Mitterrand, who served as counselor on African affairs from 1986-92 under his father, has been investigated by French authorities for several years for his suspected role in the alleged arms trafficking. Mitterrand told the Paris court in earlier testimony that he only advised Falcone about oil markets in Africa. He also said he has been a resident of Mauritania since 1996 and that he paid tax there. Mitterrand was not present in court. His lawyer, Olivier Schnerb, said he had been suffering from a sleep disorder and "was not well at the moment."
Posted by: Fred || 12/08/2004 11:56:06 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Europe's New Anti-Exhaust Law
Pollution in European cities is rampant. But if the European Union has its way, that will soon change. As of Jan. 1, all cities will have to comply with new clean air laws. Downtown tolls and street closures may result. Expensive lawsuits are also in the works. The faces of the traffic experts attending the ADAC (German Automobile Association) industry conference became visibly longer with each sentence uttered by the speaker. German traffic taboos, after all, were being broken -- the freedom of German roads was under attack. The future, he was saying, could include the following: the closure of more city streets to traffic; the widening of the snail-paced 30 km/h (18 mph) zones within metropolitan areas; even the imposing of temporary driving bans. The timing of the meeting was appropriate: Friday, Nov. 13.
And here I was, thinking it had something to do with the BBC. Read the rest at the link.
Posted by: tipper || 12/08/2004 11:22 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Putin, Powell clash over Ukraine
U.S. and Russian officials clashed Tuesday at a European security forum over Ukraine's disputed presidential runoff election.

In a sharp exchange, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned of "new lines of division" and destabilization in Europe because of tensions over the crisis. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell rebutted the attack and offered rare criticism of Russia, pressing it to remove its military forces from two former Soviet republics and halt a slide in press freedoms and the rule of law.

Ukraine's Supreme Court has ordered a second runoff election on Dec. 26, following mass demonstrations protesting alleged widespread fraud in voting two weeks ago in which the pro-Moscow prime minister, Viktor Yanukovych, was declared the winner against Viktor Yushchenko, who supports closer ties to NATO and Western Europe. International election monitors said the Nov. 21 vote was rigged.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a 55-nation group that began as a forum for dialogue during the Cold War, sent 600 observers to monitor the balloting.

In Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, tension over the vote continued Tuesday as parliament adjourned for the day without voting on measures meant to secure a fair rerun of the presidential vote. Opposition forces are pressing for immediate passage of the reforms, but other factions say the changes must be made simultaneously with proposals that would reduce the powers of the president.

Russian officials have suggested that by paying such close attention to the election, the United States and Western Europe are making a power grab in what is traditionally a Russian sphere of influence. Western analysts, meanwhile, have accused Putin of trying to reassemble part of the Soviet empire by installing pliant leaders in countries on Russia's borders.

Speaking at the OSCE's annual ministerial meeting, Lavrov denounced what he called the "ever more deleterious practice of double standards" in monitoring elections, an allusion to the disputed 2000 U.S. presidential election.

"We mustn't allow the OSCE monitoring to be turned into a political instrument," Lavrov said. "In the absence of any objective criteria, monitoring of election processes becomes an instrument of political manipulation and a factor for destabilization in a whole range of issues."

In response, Powell told participants at the forum that "I categorically disagree" with the notion of "double standards" or that the OSCE has concentrated its efforts in the former Soviet republics for political reasons. "All OSCE participating states signed up to the proposition that fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are of legitimate concern to us all," he said.

The OSCE is prepared to almost double the number of observers it will send to the new Ukrainian election, officials said. But disagreements over the role of monitors prevented the group, which operates on consensus, from agreeing on a communique.

Despite a suggestion from President Vladimir Putin of Russia on Monday that he supported a new election, Russia and Belarus blocked a statement -- offered by the Ukrainian delegation -- that would have recognized the Ukrainian Supreme Court ruling and offered backing for the new election, U.S. officials said.

In his remarks, Powell also said the United States would not ratify a 1999 treaty limiting the number of conventional forces in Europe until Russia fulfills commitments made that year to remove troops from Georgia and Moldova. More than 1,400 Russian troops are stationed in Moldova's breakaway Russian-speaking region of Transdniester, and 5,000 to 6,000 troops are at two bases in Georgia.

He also cited Belarus as an "egregious example" of failure to live up to commitments on human rights and democracy.

In Washington, a State Department official told a congressional panel Tuesday that there were "credible reports" of Russian financial backing for Yanukovych. John F. Tefft, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, said that U.S. officials have complained about "the role of Russian citizens" in the election.

But in general, the Bush administration has held back from directly criticizing Russia's role in the election or the apparent larger Russian strategy of influencing elections in countries on its border, and Powell did not mention them in his remarks at the OSCE forum. He also said nothing about Russia's human rights record in Chechnya, where Moscow's forces continue to fight separatists.

Powell and Lavrov also had a private, 30-minute discussion, their first meeting since the disputed Ukrainian vote. An aide to Powell reported that the secretary of state felt that he and Lavrov "for one of the first times" were able to have a constructive conversation rather than merely reciting talking points.

Later, when a Bulgarian college student asked Powell at a youth forum whether the Cold War was coming back, Powell reassured her, saying it was not returning because "we have good relations with Russia" and he was able to speak candidly to Lavrov.
Posted by: Dan Darling || 12/08/2004 2:00:54 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  It's rather funny that the Russians would have something to say about U.S./West involvement in the Ukraine, when Russia is clearly trying to stick their noses into Iraq.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 12/08/2004 12:07 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Politix
The New Red-Diaper Babies

There is a little-known movement sweeping across the United States. The movement is "natalism."

All across the industrialized world, birthrates are falling - in Western Europe, in Canada and in many regions of the United States. People are marrying later and having fewer kids. But spread around this country, and concentrated in certain areas, the natalists defy these trends.

They are having three, four or more kids. Their personal identity is defined by parenthood. They are more spiritually, emotionally and physically invested in their homes than in any other sphere of life, having concluded that parenthood is the most enriching and elevating thing they can do. Very often they have sacrificed pleasures like sophisticated movies, restaurant dining and foreign travel, let alone competitive careers and disposable income, for the sake of their parental calling.

In a world that often makes it hard to raise large families, many are willing to move to find places that are congenial to natalist values. The fastest-growing regions of the country tend to have the highest concentrations of children. Young families move away from what they perceive as disorder, vulgarity and danger and move to places like Douglas County in Colorado (which is the fastest-growing county in the country and has one of the highest concentrations of kids). Some people see these exurbs as sprawling, materialistic wastelands, but many natalists see them as clean, orderly and affordable places where they can nurture children.

If you wanted a one-sentence explanation for the explosive growth of far-flung suburbs, it would be that when people get money, one of the first things they do is use it to try to protect their children from bad influences.

So there are significant fertility inequalities across regions. People on the Great Plains and in the Southwest are much more fertile than people in New England or on the Pacific coast.

You can see surprising political correlations. As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates.

In The New Republic Online, Joel Kotkin and William Frey observe, "Democrats swept the largely childless cities - true blue locales like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Boston and Manhattan have the lowest percentages of children in the nation - but generally had poor showings in those places where families are settling down, notably the Sun Belt cities, exurbs and outer suburbs of older metropolitan areas."

Politicians will try to pander to this group. They should know this is a spiritual movement, not a political one. The people who are having big families are explicitly rejecting materialistic incentives and hyperindividualism. It costs a middle-class family upward of $200,000 to raise a child. These people are saying money and ambition will not be their gods.

Natalists resist the declining fertility trends not because of income, education or other socioeconomic characteristics. It's attitudes. People with larger families tend to attend religious services more often, and tend to have more traditional gender roles.

I draw attention to natalists because they're an important feature of our national life. Because of them, the U.S. stands out in all sorts of demographic and cultural categories. But I do it also because when we talk about the divide on values in this country, caricatured in the red and blue maps, it's important that we understand the true motive forces behind it.

Natalists are associated with red America, but they're not launching a jihad. The differences between them and people on the other side of the cultural or political divide are differences of degree, not kind. Like most Americans, but perhaps more anxiously, they try to shepherd their kids through supermarket checkouts lined with screaming Cosmo or Maxim cover lines. Like most Americans, but maybe more so, they suspect that we won't solve our social problems or see improvements in our schools as long as many kids are growing up in barely functioning families.

Like most Americans, and maybe more so because they tend to marry earlier, they find themselves confronting the consequences of divorce. Like most Americans, they wonder how we can be tolerant of diverse lifestyles while still preserving the family institutions that are under threat.

What they cherish, like most Americans, is the self-sacrificial love shown by parents. People who have enough kids for a basketball team are too busy to fight a culture war.
Posted by: tipper || 12/08/2004 5:53:18 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  My goodness. We, who used to be called simply 'parents', now have an -ism all our own. I guess its official now, 'cause its in the New York Times! D'you suppose parents are trying to make the best environment for their children outside the NYT delivery zone...like, say, Ghana or Venezuela?
Posted by: trailing wife || 12/08/2004 7:47 Comments || Top||

#2  Give me a break. This movement is as ficticious as all get out. So, people who want to raise families - away from the cities with drugs - and thus move to less populated areas are doing so because they are natists? Who the *((&& makes this stuff up?
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 8:00 Comments || Top||

#3  hmmmm sounds like the blue staters wanna enforce a limit on numbers of red state children? I suppose they'd justify it as an environmental/abortion issue? LOL
Posted by: Frank G || 12/08/2004 8:03 Comments || Top||

#4  lol! Just another weak attempt by clueless blue noses to view the Average American as gun totin' militia members. Look at the bright side, if this prevents the blue noses from having more children to prove their blueness - we all win.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 8:20 Comments || Top||

#5  Don't laugh - eugenics is coming back in a big way. I've heard plenty of leftists talking about "breeders" needing "birth licenses" before they can conceive a child. Of course violators would be given abortions and prison sentences. They weren't kidding when they said this.

The justification given was that if adoptive parents have to meet exacting standards in order to qualify for a child, natural parents should as well. Frightening stuff.
Posted by: gromky || 12/08/2004 8:20 Comments || Top||

#6  gromky
You are not far off the mark The discredited and racist eugenics movement is still alive and well in "Planned Parenthood". The eugenics movement has alway been just under the surface with some of the well off left. It still has a foothold in some of the social welfare departments in the north east.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 12/08/2004 8:25 Comments || Top||

#7  whoa..whoa...whoa. eugeneics through Planned Parenthood? Let's not overstate the case. These people choose not to have children, generally because they are unwed. It may be murder, depending on how one views it, but calling it eugenics - seems a bit over the top.

As for birth licenses - there was a time when the wedding certificate was, for all practical purposes, a "birth license".

Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating abortion or birth licenses, (definitely treading on dangerous ground) - but let's not confuse abortion - the (perhaps misguided) choice not to become a parent, with forced abortions.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 8:39 Comments || Top||

#8  http://repositories.cdlib.org/blewp/10/

The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 12/08/2004 8:41 Comments || Top||

#9  And this would be different from 1996 (when Clinton won) how?
Posted by: Tom || 12/08/2004 8:43 Comments || Top||

#10  moose - I get your point - but it's probably true that abortion results in a decrease in crime. Most of the people who are having abortions are young, unwed, women, whom we can all agree, do not make good parents.

Noting a probable fact, that abortion rates result in decreased crime is a long way from forcing eugenics. Rather, I'd suggest that they are presenting a case for keeping abortion legal.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 8:47 Comments || Top||

#11  Planned Parenthood offices were originally in areas where "the wrong kind of people" lived. There is something in that woodpile. I am not even talking about our current time I am talking in the near past. Check out the founders and the people involved in it. If you can, look at some of the old eugenics propaganda films. Some nasty crap.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 12/08/2004 9:01 Comments || Top||

#12  oh please. Planned Parenthood is in the neighborhoods where the "wrong kind of people" live it's because that's where the most of the young, unmarried women were getting pregnant.

What...so now you want the ghettos to multiply out of control? Look, if Planned Parenthood didn't offer abortions, they'd be in the same neighborhoods. The rich girls can get birth control from their doctors.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 9:04 Comments || Top||

#13  I'm done with this paranoid crap. Why don't we all just get a gun and move to a
commune
compound in Montana. There, the women will all do nothing but birth babies and we'll shoot our food and grow our crops.

Get a grip.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 9:17 Comments || Top||

#14  No Planned Parenthood is everywhere now. When it started out was only in poor areas. You are not understanding me I think. When it started some people who believed in euginics were involved. I don't think that is the case now.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 12/08/2004 9:21 Comments || Top||

#15  fair enough. But let's keep in mind that birth control is a good thing.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 9:25 Comments || Top||

#16  I never said it wasn't.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 12/08/2004 9:27 Comments || Top||

#17  I know you didn't spod. I was just referring to the thread as a whole. This nativist idea is a pile of leftist doo.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 9:39 Comments || Top||

#18  just as an FYI aside - I read this week that blacks in California are now reproducing at a rate below latinos (of course) and whites! Education and income advances are usually the reason....
Posted by: Frank G || 12/08/2004 9:47 Comments || Top||

#19  oops...natalism.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 9:47 Comments || Top||

#20  If you wanted a one-sentence explanation for the explosive growth of far-flung suburbs, it would be that when people get money, one of the first things they do is use it to try to protect their children from bad influences

right you are Frank. Which is another reason why Brooks, in this (surprise) NYT article is so full of it. These families are moving to areas where it doesn't take a $200,000 a year salary to afford having a family. It's not because they are shunning materialism and opting to breed in great numbers, as he so obtusely puts forward, but they are simply going somewhere they can have room and space to raise a family without having to earn that much.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 9:58 Comments || Top||

#21  There is a little-known movement sweeping across the United States. The movement is "natalism."

The only good movement is a bowel movement.

All across the industrialized world, birthrates are falling - in Western Europe, in Canada and in many regions of the United States. People are marrying later and having fewer kids. But spread around this country, and concentrated in certain areas, the natalists defy these trends.

Note how 'natalists' 'defy' trends. I bet you anything falling birthrates coincide with decisions not to have families at all, coincide with not having sex at all or with an improperly equipped person.

They are having three, four or more kids. Their personal identity is defined by parenthood. They are more spiritually, emotionally and physically invested in their homes than in any other sphere of life, having concluded that parenthood is the most enriching and elevating thing they can do. Very often they have sacrificed pleasures like sophisticated movies, restaurant dining and foreign travel, let alone competitive careers and disposable income, for the sake of their parental calling.

That's why they call 'natalism' the Roe Effect. Let the LLL refuse to bunk in with someone who is fertile. The outcome is fewer leftists, not a bad idea.

In a world that often makes it hard to raise large families, many are willing to move to find places that are congenial to natalist values. The fastest-growing regions of the country tend to have the highest concentrations of children. Young families move away from what they perceive as disorder, vulgarity and danger and move to places like Douglas County in Colorado (which is the fastest-growing county in the country and has one of the highest concentrations of kids). Some people see these exurbs as sprawling, materialistic wastelands, but many natalists see them as clean, orderly and affordable places where they can nurture children.

Yeah! What the hell do they know? Let leftists raise what few kids they deign to have in filth and squalor.

If you wanted a one-sentence explanation for the explosive growth of far-flung suburbs, it would be that when people get money, one of the first things they do is use it to try to protect their children from bad influences.

Like this article, for example.

So there are significant fertility inequalities across regions. People on the Great Plains and in the Southwest are much more fertile than people in New England or on the Pacific coast.

Not more fertile. They just happen to know what to do with it.

You can see surprising political correlations. As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates.

In The New Republic Online, Joel Kotkin and William Frey observe, "Democrats swept the largely childless cities - true blue locales like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Boston and Manhattan have the lowest percentages of children in the nation - but generally had poor showings in those places where families are settling down, notably the Sun Belt cities, exurbs and outer suburbs of older metropolitan areas."


Why have a child when you can deal with adults who never grew up.

Politicians will try to pander to this group. They should know this is a spiritual movement, not a political one. The people who are having big families are explicitly rejecting materialistic incentives and hyperindividualism. It costs a middle-class family upward of $200,000 to raise a child. These people are saying money and ambition will not be their gods.

Note the 'statistic', upwards of. That's some good propogandistic writing there. Also note what this writer calls pandering the sane world calls politics. Its kinda kewt how this guy can call politics pandering in a sleazy way, yet it is an issue with the writer in this article.

Natalists resist the declining fertility trends not because of income, education or other socioeconomic characteristics. It’s attitudes. People with larger families tend to attend religious services more often, and tend to have more traditional gender roles.

Now, I am no expert but I am willing to bet you, were I to bed down with a willing leftist female I am willing to bet her equipment is the same as a conservative female.

I draw attention to natalists because they’re an important feature of our national life. Because of them, the U.S. stands out in all sorts of demographic and cultural categories. But I do it also because when we talk about the divide on values in this country, caricatured in the red and blue maps, it’s important that we understand the true motive forces behind it.

Isn't that cute? The election of 2004 is now a caricature rather than a devastating loss for the left.

Natalists are associated with red America, but they’re not launching a jihad. The differences between them and people on the other side of the cultural or political divide are differences of degree, not kind. Like most Americans, but perhaps more anxiously, they try to shepherd their kids through supermarket checkouts lined with screaming Cosmo or Maxim cover lines. Like most Americans, but maybe more so, they suspect that we won’t solve our social problems or see improvements in our schools as long as many kids are growing up in barely functioning families.

The Columbine killers were from small families, so you can chuck that 'fact' out the door. And there is no correlation the writer reveals that supports his/her cntention that large families engender social problems. In fact in view of the Columbine massacre, the obverse can be shown to be true.

Like most Americans, and maybe more so because they tend to marry earlier, they find themselves confronting the consequences of divorce. Like most Americans, they wonder how we can be tolerant of diverse lifestyles while still preserving the family institutions that are under threat

Somehow, I don't think this writer is a strong advocate of familes, not after he/she decries them when they are too large.
Posted by: badanov || 12/08/2004 10:26 Comments || Top||

#22  SPoD:

You are correct in pointing out that Planned Parenthood was founded by a fanatic eugenicist (Margaret Sanger) whose objective was to reduce the "breeding" of "undesirables," including (but not limited to) black people. Before WWII, the organization was known as the "Birth Control League," and published the writings of German "racial hygene" theorists in its house magazine, The Birth Control Journal. The name change to "Planned Parenthood" came either during or after the war, a PR gag to mask the group's unsavory association with now-defunct Nazi Germany.

Have to disagree with you about PP in its current form, though. Take a look at some of the things PP and the "pro-choice" crowd say when they're talking to each other--the old desire to prevent the "breeding" of "undesirables" is alive and well, in an organization as dedicated to the wanton destruction of innocent life as any platoon of jihadis. Even if you think birth control is (or can be) a good thing, you still can (and should) recognize the PP crowd for the fanatics they are.
Posted by: Mike || 12/08/2004 10:28 Comments || Top||

#23  badanov - great fisk.

Mike...sometimes when evil people plan evil things - good comes out of it. If "undesirable people" can prevent themselves from having babies when they are young and stupid - it allows them to go to school, grow up and be considered "desireable" by the society as a whole. Oops... I guess their plan backfired. Too bad.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 10:37 Comments || Top||

#24  Sticking my head in here to represent the womanly point of view. FTR, I don't have kids but would like to. :-)

My position on abortion is mixed.

The science has gotten way ahead of the ethics; doctors are able to deliver and incubate preterm babies so tiny that they could legally be aborted. How can you decide which baby lives and which baby dies? (And to add fuel to that fire, is it "right" to spend $1 or 2 million dollars to save that one tiny preemie?)

BUT. I don't really recognize the State's assumption of privilege over my womb. My body. Mine. Not the State's. Not the Republican's. Not the Democrat's. Not my husband's. And not the Supreme Court's. Mine. Mine. Mine. Get that?

OK then:

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger in the 20's. If you Google around enough, you'll see plenty of evidence that she did good things for sometimes shady reasons. Here is a link to some of her own writings; it's long but worth it.

In closing, I just wanted to say that one thing that I've noted about religion (of every flavor) is that the more Orthodox it gets, the fewer rights have the wimmin and the more babies they are expected to bear.
Posted by: Seafarious || 12/08/2004 10:42 Comments || Top||

#25  is that the more Orthodox it gets, the fewer rights have the wimmin and the more babies they are expected to bear.

well....I have to ponder that. To some degree, I would argue that Christianity made possible the environment that allowed women's rights to get off the ground. But...then...only because our Christian nation supported the idea of "equality for all". Certainly the churches themselves are always pushing for more members and the bible doesn't seem to weigh in on it.

yep..you're right.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 10:55 Comments || Top||

#26  bad, Seaf-- have you guys read anything else Brooks has written? If you had, you might grasp that Brooks is not "decrying" large families, rather he's simply recognizing a crucial social divide that has huge political ramifications.

The key fact here is that Democrats, once the party of large moderate-income northern Catholic and southern protestant families, are now the party of childless secular bicoastal yuppies.

The Democratic party of my childhood (1960s-70s) was quite strong among large, non-rural white families, particularly Catholic families, and was very competitive in the suburbs. This was the party of the Catholic Youth Organization, of patriotic Americans who admired the Kennedys as much for their image as a large and devoted family as for their liberal idealism and commitment to public service.

In fact, in the postwar American Catholic mind, the two went hand in hand: you took care of your family and you took care of your community, with no one left behind. Feminism, gays, abortion: these controversies, while troubling, had not emerged as litmus tests for loyal Democrats, who in the domestic sphere were still mainly concerned with bread-and-butter economic issues. Neither was religion in the public schools an issue; these Democrats tended to send their children to parochial schools. Patriotism, like the paterfamilias, was an unquestioned good.

No more. As the Democrats' unionized base has shriveled, the Democrat leadership has shifted its domestic attention from economic to cultural issues. Abortion and gay rights stir the souls of Democratic activists these days, and these are the preoccupation of secular, urban, childless yuppies. The emblematic old-style Dem leader was Tip O'Neill, a blue-collar Catholic ward-heeler. Today's archetypal Dem leader is Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco socialite whose Catholicism, if it exists, is so muted as to be invisible. One can easily imagine O'Neill playing softball with his local CYO league and having a pint with the parents afterwards. But you can't picture Pelosi in her off-hours in anything but evening dress, shmoozing with software and money guy gazillionaires (does San Francisco even have a CYO these days?).

Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 10:57 Comments || Top||

#27  have you guys read anything else Brooks has written? If you had, you might grasp that Brooks is not "decrying" large families, rather he's simply recognizing a crucial social divide that has huge political ramifications

I know I didn't just pull it out of thin air that the writer has a condesending attitude towards 'natalists.' Does his article repudiate the man's views in his books?
Posted by: badanov || 12/08/2004 11:01 Comments || Top||

#28  Here's another way of looking at it: who are each party's diehards? What % of Repub activists, Freepers, Rantburg regulars have kids? What % of
Dem activists, Daily Kos/DU/Calpundit regulars have kids?

My guess is >50% for the former and <25% for the latter. If you ever scroll through the posts at Calpundit or (horrors) Kos, you'll notice something very strange: almost none of these people ever references his or her children. A large number reveal themselves to be gay. Almost all of them live in urban or college town enclaves. An old-time large-family liberal Democrat feels very much estranged from these people, whose lives seem to revolve around the internet, dating, internet dating, and the kind of globalist outlook that most people embrace for a year or two during college. It's a fair bet that less than one third of these people have children. Single and looking, they're highly sympathetic to the gays' preoccupation with sexual freedom and tend to be paranoid about the religious right.

When you look at Democratic party activists, you see the a slightly less flamboyant version of the kinds of people you encounter on Daily Kos or DU. Dem activists show far more interest in gay rights and abortion than in the needs of working-class families, perhaps because a large number of these activists are themselves gay or single women.

These Democrats' preoccupations overlap nicely with the news agenda of the preeminent liberal lifestyle guide, the New York Times: gays, feminism, European opinion, race relations, real estate prices, investments, fashion, Hollywood. If you're thinking of living in Democratville... just don't bring children along. Anyone with a large family feels completely left out of today's Democratic party.

This, I think, is the essential point of Brooks' article. He tends to be too cutesy in his descriptions of social mores and taste badges, but the man has his finger on a crucial-- probably the crucial-- problem of the Democratic Party today.
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 11:02 Comments || Top||

#29  bad, you're focusing too much on his stylistic flourishes and not enough on the essential point. A semi-smug air of condescension is the price of admission for anyone writing for the urban ledt-lib lifestyle guide that is today's NY Times.
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 11:04 Comments || Top||

#30  I'm sorry lex - regardless of any good ideas he may have had in the past, "natalism" is the stoopidist thing I've ever heard of. People aren't foregoing materialism and choosing to have more babies - they are just having a family and want to be able to afford some space, so they are moving to "red states" where the cost of housing is cheaper and they can afford to enjoy the luxuries of life.

Putting this all under a heading of "natalism" is insulting and stoopid.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 11:05 Comments || Top||

#31  A few years ago I read "Generations", by Strauss and Howe. It's an interesting look at American history grouped by generations and their characteristics. A little New-Agey but fun.

But I got the chills when I read about my generation, the "Thirteeners" (roughly those born between 1961-1975). We were the generation everyone tried really hard not to have. Between birth control pills and Roe v. Wade, my generation is tiny compared to the self-involved and soon-to-retire Baby Boomers.
Posted by: Seafarious || 12/08/2004 11:09 Comments || Top||

#32  yeah...but the baby-boom echo is coming on strong. I've always heard that 57- 75 were the "tweeners" as in between the baby boom and the start of the baby boom echo.

57 - 61 is technically part of the baby boom, but they don't share the same ideas, since the "beautiful ideas" of the 60's generation was already looking a bit tarnished with drug addiction, unwed mothers, welfare dependency and the killing fields by the time they came of age.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 11:15 Comments || Top||

#33  People aren't foregoing materialism and choosing to have more babies

2b, I agree the "natalism" rubric is splashy and dumb, but this is how a columnist gets noticed. People across the spectrum are talking about Brooks. They don't talk about Krugman, or Jonah Goldberg, or Kos or Sully.

As to what's actually happening and why, neither of us, or Brooks, has hard data points so we're all just speculating here. My own guess, based in fair measure on my own experience, is that Brooks is right to argue that there's a very signficant trade-off between having children and advancing one's career today. If the Dems don't figure out a pro-family platform, they will be in danger of becoming the Eunuch Party
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 11:21 Comments || Top||

#34  "Go forth and multiply." Old Testament. I think most, if not all, god based religions do push a vigorous procreation plan.
Posted by: Deacon Blues || 12/08/2004 11:21 Comments || Top||

#35  DB... I have to agree with you and Sea. More members means more money in the offering plate :-)

Lex...ok..maybe so. I don't argue your point about gays, but I live amongst the blue and they have kids. I think it's something else that makes the urban areas that way. I don't know what exactly, but it's not for a lack of families.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 11:27 Comments || Top||

#36  Lex, Seafarious, 2b, et al., you might be interested in an article and discussion of "Generation Jones," someone's cutesy term for 1954-65 model year human beings, that appeared earlier this week over at the Brothers Judd site.

I'm a '61-model myself (and a refugee from Planned Parenthood via Catholic Social Services and a nice adoption agency whose name escapes me). It seems a lot of us in this thread are "Jonses" here.

Now let's see if the rest of you can keep up with us. :-)
Posted by: Mike || 12/08/2004 11:29 Comments || Top||

#37  Every one of the liberal high achiever types I know has moved significantly rightward after having kids. Every one of the diehard liberal Bush-haters in my circle is childless. Brooks may have the causal link reversed, but there is no question that Dems are increasingly the party of people who care more about helping African children than about properly raising children here at home.

The evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker puts it well. He notes the idiocy of Chomsky's contention that we should adopt socialistic policies because "no one would treat his family the way we treat our fellow citizens." Well, yes: of course we favor our own kith and kind. We're programmed that way. The childless jokers who make up most Dem activists simply cannot grasp this fact.
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 11:33 Comments || Top||

#38  Mike..interesting to see that in print, cause I've been noticing for years that those born after 56 have very different than those born before. Those born before seem vested proving their failed ideas from the 60's - or at the very least, they just seem to accept them without question.

Lex, I've lived in several very blue places and ...while I agree with much of your point - it's just not true that the dem's don't have kids.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 11:38 Comments || Top||

#39  I'm speaking of the hard core activists.
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 11:43 Comments || Top||

#40  I think some here may have seen NY Times and jumped to conclusions about the thrust of the article. David Brooks may have his columns published in the NYT, but he is really the antithesis of the NYT. He's moderately conservative and objective. He does not put forth an agenda. And when he does give 'opinions' (he understands the difference between opinion and reporting), he is introspective and usually acknowledges his own biases or the biases of those he is quoting.

His conclusion, “What they cherish, like most Americans, is the self-sacrificial love shown by parents” is meant as a compliment, not derogatory.

-- PH, Now Three Days Without a Human Rights Violation!
Posted by: Psycho Hillbilly || 12/08/2004 11:43 Comments || Top||

#41  lex..re: hard core, agreed. PH.. ok, but I still think the idea of "natalism" is stoopid.

I'm going to take a stab at this...I think that the political distinction between the boomers and the tweeners can be understood if you understand that the earlier leftie boomers are just terrified of "growing up". Their whole youth and being was wrapped around this idea that they were ringing in the new...and the older establishment was prudish, stodgy and dull. Thus, to grow up is to become those things, stodgy, dull, grey, colorless...old.

When it comes to sex, they can't deal with telling their daughters and sons to abstain to prevent aids, disease and pregnancy - because that makes them "prudes", a fate worse than death.

Likewise, they have to believe that war is bad, because to do otherwise would be shuck ones ideals of youth right into the trashcan - again making them feel old.

For a woman to put her emphasis on the family was "old fashioned". Women need to be free - like a cosmo girl should be. A family requires acknowledging the self-sacrifice that comes from quitting a job to stay home and enjoy your kids....

and it goes on.

But those of us born later looked around and said, hmmm... jobs suck, staying home with kids sounds kind of fun, maybe girls shouldn't feel the need to act like a mattress, and even a retard can have sex, drugs addiction is not cool, and if you have a war and nobody shows up, it means that good people get murdered, raped and subjugated by thugs.

anyway...sorry...just my two dollars.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 12:03 Comments || Top||

#42  The Dems will continue to lose national elections so long as the emblem of the party is the Nancy Pelosi type rather than the Tip O'Neill type.

As this analyst in The New Republic points out, the Dems need to get back to child-friendly, pro-family policies such as emphasizing home ownership. It's not about "moral values", it's about an economic program that's in tune with what most Americans really need and want:

http://www.joelkotkin.com/Politics/NR%20Parent%20Trap.htm
"...what do Democrats need to do? The unimaginative answer is to say that they should moderate their positions on issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, where the most liberal stance tends to turn off married parents with children. And perhaps they should.

"But far more important is for Democrats to return to a worldview centered around the baby-making electorate. Historically, Democrats appealed to families by stressing the need to expand home ownership--the GI bill, for example--and by emphasizing the importance of government in providing basic services, such as roads, libraries, and water and power systems, to suburban communities. They were also advocates for educating the middle class, which in the 1950s and '60s moved into suburbia. Today, Democrats too often seem preoccupied with either top universities--home of their much-beloved creative class--or inner-city schools. Improving suburban education needs to be once again placed front and center on the Democrats' agenda...."


Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 12:08 Comments || Top||

#43  baby-making electorate

they just don't get it, do they?
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 12:10 Comments || Top||

#44  This is apt:

Perhaps more than anything else, Democrats need a change in style. Democratic legislators too often seem hostile to suburban concerns, and indifferent to the aspirations of those who would like to buy a home and a small green place to call their own. In Albuquerque, for example, planners working for the local Democratic regime advocated banning backyards, an essential part of the middle-class family lifestyle. One [Democratic city planner] even told a local developer that his having four children made him "immoral."

A small--and probably extreme--example? Undoubtedly. But it speaks to a stereotype that Democrats have been battling for years now: that they disdain suburbia and the families who live there. It is long past time for Democrats to start undoing that perception.

Finally, Democrats might want to consider a change of venue for their next convention. They have held their last four gatherings in four of America's most liberal cities--New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Boston. Maybe next time, they should hold their convention in Houston, Orlando, or Phoenix, where families are growing, people are moving, and the future of this remarkably fertile nation is being nurtured. It's worth a try, because, after all, Democrats have little choice. Demographics will not save them. On the contrary, the Democrats' task now is to try to save themselves from demographics.
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 12:18 Comments || Top||

#45  one last thought...now not only does the "boomer generation insult the older seniors with this baby making electorate crap, but they insult the tweeners, X'rs and the baby-boom echo who really don't share their fear that growing up to raise a happy family or to be happily married, is such an embarassing fate.

Today, people have the freedom to choose the lifestyle they want. Women can choose a career and stay single. Men can choose to stay home with the kids. We just don't share their hang-up that the choice to focus on family makes one some sort of neanderthal.

Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 12:25 Comments || Top||

#46  Seafarious-I am about where you are on this. I grew up in a large family and it was great, but others saying that you MUST incubate for society's sake is not only ludicrous but disgusting.

As far as Planned Parenthood starting in poor areas-well, I was born in 1960, so I can't comment on locations prior to that, but one of its first locations in the county I grew up in was between Wheaton and Carol Stream-hardly poverty central.
Posted by: Jules 187 || 12/08/2004 12:27 Comments || Top||

#47  lex... that really nails it!
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 12:28 Comments || Top||

#48  2b, fine, do your own thing. No problem here. The point though is that Dems are completely ignoring the largest, fast-growing and arguably most important demographic this nation has. The result of this oversight is an absurd focus on Dem-leaning subgroups like 18-24 year-olds, who do not, repeat, do not vote, and african-americans, whose share of the population is shrinking.

The high-growth sunbelt suburbs are the key to political power in this country. Ignore them at your peril.
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 12:48 Comments || Top||

#49  hmm.. I thought I was agreeing with you.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 12:50 Comments || Top||

#50  2b, oops, I'm sorry, so you were. My apologies - never mind...
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 12:52 Comments || Top||

#51  :-)
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 12:54 Comments || Top||

#52  Very good comments, all. I've long said that I was born on the cusp between the boomers and the GenX-ers, but I'm glad to know we have our own name, because we definitely have a post-boomer outlook. I can even see a difference between me and my husband, who was born in two years earlier, in 1959. Loathing Viet Nam informs his outlook in a way it does not do mine, f'r instance; fighting for women's equality ditto (our big fight before the wedding was whether I would keep my maiden name: he was appalled that I chose not to).

Like 2b, I do have a small problem with the having babies makes people conservative and take on traditional gender roles thing.

I know half a dozen families where the husband is the one staying home with the children. In each case both spouses worked until the first child was born, but then it was the lower paid spouse (the man in each of these cases) who quit his job. In all of these families there are three or more kids, and the woman's career is going great guns. (It turns out that when men choose to stay home, they attack the job very methodically, and don't whine about being disrespected or not being able to go out because the wife is too tired when she comes home from the office.)

In conclusion, having children may make people more conservative in their overall outlook, but it certainly doesn't mean unthinking reversion to traditional behaviours.
Posted by: trailing wife || 12/08/2004 13:20 Comments || Top||

#53  Longest thread ever with no...... flame.
Posted by: Shipman || 12/08/2004 13:28 Comments || Top||

#54  My grandfather was 11th of 14 in the late 19th century. They were neither Mormon or Roman Catholic. It was considered "normal". This may have been an extreme case for now under this scenario, but, not so then. By the way, they were Methodists...
Posted by: BigEd || 12/08/2004 13:40 Comments || Top||

#55  TW & 2b: I would propose that while having babies does not inevitably make you conservative, it has a strong tendency to do so. When the neonatal nurse handed me #1 Son nearly 12 years ago, it was the most transforming thing that ever happened to me. Life is no longer about what you want, it's about what you have to do.
Posted by: Mike || 12/08/2004 13:41 Comments || Top||

#56  TW great comments.

Mike - I guess a baby really puts life into perspective. Reminds me of the ol' saying: if you are a conservative at 20, you have no heart, and if you are a liberal after 30 you have no brain.

I really think that the blue baby-boomers are stuck in the liberal mode because they are terrified that if they "grow up", they grow old.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 14:13 Comments || Top||

#57  It's not that bearing and raising children makes one more conservative across the board. It's that it focuses your attention on a different set of issues, and these issues-- home ownership and schools quality, savings and ownership generally, and national security-- used to be front and center for Truman-JFK Democrats. Today, for whatever bizarre reason, these bread-and-butter liberal concerns are deemed "conservative."

To elaborate, when you have kids, you instantly become focused, laser-like, on the quality of the schools in your area. You start to compare the cost of private schools to increased mortgage payments for a house in heavily desired school districts.

Secondly, you become more focused on saving and less on consumption, which mainly means less going out, which means you spend less time in the company of single and childless urban yupsters.

Third, you take a much greater interest in security issues. The slaughter of children in some far-off land by muslim fascists gets more attention from you than news stories on gay marriage or the environment.
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 14:14 Comments || Top||

#58  There is a difference between smugness and pride. There are some fairly sweeping generalizations in this thread that may OR MAY NOT reflect reality.
Posted by: Jules 187 || 12/08/2004 14:23 Comments || Top||

#59  Succinctly put, the hypothesis is Red States: Knocked up; Blue States: F**ked up.
Posted by: Random thoughts || 12/08/2004 14:34 Comments || Top||

#60  Lex...that's a good point. But the problem with the Dem's is, if history is to be a guide, that they worry more about how to "express" to the electorate that they "care" rather than making tough decisions that lead to actual results.

As long as I can remember - the Dem solution to improving failing schools and increased crime was to increase taxes, and throw money at the problem, without actually making any difficult changes that would make a difference. It is the Repub's that pushed forward the ideas of accountabiliy or longer sentences, ie: tough things that make a difference ...all against the shrill shrieks of "mean racist" by the left. But what was really mean and racist was holding the poor back with low expectations and allowing criminals to roam free in their neighborhoods.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 14:37 Comments || Top||

#61  rt...lol!
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 14:37 Comments || Top||

#62  The Dems should wipe the slate clean and set about re-ordering their view of national priorities with an eye toward answering this fundamental question: How can we best help improve security (economic and physical) and quality of life for moderate- and low-income families?

If they were to do this, they'd find that national security, reforming and expanding health insurance, and expanding home ownership and school choice would zoom to the top of the list. In fact would displace just about everything else.
Posted by: lex || 12/08/2004 14:44 Comments || Top||

#63  lex...The Dem's have always had those things as their talking points. Health care, schools has been their mantra ad nasuem. It's not what they proclaim to care about but how they propose to fix it that's causing the stampede to the Republican's door.

How can they fix schools when they they are 100% beholden to the Teachers Unions?
Their proposal for fixing health care - tax and give away for free. Great! Just what we all want, crappy socialized medicine.
Social security - taxes, taxes and more taxes.

I'd suggest to you that if you want improvements in those areas, look to the party that can and has been best producing, rather than clinging to a sentimental hope that the Democratic party will someday get a clue.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 15:00 Comments || Top||

#64  I gotta go. It's been intersting.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 15:07 Comments || Top||


Home Front: WoT
Modernizing the US Colored War Plans
Prior to World War II and the RAINBOW series of War Plans, the US maintained several color-coded war plans in case hostilities broke out with different countries. The US still maintains various war plans for Korea, Iran, and other contingencies, but we thought to modernize the different war plans for the present day, not including the Cold War. (Note: The author has no knowledge of current war plans of the United States, beyond which can be gleaned from internet sites such as www.Globalsecurity.org)
I edited out all the wargames and books they referenced. This should generate a excellent discussion

War Plan Black
Then:a Naval war against Germany in case the French were knocked out of World War I with the Germans trying to take over the French Colonies in the Caribbean.
Now: A plan to evacuate US troops and dependents from Germany in the face of rising European Union hostility against the US.

War Plan Brown
Then: A contingency plan against an uprising in the Philippines.
Now: A plan to counter an Islamic rebellion in the Philippines, provide military support to the Phillipines in the "War on Terror", or a counter to Chinese expansion in the Pacific.

War Plan Crimson:
Then: War with Canada in conjunction with War Plan Red
Now: Altercation of fishing or water rights, lumbar trade, agricultural trade, difference in security/immigration policy.
Special Note: The US invaded Canada during both the Revolution and the War of 1812 and was defeated twice. Of course, that was by the British Army.

War Plan Gray
Then: Naval war against Caribbean nations
Now: A Plan to invade Cuba or Anti-Drug Wars in the Caribbean

War Plan Green
Then: War with Mexico.
Now: Imposition of a security belt 40 — 80 kilometers into Mexico to secure the US Southern Border against illegal immigration, terrorist infiltration, or the drug trade.

War Plan Gold
Then: War with France.
Now: Why bother?

War Plan Orange:
Then: War with Japan
Now: War with Japan (but also applicable to a naval war with China)
Special Note: Also War Plan Red-Orange, a war against a UK-Japanese Alliance.

War Plan Purple
Then: War with Russia or With a Latin American country
Now: Drug Wars in the Caribbean, Anti-WMD Proliferation in the former Soviet Union

War Plan Red
Then: War with the United Kingdom, predominantly considering a British Amphibious landing Near Washington, D.C.
Now: More or less unthinkable.
Special Note: Also War Plan Red-Orange, a war against a UK-Japanese Alliance.

War Plan Scarlet
Then: War with Australia and New Zealand, in conjunction with War Plan Red.
Now: Retaliation against New Zealand Navy for attack on a US Navy ship carrying nuclear weapons.

War Plan Yellow
Then: War with China centering on the defense of Peking and relief of Shanghai during the Sino-Japanese War.
Now: Contingency plan for aid to Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, or other Pacific Regions in the event of a Chinese invasion or aggressive territorial expansion.

War Plan White
Then: Domestic uprising
Now: Operation Garden Plot for military support to domestic law enforcement operations during periods of civil unrest. (This plan has generated many conspiracy web sites.)
We seem to be missing the Middle East, Asian Sub-continent, and Africa. But, I'm sure our devoted readers can correct that.
Posted by: Steve || 12/08/2004 9:49:42 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  War Plan Cornflower
Then: War with Iraq
Now: Nuke Mecca, Tehran, Palestine
Posted by: Ulairong Ulaitle4888 || 12/08/2004 10:23 Comments || Top||

#2  also must include damascus
Posted by: legolas || 12/08/2004 10:56 Comments || Top||

#3  War Plan Gold
Then: War with France.
Now: Why bother?


I can think of a lot of reasons to put a beat down on France.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats || 12/08/2004 11:03 Comments || Top||

#4  Maybe we could just invade "Paris, in the springtime, when it drizzles..." (you all know the tune)
Posted by: Justrand || 12/08/2004 11:11 Comments || Top||

#5  Where's Treacher? We need a Warplan Puce...
Posted by: mojo || 12/08/2004 11:39 Comments || Top||

#6  And we're putting War Plan Green into action when, exactly...?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 12/08/2004 11:41 Comments || Top||

#7  War Plan Mauve:
The Siege of San Fransisco.
Posted by: Shipman || 12/08/2004 12:58 Comments || Top||

#8  Ship - Lol! Now make that a multi-pronged attack and add Berkeley and a few other choice concentrated centers of idiotarianism and you've got a PLAN! ;-)
Posted by: .com || 12/08/2004 13:01 Comments || Top||

#9  War Plan Khaki
Then: liberation of Iraq
Now: liberation of the Republic of Eastern Arabia, a 40 km wide strip of sand ...
Posted by: Steve White || 12/08/2004 13:54 Comments || Top||

#10  Dr Steve - Lol! Oily sand...
Posted by: .com || 12/08/2004 14:00 Comments || Top||

#11  I want to know what this "lumbar trade" with Canada is all about. Are we trying to export some of our backbone to them or what?
Posted by: Xbalanke || 12/08/2004 14:34 Comments || Top||

#12  lol X!
Posted by: Frank G || 12/08/2004 14:41 Comments || Top||

#13  Modernizing the US Colored War Plans

Didn't Harry Truman integrate the war plans?
Posted by: Liberalhawk || 12/08/2004 16:33 Comments || Top||

#14  I think Rainbow predated Truman.
Posted by: Shipman || 12/08/2004 16:47 Comments || Top||

#15  War Plan Black
Now: A plan to evacuate US troops and dependents from Germany in the face of rising European Union hostility against the US.

Don't worry, if that happens, TGA will get his gun to protect ya! :-)
Posted by: True German Ally || 12/08/2004 16:57 Comments || Top||

#16  War Plan Scarlet
Then: War with Australia and New Zealand, in conjunction with War Plan Red


Now: Retaliation for New Zealand crushing US rugby team by 187 to 0 and for stealing the America cup.
Posted by: JFM || 12/08/2004 17:22 Comments || Top||

#17  The U.S. has a rugby team?
Posted by: True German Ally || 12/08/2004 17:26 Comments || Top||

#18  My brother has played for it. Rugby is popular in some American colleges.
Posted by: phil_b || 12/08/2004 17:44 Comments || Top||

#19  TGA and phil_b:
Something about the sport keep it from becoming mainstream here in America... perhaps the loss of teeth.
The West coast school I went to actually had a girls rugby team, but you should've seen the, uh, ladies, that participated. Three inch leg hair, braided pits, and faces like bowls of day-old oatmeal. And then they'd drink afterwards.
Posted by: Asedwich || 12/08/2004 19:49 Comments || Top||

#20  The Marine Corps actually has several rugby teams. I don't know how good they are but I heard they are good at inflicting punishment on their opponents.
Posted by: Jarhead || 12/08/2004 20:21 Comments || Top||

#21  RUGBY is actually very popular in many US colleges and universities, both as official sport as as casual sport. SOCCER needs to be extensively reformed if it ever expects to become popular in the USA, as most US males play it only because nothing else is available, besides also to watch the girls run around and sweat. The babes know it - thats why in high school and college its no coincidence many of them "sex up" for the boys.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 12/08/2004 20:52 Comments || Top||

#22  War Plan Pink:
The invasion and occupation of San Francisco.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 12/08/2004 22:46 Comments || Top||


Africa: North
New Parties Claim Egypt's Liberal Legacy
With the entry of two new liberal parties onto Egypt's political scene, four of the country's 19 parties are presenting themselves as the champions of free-market economy. The Political Parties Committee of the upper house of Parliament granted legality to El-Destouri El-Igtimai (Social Constitutional) Party on Nov. 25 a month after approving El-Ghad (Tomorrow Party). The committee had previously given the green light to only two other parties since it was founded in 1977.

Both parties say they are rooted in Egypt's liberal legacy that stretches back to the nationalist uprisings of 1919. In claiming that heritage, they vie directly with the Waved Party, which emerged directly out of that struggle. Heads of the new parties vehemently deny that their claims to that legacy pit them in conflict with the Wafd. "Our liberalism is that of Saad [Zaghloul] and [Mustapha] Nahas, which is monopolized by no one," said Mamdouh Qenawi, head of El-Destouri, referring to the heroes of 1919. Qenawi's comments, coming just days after his party was approved, echoed similar ones by the president of El-Ghad, Ayman Nour, who had earlier quipped that Zaghloul "isn't a trademark."
Posted by: Fred || 12/08/2004 9:03:35 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Christians take over cathedral
SEVERAL thousand Christians took over the compound of the Coptic Orthodox cathedral in Egypt's capital today, hurling stones at riot police in a protest over a woman who was allegedly forced to convert to Islam.

The stones injured at least 30 people, including 21 police. Some policemen were seen wiping blood from their heads in the streets outside the compound in the city's Abbasiya district.

Police sealed off the compound, parking 40 trucks around its walls, and closed adjacent roads.

Protests began at the cathedral on Sunday as word spread that the wife of a Coptic priest in Abou al-Matameer, a town 135km north of Cairo, had been forced by her civil service boss, a Muslim, to convert.

A security official has said the 47-year-old woman, Wafaa Constantine, was found living in a Muslim household in Cairo and had become a Muslim of her own free will.

Some Copts, as Egypt's Christians are known, said Constantine had been kidnapped and taken to Cairo with the complicity of local authorities.

The facts of the case are not clear, but have highlighted the potential for friction between Egypt's Muslim majority and Christian minority. The Copts account for an estimated 10 per cent of the population of 70 million.

Last night a brother-in-law of Constantine entered the compound and told the protesters through a loudspeaker that the woman had returned home.

"My brothers and sisters, my brother just told me that she arrived in a safe place and she is in good condition," Meshiha Maawad said.

The protesters clapped and whistled, but refused to leave. They demanded that Pope Shenouda III, the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church, speak to them. The Pope has offices in the compound.

An assistant to the Pope, Bishop Yoanas, told the crowd that the Pope had left the compound because he was "upset" that the authorities delayed Constantine's return.

Some protesters said that they would not leave the until they saw Constantine herself. But, as the night wore on, many did leave.

Among the injured was Matyas Abdel Maseh, a young priest with a bandage around his head. Leaning against a wall for support, he said he was hit by a stone thrown by the police as he tried to stop the demonstrators from getting too close to the compound's gates.

"The Government is attacking Christians," he said. "The army outside the gates is attacking us with stones."

The protesters got the "stones" by chipping pieces of masonry from steps and other pavings in the compound.

Accusations of forced conversion surface every year in Egypt.

The editor of the Coptic newspaper Watani, Youssef Sidhom, accused the government and local authorities of being reluctant to investigate and prosecute cases of forced conversion.
Posted by: tipper || 12/08/2004 6:56:52 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Egyptian Coptic Christians stage protest
At least 20 Egyptian policemen were injured after a group of 1,000 Christians staging a sit-in at the compound of the main Coptic cathedral in Cairo threw rocks at them, an AFP journalist said. Roads leading to the cathedral, the seat of Pope Shenuda III, head of the Coptic Church, were sealed off, as the police tried to restore calm and restrain a protest over the disappearance of a priest's wife in the delta governorate of Beheira. The protesters claimed 48-year-old public sector agricultural engineer Wafaa Constantine was abducted by her Muslim boss, Mohammed al-Margun, and forced to convert to Islam.
An infidel, a woman, and an engineer. A triple threat.
Nearly 400 Egyptian Christians demonstrated on Sunday at the cathedral and accused police of complicity. The demonstrators, mostly young people, called on police to return the woman to her husband and family and chanted slogans calling on President Hosni Mubarak to intervene.
Here's a nice hot potato for you, Hosni. Catch!
"O Mubarak ...the hearts of Copts are burning with fire," they said. Father Philamon, the Orthodox Coptic priest in Abul Matamir, near the northern city of Alexandria, told AFP that Constantine, the wife of another priest in the town, had disappeared on November 27. He charged that two similar cases had taken place in the town in the past six months. Philamon accused Abul Matamir police of "pretending that Christians were converting to Islam of their own free will, which is false." The demonstrators said they would maintain a sit-in until "police return the wife of the priest".
Posted by: Seafarious || 12/08/2004 4:03:57 PM || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Nothing against the Copts, who I feel great pity for and anger against the Egyptians, but:

"O Mubarak ...the hearts of Copts are burning with fire"

or

"Our hearts and blood for you, O blank!"

Is it a tranlation issue or just my cultural insensitivity, but don't these chants in arabic/persian countries always sound so overwrought and overblown?

At least here and Europe the chants ("Hey hey, ho ho, blah, blah, blah's got to go!") are so lame you can't take them seriously. And I wonder how seriously most of the moonbats take them when chanting.
Posted by: Xbalanke || 12/08/2004 18:11 Comments || Top||

#2  "O Mubarak ...the hearts of Copts are burning with fire,"

If the region could just lay down at 20 percent tax on O the children could go to school, the hungry eat, the thirsty drink and the homeless find a bus.
Posted by: Shipman || 12/08/2004 19:37 Comments || Top||

#3  Must be a local thing
Posted by: Steve || 12/08/2004 20:57 Comments || Top||

#4  As an engineer I have a hard soft spot for infidel women
Posted by: Frank G || 12/08/2004 22:04 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Culture Wars
Air America Radio Signs New Franken Pact
Posted via the Rantbug 'post' link :). Seems to work on Firebird on XP :) Cool!
Hat tip: Drudge - EFL

Air America Radio, a startup radio network that offers liberal talk and commentary, has signed a new contract with comedian Al Franken to stay on as its lead personality for at least two more years, the company announced Wednesday.
Air America: the Frankenetwork, lurching across the airwaves! Lemme get my pitchfork!
Air America also said that Rob Glaser, the chairman and chief executive of the technology company RealNetworks Inc., had joined the company as the chairman of its board. Glaser has also been an investor in the company, although he declined to disclose the value of his stake. Air America has been signing up more stations and gaining its footing following a shaky start earlier this year. The company went through a management shakeup in May, about five weeks after going on the air, that included the departure of its previous chairman, Evan Cohen, and other executives.
I loved the part when they threw pies at each other and then changed all the locks...
The network can now be heard on 40 stations around the country as well as on the satellite radio services offered by Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. Air America also signed a new contract with Randi Rhodes, another popular radio personality, for three years. Its contract with Franken is for two years, with an option to extend for another year. The company did not disclose how much it was paying the personalities. Air America also said it had new commitments of $13 million from investors.
Posted by: CrazyFool || 12/08/2004 12:35:18 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Air America also said it had new commitments of $13 million from investors.

Man, I'd like to get my hands on that sucker list. I've know of some great deals on swamps lake front property in FL. Wonder how long it will take, after they collect the money, to declare bankruptcy.
Posted by: 2b || 12/08/2004 12:40 Comments || Top||

#2  *ghastly grinding noise*
Air America investor: What's that sound?
Air America ex-listeners: That's your money going down the garbage disposal.
AAI: Then I'll just sue the rethuglicans for their sabotage.
AAeL: Suing because the audience wasn't there?
AAI: *goes off into a long moonbat rant with all the buzzwords and very little coherence*
Posted by: Steve from Relto || 12/08/2004 13:13 Comments || Top||

#3  You don't need more investors if you sell commercial time, but that requires a real listening audience to offer the advertisers. The problem they face is that radio is not print. There are far more stations than newspapers in any general area, so radio is really subject to supply and demand particulars that print is not. It's harder for radio to cooking the books on the number of listeners/readers than print.
Posted by: Don || 12/08/2004 13:52 Comments || Top||

#4  "The network can now be heard on 40 stations around the country".

Yeah, 1 in NYC, 1 in Chicago, and 38 in San Fran.
Posted by: 98zulu || 12/08/2004 15:19 Comments || Top||

#5  Now if they could only sign up Ben Stein, they could have the Franken-Stein Hour...
Posted by: mojo || 12/08/2004 15:33 Comments || Top||

#6  LOL 98Z and the very bad man mojo.
Posted by: Shipman || 12/08/2004 17:16 Comments || Top||

#7  Rob Glaser, the chairman and chief executive of the technology company RealNetworks Inc

Ah the kiss of death. Real is pure CRAP! Good choice.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 12/08/2004 21:16 Comments || Top||


Debating Christmas Celebrations in Public Places
Members of the Columbia High School brass ensemble were not allowed to play Christmas carols at their holiday concert this year -- not even instrumental versions. At a school board meeting Monday night, parents and students alike expressed their outrage. "This is censorship at its most basic level and political correctness to its extreme," said student Ryan Dahn. "When you close that door you are supporting ignorance, and I think it's a very sad thing," said parent Melanie Amsterdam.

The controversy is by no means an isolated case. The role of religion during the Christmas season is a source of annual angst. But this year, people in "red," or Republican, America -- particularly Christian conservatives -- are in an unprecedented uproar. They are sending letters to public schools in Chicago, where the words "Merry Christmas" have been excised from a popular song; boycotting Macy's, which has removed "Merry Christmas" signs from its department stores; and protesting the exclusion of a church group from Denver's annual Parade of Lights. "What they don't understand is that by not wanting to offend anyone, they're excluding a huge group of people, and that is all of those of the Christian faith," said Doug Newcomb, business administrator of the Faith Bible Chapel in Arvada, Colo.

Lawyers Ready to Sue
Attorney Demetrios Stratis, affiliated with the conservative civil liberties group Alliance Defense Fund, is one of 700 Christian lawyers across the country poised to pounce on such cases. "We just don't believe that you need to stamp out religion in the public square," he said.

There are those in Maplewood -- and in "blue," or Democratic, America generally -- who say religion should be a private matter. "Holiday celebrations where Christian music is being sung make people feel different," said Mark Brownstein, a Maplewood parent. "And because it is such a majority, it makes the minority feel uncomfortable."

But Eric Chabrow, who is Jewish, says his son, Sam, should be able to play Christmas songs in the high school band. Chabrow is a part of "blue" America and generally supports the separation of church and state. "I think that people have become a little too dogmatic in their beliefs on either side," he said. "And I think in this world today, we need to look at that center. I mean, the center in this country is vanishing. And maybe that's what's happening here." He says there must be solutions that are neither "red" nor "blue" -- just common sense. Solutions may not be forthcoming: Christian lawyers may sue the Maplewood school board, while the school superintendent is vowing not to bend to outside pressure.
Posted by: tipper || 12/08/2004 10:38:38 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Grinch picture?
Posted by: Steve from Relto || 12/08/2004 10:58 Comments || Top||

#2  Chabrow is a part of "blue" America and generally supports the separation of church and state.

News flash: so does Red America. It's just that we can tell the difference between government "establishing" a religion, and the free exercise of one.
Posted by: mojo || 12/08/2004 11:34 Comments || Top||

#3  So... did they also have a big program about 'ramanda' (or whatever its called)? How about Kwanza?
Posted by: CrazyFool || 12/08/2004 12:41 Comments || Top||

#4  The following happened in my son's school. Every friday they get to choose a movie to watch. A classmate suggested a movie about Christmas and the teacher said no because it could offend people of a different religion. A muslim kid stood up and said that it would not offend him and that he would gladly watch the movie.
Someone has to get rid of liberals in teaching positions. They are doing more to create differences among kids of different religious background than the mullahs and Imans of Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Anonymous4724 || 12/08/2004 14:39 Comments || Top||

#5  Classic Lib asshattery.
Posted by: Rex Mundi || 12/08/2004 15:59 Comments || Top||

#6  Seems to me Grant established Christmas as a national holliday some time back. The name Christmas is for someone but I forget who. I mean there has to be a reason we get a week off in December. Now what was that guy's name?

/sarcasm off/
Posted by: Phiter Glolung1555 (aka Jarhead) || 12/08/2004 17:25 Comments || Top||

#7  Non-Christian comment. This PC stuff is crap in it's purest form.. I'm not offended by christmas songs; I hum them all during December. And if I was offended: so what? When did people get this insane idea that they have a "right" to not be offended?
Posted by: Weird Al || 12/08/2004 20:16 Comments || Top||


Terror Networks & Islam
MultiAuthor theory of the Koran
For at least a century scholars have assumed that the Koran is a work of multiple authors. However, largely out of fear, no one has put together a coherent theory stating which verses are authored by which author. Until Now. Abul Kasem's theory is based on what might be called the literary construct (as opposed to the linguistic construct that scholars used in Bible criticism).

Who Authored the Qur'an?—an Enquiry

Abul Kasem

Email: abul88@hotmail.com

...This article delves into the very authorship of the Holy Qur'an.... By analysing, dissecting and carefully interpreting the contents of the Qur'an, the Ahadith (Muhammad's traditions) and Sirah (Muhammad's biography) the author has identified several parties who had undoubtedly contributed to the composition of the Qur'anic verses... The most important personalities involved in the creation of the Qur'an were: Imrul Qays, Zayd b. Amr, Hasan b. Thabit, Salman, Bahira, ibn Qumta, Waraqa and Ubayy b. Ka'b. Muhammad, himself, was involved in the make-up of a limited number of verses, but the most influential person who motivated Muhammad in the invention of Islam and the opus of the Qur'an, perhaps, was Zayd b. Amr who preached 'Hanifism'....
Posted by: mhw || 12/08/2004 8:47:48 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  This guy is so dead. Is he in hiding yet?
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats || 12/08/2004 9:41 Comments || Top||

#2  that's why he's using a hotmail account ;-)
Posted by: Frank G || 12/08/2004 9:58 Comments || Top||

#3  I should have also pointed to some of this early research

see: http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/quranmulti.html

In mid 20th century, Cook and Crone came to this conclusion,

"..[The Qur'an] is strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure and inconsequential in both language and content, perfunctory in its linking of disparate materials, and given to the repetition of whole passages in variant versions. On this basis it can plausibly be argued that the book is the product of belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions..."
Posted by: mhw || 12/08/2004 10:10 Comments || Top||

#4  Dan Rather sez Muhammad wrote it and he has the memo's to prove it!
Posted by: Steve || 12/08/2004 10:40 Comments || Top||

#5  Gee, y'mean the whole thing could be a crock? Color me shocked! Who'da thunkit?
Posted by: mojo || 12/08/2004 10:42 Comments || Top||

#6  There's a good in-depth study (including this topic) at: http://www.studytoanswer.net/islam_myths.html

Sorry, I couldn't get the href tag to work.
Posted by: Xbalanke || 12/08/2004 12:58 Comments || Top||

#7  Xbalanke - Prolly using FireFox - I'm trying it out - and the buttons don't work in it. I'm tempted to look at the JS code to figure out why, but I hate JS so I haven't motivated myself, yet. Gotten lazy in my old age, heh.

Mr Badanov, our resident 'Nix lover prolly loves this JS shit I'll bet... go to it bad!
Posted by: .com || 12/08/2004 13:09 Comments || Top||

#8  .com: bingo - I am using FF. While I am a geek, I'm not a Java-anything geek, so I'll leave the JS debugging alone. I'll just add them manually in the future (making sure to close them!).
Posted by: Xbalanke || 12/08/2004 14:01 Comments || Top||

#9  Xb - I just took a peek a minute ago and see nothing obvious - looks clean (heh, Fred wrote it so I knew it would!) - must be the FF implementation of the Doc object or the JS engine FF 1.0 uses.

So, bad baby, whaddya say?
Posted by: .com || 12/08/2004 14:05 Comments || Top||

#10  Fred knows about the button -FF glitch, but sez it's a FF issue
Posted by: Frank G || 12/08/2004 14:06 Comments || Top||

#11  And he doesn't want to clutter his code up with all sorts of browser identification and work-around JS to make this one tiny little segment of RBdom happy? Why, uh, how sensible!
Posted by: .com || 12/08/2004 14:10 Comments || Top||

#12  Thanks for the info, gents. I know from painful experience that platform inconsistencies are a b**ch. I certainly wouldn't expect Fred to do a work-around, but I'll still use FF since I'm ornery like that.

Reminds me of an online poll of browser users that had options along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing from memory):

A) MS IE - resistance is futile; you will be assimilated.
B) AOL - something snarky about the IQ of AOLies.
...
E) Opera - 0.04% of the population can't be all wrong.

BTW - I used Opera at the time.
Posted by: Xbalanke || 12/08/2004 14:49 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Culture Wars
Japanese Launch Attack On Pearl Harbor (Click on graphic)
Posted by: tipper || 12/08/2004 01:06 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:



Who's in the News
95[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Wed 2004-12-08
  Israel, Paleostinians Reach Election Deal
Tue 2004-12-07
  Al-Qaeda sez they hit the US consulate
Mon 2004-12-06
  U.S. consulate attacked in Jeddah
Sun 2004-12-05
  Bad Guyz kill 21 Iraqis
Sat 2004-12-04
  Hamas will accept Palestinian state
Fri 2004-12-03
  ETA Booms Madrid
Thu 2004-12-02
  NCRI sez Iran making missiles to hit Europe
Wed 2004-12-01
  Barghouti to Seek Palestinian Presidency
Tue 2004-11-30
  Abbas tells Palestinian media to avoid incitement
Mon 2004-11-29
  Sheikh Yousef: Hamas ready for 'hudna'
Sun 2004-11-28
  Abizaid calls for bolder action against Salafism
Sat 2004-11-27
  Palestinians Dismantle Gaza Death Group Militia
Fri 2004-11-26
  Zarqawi hollers for help
Thu 2004-11-25
  Syria ready for unconditional talks with Israel
Wed 2004-11-24
  Saudis arrest killers of French engineer

Better than the average link...



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.
35.175.200.199
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (28)    WoT Background (46)    Opinion (2)    (0)    (0)