Summarizing ÃlÚves sous influence, Gabizon explains that textbooks say almost nothing about the role of Islamic fundamentalism or theocracies in their explanation of terrorism. Rather, terrorism is explained as "l'arme des faibles" (the weapon of the weak), used by people who cannot frontally attack the great powers: the United States and Israel. Textbooks criticize the attitude of condemning only terrorists, and not their enemies. Islamism is justified as resistance to western domination and globalization. The Taliban are described merely as favoring a "rigorous" Islamic moral order.
One textbook quotes with approval an article written in the run-up to the Iraq war, arguing for the urgency of containing American power, which imposes its will by force and is contemptuous of allies.
Also approvingly reprinted in a textbook is a student essay: Terrorism is a revolt against aggressors. As in France during the Nazi occupation, terrorism appears when a people suffer and have no other solution except explosives.
After the riots began, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy denounced the rioters as "racaille," which translates as "rabble" or "scum," depending on who is doing the translation. As the French begin to ponder how their nation came to be filled with a Fifth Column of Jew-hating, French-hating criminal scum, I hope that France re-examines its educational system which, by justifying terrorism against Americans and Israelis, appears to have taught principles that were readily usable to justify terrorism against the French themselves.
Michael Moore's success as a filmmaker and "working-class hero" is part of a carefully crafted image that bears little connection with reality, finds author Peter Schweizer in his new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy."
Don't be fooled by the scraggly beard, the baggy jeans, the plaid shirts and the baseball caps, explains Schweizer. Don't be fooled by his claim to be from the working-class town of Flint, Mich., he writes. Don't be fooled by his various claims to have made no more than $19,000 a year, $15,000 a year or $12,000 a year before his first hit, "Roger & Me," the author says.
In fact, Moore didn't even grow up in Flint, but rather nearby Davison. His father was not the working stiff struggling to make ends meet that he portrays, but a General Motors employee who worked from 6 a.m. until 2 p.m. and played golf every afternoon at a private country club and who had four weeks of paid vacation and retired comfortably at the age of 53.
Before "Roger & Me" hit it big in 1989, Moore had already received an advance from a New York publisher for $50,000, another $50,000 from Mother Jones magazine upon termination as an editor and a $20,000 grant from Ralph Nader. After "Roger & Me," he became fabulously wealthy by nearly any standard.
When Moore flew to London to be interviewed by the BBC or to promote a film, he flew the Concorde and stayed at the Ritz. But, according to the book, he would also keep a room at a cheap hotel down the street where he would meet with journalists to maintain his image as a "man of humble circumstances."
His 10-acre, waterfront home today is on Michigan's Torch Lake, one of the three most beautiful lakes in the world, according to National Geographic. He was accused by authorities of despoiling a wetland â just like many of the greedy, robber-baron land-grabbers he criticizes â when he tried to expand his private beach.
Moore also owns a penthouse in New York City. That was his official residence until 2003 when he switched to Michigan. That coincided with the success of "Bowling for Columbine," which brought him millions in profits â profits that would have been taxed at a rate of 7.7 percent in New York, as opposed to 3.9 percent in Michigan, saving him hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Schweizer reports that Moore, like Rosie O'Donnell, detests guns in the hands of ordinary Americans but surrounds himself with armed guards when he is out in public. One of the secrets to Moore's success, writes Schweizer, is his virulent anti-Americanism, which has wide appeal abroad. Moore, for instance, has sold twice as many books in Germany alone as he has sold in the U.S. "Moore's books and films sell well overseas because anti-Americanism is a popular idiom," writes Schweizer. "Says Andrian Kreye of Munich, Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung, 'German readers feel safe regurgitating anti-Americanism so long as it's an American who says it first.'"
Schweizer reveals in "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)" that Moore owns tens of thousands of shares of stock despite claiming he owns none. Most surprisingly of all, however, is the revelation that among those stocks are substantial shares of the much maligned Halliburton.
Moore is just one of the targets of "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)." Others include:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who proclaims her support for unions, yet the luxury resort, the vineyard and the restaurants she partly owns are strictly non-union. While she advocates tough new laws enforcing environmental regulations on the private sector, the exclusive country club she partly owns failed to comply with existing environmental regulations for the past eight years â including a failure to protect endangered species.
Noam Chomsky has made a reputation for calling America a police state and branding the Pentagon "the most hideous institution on earth," yet his entire academic career, writes Schweizer, has been subsidized by the U.S. military.
Barbra Streisand is another proponent of environmentalism, yet she drives an SUV, lives in a mansion and has a $22,000 annual water bill. In the past, she has driven to appointments in Beverly Hills in a motor home because of her aversion to using public bathrooms.
Ralph Nader plays the role of the citizen avenger â the populist uninterested in wealth and materialism, pretending to live in a modest apartment. In fact, he lives in fancy homes registered in the names of his siblings.
#1
Proving what we have suspected all along...that Michael Moore is part of the vast right wing conspiracy to bring down the Democratic party. Until Nancy's Scrapple Face like statement today - I didn't realize she was part of the conspiracy too. And now we know why Nader ran against Kerry, splitting the Dim vote.
#3
MM and RN and others figured out there was a market for unhinged Leftist schlock and got rich selling into that market. Good capitalists all of them.
#4
time to keep timing this POS to the Donk party...rolling ads showing him in Jimmy's booth at the Donk Nat'l Convention
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/19/2005 22:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
And how about that guy who made such a fuss over imprisoning recreational drug users? What was his name? Oh yeah, now I remember, that talk show host who was gobbling vicoden like popcorn, Russ "Doctor Shopper" Limbaugh.
Guess what? Blustering hypocrites come in all colors, and party affiliations. And all of them need puncturing just as badly.
Mehr News Agency The occupied Shebaa Farms region has become the Zionistsâ new pawn in their efforts to force Hezbollah to disarm, to alter the political structure of Lebanon, and to increase security in Israel. The Lebanese daily Al-Menar recently reported that in a letter addressed to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan as well as U.S. and French officials, Israel announced that if the Lebanese government presses its claims to the Shebaa Farms, Zionist forces would withdraw from the territory within three months.
Brilliant! The Gray Eminence would be so proud! Metternich is no doubt turning over in his grave. Israel is occupying Shebaa Farms because it's considered Syrian territory. Lebanon claims it, on flimsy grounds, a claim not recognized by the UN or, I believe, by Syria. Hezbollah's been using it as their excuse to remain armed and dangerous. What a ducky idea!
If this report is true, it could shed light on some hidden objectives of Western political circles.
"See? See? They're giving us what we say we want! They're up to something!"
The Shebaa Farms region, covering an area of 1000 square kilometers, was occupied by Zionist forces in 1967. If control of this territory is transferred to the Lebanese government after 38 years, it would be like retuning only the stone of a borrowed date. There are reports that the Zionist regime has been transferring the fertile soil of the Shebaa Farms to the Palestinian occupied territories.
That's taking the concept of "stealing land" to an extreme, I'd say. I'd also guess the charge is as specious as Hezbollah's rationale for waving guns.
However, it would still be a promising development if the Israelis are willing to transfer control of this date stone to Lebanon. So, why has the French government become involved in the Shebaa issue, and why has the Zionist regime announced that it is prepared to withdraw from the Shebaa Farms, even though the wave of criticism about the withdrawal from Gaza has not died down in Israel?
Lemme guess: To exert influence on internal Leb politix? To drive a wedge between Hezbollah and the government? To poke a thumb in the ayatollahs' collective eye?
First of all, France has become involved because the French government, Britain, and the United States paved the way for the ratification of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, according to which the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian refugees residing in camps in Lebanon must be disarmed. This demand was meant to further Israeli interests in Lebanon.
Quite apart from any strengthening of Israeli interests in Leb â which I'd not expect to be any kind of priority (or even desirable) for the Frenchies, that would also have the effect of stabilizing the internal situation within Lebanon. The only people who'd be constricted would be Hezbollah and the Paleo groups, who'd have to get jobs.
It is also clear that France is being allowed to play a bigger role in the international arena as a reward for its services to the Zionist regime.
Ahhhh. Those Zionists! They're slick. Y'gotta watch 'em!
The United States, the Zionist regime, and France are currently preparing for Israelâs withdrawal from the Shebaa Farms, with the aim of realizing certain objectives.
And those objectives are...?
Due to its military might, the Lebanese Hezbollah is one of the greatest security concerns of the Zionist regime, and the elimination of this great concern would increase the level of security in northern Israel.
As well as the level of security in southern Lebanon, we might add...
However, the idea of disarming the Lebanese Hezbollah has never been accepted in any international agreement up until now.
They mean up until Resolution 1559, of course...
But at the UN summit last September in New York, Annan advised Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to withdraw from the Shebaa Farms in order to help solve some of the problems in the Middle East.
Well, I'm confused. How'd the idea come from the Zionists if Kofi suggested it to them? Wouldn't the idea have come from Kofi? Or has Kofi become a secret Zionist? I haven't seen any pictures of the back of his head lately. Is he wearing a yarmulke?
Meanwhile, the Lebanese Hezbollah rejected Resolution 1559 due to the continued occupation of the Shebaa Farms, the frequent attacks on Lebanese territory by Israeli jets, and the lack of reliable security guarantees. In fact, the Zionist regime proposed the withdrawal plan to pave the way for the UN Security Council to pressure Hezbollah, since many of Hezbollahâs legal arguments against Israel would become null and void if Zionist forces withdrew from the Shebaa Farms.
Devious, aren't they?
By withdrawing from the Shebaa Farms, the Zionist regime intends to create a rift between the Lebanese government and Lebanese resistance forces like Hezbollah. Israel would then support the Lebanese government in order to disarm and weaken Hezbollah. However, if Hezbollah refuses to disarm, Israel will be able to accuse the Lebanese government of being incapable of handling its internal affairs and maintaining regional security, which would provide a pretext for Zionist forces to carry out a military assault against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/19/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
MAN IN BLACK
All right: where is the poison? The
battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right and who is dead.
VIZZINI
But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet, or his enemy's?
He studies the Man In Black now.
VIZZINI
Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
MAN IN BLACK
(And now there's a trace of
nervousness beginning)
You've made your decision then7
VIZZINI
Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled
with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
MAN IN BLACK
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
VIZZINI
Wait till I get going! Where was I?
MAN IN BLACK
Australia.
VIZZINI
Yes -- Australia, and you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
MAN IN BLACK
(very nervous)
You're just stalling now.
VIZZINI
(cackling)
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?
(stares at the Man in Black)
You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong. So, you could have put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard which means you must have studied. And in studying, you must have learned that man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
As Vizzini's pleasure has been growing throughout, the Man In Black's has been fast disappearing.
MAN IN BLACK
You're trying to trick me into giving away something -- it won't work --
VIZZINI
(triumphant)
It has worked -- you've given everything away -- I know where the poison is.
MAN IN BLACK
(fool's courage)
Then make your choice.
VIZZINI
I will. And I choose --
And suddenly he stops, points at something behind the Man In Black.
VIZZINI
-- what in the world can that be?
CUT TO:
THE MAN IN BLACK,
turning around, looking.
MAN IN BLACK
What? Where? I don't see anything.
CUT TO:
VIZZINI,
busily switching the goblets while the Man In Black has his head turned.
VIZZINI
Oh, well, I-I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.
The Man In Black turns to face him again. Vizzini starts to laugh.
MAN IN BLACK
What's so funny?
VIZZINI
I'll tell you in a minute. First, let's drink -- me from my glass, and you from yours.
And he picks up his goblet. The Man In Black picks up the one in front of him. As they both start to drink, Vizzini hesitates a moment.
Then, allowing the Man In Black to drink first, he swallows his wine.
MAN IN BLACK
You guessed wrong.
VIZZINI
(roaring with laughter)
You only think I guessed wrong --
(louder now)
-- that's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned. You fool.
CUT TO:
THE MAN IN BLACK.
There's nothing he can say. He just sits there.
CUT TO:
VIZZINI,
watching him.
VIZZINI
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line."
He laughs and roars and cackles and whoops and is in all ways quite cheery until he falls over dead.
CUT TO:
THE MAN IN BLACK,
stepping past the corpse, taking the blindfold and bindings off Buttercup, who notices Vizzini lying dead.
The Man In Black pulls her to her feet.
BUTTERCUP
Who are you?
MAN IN BLACK
I am no one to be trifled with, that is all you ever need know.
He starts to lead her off the mountain path into untraveled terrain.
BUTTERCUP
(a final glance back toward Vizzini)
To think -- all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
MAN IN BLACK
They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.
Posted by: Phil ||
11/19/2005 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The occupied 
