From a post at the, impressive, Belmont Club:
"The Daily Telegraph describes how some European agencies actually refuse to look at mass grave sites to avoid being party to the punishment of war criminals."
Ladies and gentlemen, here we have these Europeans being, de facto, pro-fascist. The United States has to carry almost the entire burden, of fighting the forces of darkness, because no one else will.
Via Michael Totten, a speech by Haim Harari on the War on Terror.
"Do you raid a mosque, which serves as a terrorist ammunition storage? Do you return fire, if you are attacked from a hospital? Do you storm a church taken over by terrorists who took the priests hostages? Do you search every ambulance after a few suicide murderers use ambulances to reach their targets? Do you strip every woman because one pretended to be pregnant and carried a suicide bomb on her belly? Do you shoot back at someone trying to kill you, standing deliberately behind a group of children? Do you raid terrorist headquarters, hidden in a mental hospital? Do you shoot an arch-murderer who deliberately moves from one location to another, always surrounded by children?"
Yes, to all. If we hesitate, then more blood will be spilled. Our restraint will only, embolden the Islamists and, invite more deadly attacks. We must say yes to these questions to save more lives in the end. That is the cruel arithematic of war.
"All of these happen daily in Iraq and in the Palestinian areas. What do you do? Well, you do not want to face the dilemma. But it cannot be avoided."
No, it cannot. All that Harari says is correct.
I want to diverge here slightly to talk about Israel. When the Intifada started, or the normal relations continued, Israel said that it would not target political leaders. This meant that Hamas, which is committed to the complete and utter annihilation of Israel, was free to plan murders of Israelis and it's leadership was immune from attack. I, for the life of me, never understood this stupidity. We're not even talking about any of the mentioned dilemmas but targeting gloating genocidal Hamas leaders.
Finally in 2003, Israel changed it's policy and started killing Hamas leaders. Of course, the media went nuts but that was expected. I thought it was particularly rich when they cried about the wheelchair bound psycho. Since when does a disability confer some kind of innocence or pity upon a mass murderer? I still think that Israel is too soft. The United States, for example, would never take the kind of assaults that Israel endures every day. We would read about Hamas in history books if it had tried to attack the U.S. the way it constantly attacks Israel.
My point is that the dilemmas do exist but that the West is much softer than that. Leaders of western countries worry about killing leaders of neo-Nazi groups. We have to be a lot tougher now to avoid passing on these dilemmas to future generations. I also think that we'll save more lives by being harsh today. We really need someone in the mold of Sherman or Patton to get the job done.
This guy gets more readers than all the other left-wing blogs on the net. It's unfortunate that the mainstream left has become so despicable and increasingly shrill. It would be nice if the mainstream left was like this dude.
Is Paul Krugman the best the NYTimes can do with economists? Krugman has practically become Donald Luskin's punching bag. Today, we see Luskin tearing apart Krugman on his asinine Social Security articles. It's sad really. A key comment:
"Because the Social Security system is fundamentally insolvent over the long term, and gets worse every year, raising taxes only helps for a short time."
That's precisely why Bush's proposal is necessary. Democrats should propose solutions, rather than simply ignoring the problem and "owning" Social Security as an issue.
I kinda feel sorry for the ass.
Larry Kudlow gives an excellent overview of the U.S. economy with thoughts on both fiscal and monetary policy. Also:
"Mr. Bush had a delightful put-down in his press appearance last week with Silvio Berlusconi. The Texan said foreign nations need only purchase more US goods to narrow the gap. This was his polite way of telling them to grow faster."
Indeed.
Update: Larry Kudlow's optimistic column at NRO.
Benjamin paints a scathing portrait of the retired Bill Moyers. Excerpt:
"Moyers was to television what Chomsky is to the world of political writing: a debased and fanatical authoritarian paranoic with no capacity for self-examination, self-criticism, or even the basic humanity necessary required to admit that your opponents may not, in fact, be demonically, apocalyptically evil."
Go read the whole thing.
Yummy. I wonder how many calories it has, 256 or 512?
About time we got it here in Canada.
Freedom House downgrades Russia. This is very bad news. I agree with Damian's last comment.
The media pick up stories that make conservatives look bad and then they pound on them. Later the facts of these stories prove to be incorrect. Say it ain't so. It's simply a noxious mixture of media arrogance and bias. Doesn't really matter who the leading conservative is, s/he gets pummeled by the media. It happened to Reagan, Bush 41, Gingrich, Dole, and now it's Bush 43's turn. Life goes on.
This is despicable. So, use of Sharia is okay by Muslims in Canada. Hands chopped off for stealing, death for consuming or selling or storing alcohol, death for adultery, death for homosexuals, women not allowed to drive, two females worth one male witness, a male getting twice as much inheritance as the female in the family....Hey, it's all cool.
That's wasn't hyperbole. Sharia is even more hideous than what I've described. I know since I've lived in Saudi Arabia. There are people who try their best to escape this wretched sickness, only to see ignorant morons here embrace the darkness. If this Sharia arrangement goes into effect in Canada, then you'll be hearing a lot of horror stories coming out of the Muslim community.
Update: Montreal Gazette: One Law For All. Right on.
The Lizardoid Master calls Wonkette, "A real class act". Go read and find out why. The comment #13 by blue tick is highly recommended.
John F. Kerry did not win New York State. Will the democrat's misery ever stop?
I have much respect for Daniel Pipes since he's one of the handful of academics who are courageous enough to point out Islamists whenever they see them. Here's a somewhat long profile of this brave man.
His dad, the great Richard Pipes, comments in the profile:
"Of course we're worried. The Russians were more rational than the Muslims whom he confronts. They cared to live! But we are proud of him. Both of his courage and common sense. He understands the true nature of the danger the West faces."
Couldn't have said it better myself. Via LFG.
It seems that Michael "There is No Terrorist Threat" Moore is allergic to telling the truth.
A very interesting article about Growth Theory at VoluntaryXchange. It has to do with why he doesn't worry about low math scores in the U.S.
I just finished listening to "Until the Last Moment" from Yanni Live at the Acropolis. It's a magnificent piece of music from start to finish.
"One Man's Dream" is shorter but has the same feel and it builds up beautifully.
John Hawkins, at Right Wing News, posts his 3rd annual list of the most annoying liberals in America. To say that the members in the list are, simply, annoying would be putting it mildly. You can make your call by reading the list which includes preposterous quotes.
Omar and Mohammed, the Iraqi bloggers at Iraq The Model, are interviewed by Howard Kurtz. An impressive figure by Omar:
"Under Hussein, says Omar Fadhil, who works for a government clinic, he made the equivalent of $1.25 a month. Now, in the same job, he earns about $160 a month."
Link via the Blogfather.
Update: Chrenkoff gives us another update on the good news from Iraq.
"More beanie babies were collected by students from St. Martin's Lutheran School in Annapolis. And cheerleaders from Saguaro and Horizon high schools and from the Desert Storm Elite gym in Scottsdale, Arizona, have also participated in the "Beanies for Baghdad" action. 800 teddybears, meanwhile, have arrived from North Dakota to the Forward Operating Base Speicher, with thousands more to come."
That's so heartwarming; ordinary Americans giving strangers comfort out of the goodness of their hearts.
Donald Rumsfeld has been the most successful member of the Bush Administration so far. Yes, even more than the much loved Colin Powell. Rumsfeld and the military brass planned and executed a speedy victory in Afghanistan in 2001. Then came the Battle of Iraq in 2003. Contrary to the asinine quagmire charges, Iraq was in U.S. hands after three weeks.
Still, quite a few people want Rumsfeld to resign. Why? Well, the reasons have built up. Rumsfeld's incompetent handling of Iraq, not enough troops on the ground, and now because the troops don't have adequate protection like armored humvees. Let's tackle these three charges one by one.
Incompetence
In March 2003, the troops had chemical suits with them, the war was predicted to last three months, hundreds of oil wells were supposed to go up in flames and over 500 combat deaths were expected. Instead, the U.S. army made the fastest heavy armor movement in history and smashed through Baghdad. Only a few oil wells were put on fire and those were quickly put out. The combat deaths were only around a hundred.
The most unbelievable charge of incompetence was that the troops didn't stop the unarmed Iraqis from stealing the material in government buildings. How exactly was that supposed to happen? Should the troops have been ordered to shoot at Iraqis? You can imagine the news headlines then.
Not enough troops
This is, by far, the most common charge against Rumsfeld. So, let's say that instead of 130,000 troops in Iraq, there were 230,000. Now, what would you rotate these troops with? The U.S. must have around 5 extra divisions or 200,000 more troops for this process. Can Rumsfeld have such numbers of troops in the next few days, weeks or months? No, he needs years for that to happen. Rumsfeld is doing the best he can with the numbers he has not the numbers commentators think he should have.
More troops also means more financial costs. The U.S. is already spending about $2 billion a week in Iraq. When the $87 billion bill came up, the Democrats were shocked at the huge number. In my opinion, the number was small. I thought that the amount should have been double that. Anyway, John Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam, infamously voted against the bill. Later, he said that he was going to add 50,000 troops to the U.S. armed forces but these troops were in no way to be used in Iraq. Well, that's helpful. This would be like your friend giving you a Blockbuster gift certificate with one condition; you can't use it at Blockbuster.
Armor
The humvees have certain restrictions by design and certain restrictions by law. The design problem comes in with the windshield, and if troops try to add armor, then they're violating the law that limits the overall weight of the humvee. Armor is no guarantee of protection. If one were trapped in an armored humvee, then it'd be tough to get out quickly. Abram tanks have been left immobilized by RPGs. Ergo, the tanks don't have enough armor. The Pentagon, however, is putting armor on humvees. We live in a nanosecond world but the production of armor and then the fitting of humvees takes time.
After the armor question was reported or rather manufactured, Senator McCain said that he had no confidence in Rumsfeld. The media loves McCain and unfortunately for us that feeling is mutual. If McCain, and other senators, think that troops really don't have enough protection, then they have the power to pass bills which would provide the Pentagon with extra money for exactly such items like armor. Instead, they want Rumsfeld's head.
I really don't understand the dislike for Rummy. He is a no-nonsense guy and has been a great Sec. of Defense in the early stages of WW IV. To ask for his resignation for issues that are beyond his control is to demonstrate bad judgement. Most people, myself included, think that the troops should have every protection they need. The reality is that the military has a limited budget and thus limited resources. So, should the military budget be increased? YES. Should Rumsfeld be shown the door? NO.
Sources and further reading:
A short post by Glenn that turns into a resourceful long one.
A post primarily about logistics by Wretchard.
The bogus armor crisis by Donald Sensing.
Droooool. I will buy this if I see, oh, an 80% discount.
The media is attracted to the negative stories in Iraq. The impression is that Iraq is a perpetual mess and that Iraqis hate the U.S. As a result of this skewed reporting, the many positive stories are never broadcast. For example, now that Saddam and his sons are history, the Iraqis can live normal lives without constant fear. How many stories have you seen depicting this reality?
Jeff Jacoby writes about a creative process through which we're capable of witnessing the normal lives of these liberated Iraqis. Artists are now free to work as they please. They don't get thrown in jail for mocking the government. And because of the U.S. and the allies, by the end of January, the Iraqis, not some psychotic dictator, will control their destiny.
Via the Yuppies:
"That's not what it sounds like when a man is stabbed in the back."
"I beg your pardon?"
"Well, when I was serving in British Intelligence during the war, you often had to sneak up on a German, and when you stab the chap, it's more of a gasp than a--"
"Okay! Uh, great. Do it your way."
Wow.
Some of you might find this shocking but I find it typical of the media. The sugar coating of Islamism and the demonization of a democratic state is the norm for most journalists in the Middle East.
Glenn Reynolds on the A.C.L.U.:
"With nonprofits, just as with for-profits, it's usually about the benjamins."
Indeed.
You should read this exceptional essay, "The Islamization of Europe?" by David Pryce-Jones. He provides the frightening history of this creeping danger. The following was written by Churchill in 1899.
"No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science . . . the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
I marvel at the greatness of Churchill. Not only did he see and warn about the dangers of Nazism but Islamism as well. Islamism is not new. It's just that in the modern world, the extremism of the Islamists can bring down towers in NYC, kill numerous tourists in Bali, murder ordinary Spaniards at a train station, extinguish young souls at a Russian school...The West has no choice. It must destroy Islamism. Otherwise, our children will inherit a new Dark Age.
I have been surprised over the years by different people proclaiming that the amount of wealth in this world is fixed. For example, the U.S. needs poor countries to be rich. If the poor countries increase their wealth, then the U.S. would have less wealth. I have heard this kind of illogic over a dozen times. I think the situation is such because of two reasons. One, the economics teachers are not good enough and second, most people aren't interested in economics and simply have iron-clad, mercantilist/marxist economic, beliefs.
Another example of said economic fallacy. The total wealth in this world has been increasing for decades now. The U.S. would, in fact, be wealthier if more countries in the world were richer. Because then these richer countries could buy more U.S. products and vice versa. It's a win-win situation not a zero-sum game.
We see such economic illogic in a different context as well, where one person/group's financial gains must come from the loss of another person/group.
Q. Why is it that when Christians are routinely savaged in the press, it's normal, but when Muslims or Islam is disparaged it's a crime?
A. That's because some religions are more equal than others.
Update: More discussion about this at LFG.
Here's a column by James Lileks about the Holiday-that-must-not-be-named. It's amazing that the Holiday-that-must-not-be-named has achieved swear status. Other religious holidays are fine but this one is just wrong but I've no problem with it.
Happy Holiday-that-must-not-be-named everyone.
Yes, the United States is moving towards fascism at an accelerated pace. Well, that's what is being said at Daily Kos. Now, if you think that we should dismiss this because it's not what the mainstream left thinks, then you'd be wrong. Daily Kos supported quite a few Democratic hopefuls for Congress and, you can see why, each and every one of them lost.
The Democrats and their hardcore supporters can say that Bush's domestic/foreign policies are wrong because of A, B, C, and D and we have better policies such as X, Y, and Z. Instead they say that Bush's tax policy favors the heartless and filthy rich, because of Bush we have the worst economy since the Great Depression, the Social Security privatization is going to kill old people, Bush let Osama escape from Tora Bora, Bush created a quagmire in Iraq, our soldiers are occupiers, the torture chambers in Iraq are now under U.S. management, the Iraq war was about OILLL, fake turkey, and of course Bush = Hitler. More than 90% of the Democratic platform is simply DEFEAT BUSH. Why would the majority of the voting population be inspired to vote for people who spew such rhetorical venom?
It's sadly ironic that the Left is, increasingly and de facto, pro-fascism because of it's opposition to the Iraq war.
I have lived in Saudi Arabia for most of my life but that's nothing compared to the terrible ordeal of Phillip Adam's early life, the poor soul.
Jonah Goldberg breaks the hearts of liberals by proclaiming that FDR is dead. The New Deal did not fix the U.S. economy. In fact, the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Policies such as high tax rates, not eliminating the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, and raising the minimum wage are not pro-growth. Sadly, these were some of the misguided policies of the FDR administration. Social Security, at the time of it's introduction, was manageable but now it's a fiscal nightmare. President Bush is finally going to tackle the problem. The Democrats should offer alternative solutions, instead of having meltdowns.
Thomas Sowell recommends different books as gifts. I've bookmarked the link for future reference.
I've been waiting to read Neal Stephenson's the Baroque Cycle for some time. I bought book 2 and book 3 off eBay, and soon I'll be getting the first book as well. My expectations are high because of the lavish praise this trilogy has received. I'll likely follow the trilogy with Cryptonomicon. If you enjoy science fiction, then these four books should be on your list as well.
Update: The Blogfather gives his recommendations as well.
Victor Davis Hanson writes about the credibility problem of the modern Left in his new essay titled Cracked Icons. He points out the absurdity of the Left being a, de facto, ally of the Islamists. He also talks about the prevalent anti-Semitism in the Muslim world. This sickness is actually taught in the Muslim religious, so called, schools. The Left, instead of condemning these Muslims, embraces them in the name of multiculturalism. Anyone in the West who points out the murderous ideology and hateful culture (for example: LFG) is branded a racist, Islamophobe, hatemonger, NAZI,... take your pick.
As long as the Left in the U.S. is represented by Michael "There is No Terrorist Threat" Moore, they will remain rightfully out of power.
I think Stephen W's idea, about solving terrorism, might be, um, counterproductive.
Via this post at LFG, comes the heartwarming story of an Iraqi girl who knows that Americans mean her no harm. This story reminds me of the Candy Bomber in post World War II Europe. How the kindness and compassion of that American must have changed young minds.
It is uplifting to read such stories in an increasingly anti-American world.
Recently, a feature in the LA Weekly was published about a White Muslim by Brendan Bernhard. It's quite chilling. The following is from Part 1 of that feature:
"Democracy is based on compromise,..., and Islam does not compromise. If he could vote for an Islamic state, he would, with Saudi Arabia as the model."
But, of course. A country where the punishment for stealing is having your hand chopped off and the possession of drugs, and yes alcohol is a drug, is punished by death is a model country. I can understand when people talk about Canada, Germany, Japan, or any Western country being better than the U.S. but this is simply unhinged. This is a complete and outright rejection of freedom.
The following is from Part 2:
"Two weeks after 9/11, Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, then the imam of the mosque on 96th Street, abruptly moved back to Cairo, where he promptly told the Arab media that Muslim children were being poisoned by Jewish doctors in American hospitals, and that Zionists had masterminded the attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon."
"When I asked Vincent what he thought about al-Yaqoubi’s statement, he answered, with a touch of defiance, that he felt just fine about it. "I do wish the American troops would be defeated,"..."
Anti-semitism is, sadly, mainstream in the Muslim community. It is not just limited to Cairo. I have personally heard and read about it in Pakistani newspapers, in Saudi Arabia and in Canada as well.
I still don't understand; why would someone be attracted to extremism and totalitarianism? How could someone grow up in a free society, a society where they're free to change their religion, and then reject that very freedom? Why, oh why, do people embrace murderous indeologies?
I have been reading blogs since the summer of 2002. The blog links on the right are my favorites and I highly recommend them. I was thinking about starting a blog since last month. Finally, I saw the sign and made the jump; thanks Pej.
Of course, Isaac Schrödinger is a pseudonym. There is a connection between these two men and myself. I will not divulge that connection yet.
The previous 10 posts are, 10 different, articles that I wrote over the past 5 months. The dates when they were actually written are given at the end of each post. So, you know the type of material that interests me. I'll likely write an article/essay once a week. You will see a lot of links to various blogs, articles, and essays as well.
Thanks for dropping by.
Update: Humble padawan I am.
I don't think so. My logic will be clear once the arguments/questions in bold are fisked/answered:
But, the minimum wage helps the poor earn more income.
Assume that you have a business and all your employees work at $5/hr. The government sets the minimum wage at $7/hr. Then, there are 4 ways you can deal with the minimum wage.
Notice that none of these 4 options is good for the business. In an economy where there are lots of businesses, some employees will be fired because of the minimum wage. The minimum wage ensures, in their case, that they make $0/hr. If the profits are reduced to the point where it's not worth it to continue the business, then in the end all the employees in that business will make $0/hr. The poor are, of course, hit the hardest by increased prices of the product(s).
But, the minimum wage insures that an employer won't take advantage of his employee(s).
This is a free market we're talking about here. Both the employer and the employee take advantage of each other and come to an agreement about the wage. The market decides the wage. Set the wage too low, and you won't have enough employees. Set it too high, and you'll be flooded with resumes. It's as simple as that. For example, the wage for working 8 hours a day in a shoe factory differs from market to market. In China, it would be close to $0.5/hr. Whereas, in the U.S. it would be something like $5/hr. If one were to have a minimum wage of $5/hr in China, most of the shoe factory workers would lose their jobs.
Why would the government keep on raising the minimum wage? Why doesn't the government just provide more welfare?
For politicians to provide more welfare means that they either have to cut spending or raise more revenue. For most politicians, revenues are increased when taxes are hiked and tax hikes are politically not popular. There is no cost for the politician who supports the minimum wage. The costs are incurred by the fired employees, the business itself, and the poor. The politician gets the support of the employees who've had their wages artificially increased. The workers who lost their jobs might put the blame on their heartless employer. It's an easy win for any politician.
Hmm,...
Hmm, indeed. The people who are hurt the most by the minimum wage are the poor. The poor workers are mostly unskilled. It's not helpful to make the entire economy off limits to them since any wage is better than none. A vast majority of workers don't perpetually work at the minimum wage. That job is usually their first. The experience and the discipline helps them to climb the financial ladder. At present, less than 3% of the labor force in the U.S. works at the minimum wage. If the minimum wage was not present, then more of the poor would be employed. That initial experience would help them to earn more in the future.
"[The minimum wage is] the most anti-black law on the books."
-- Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize in Economics (1976).
Government should have no business in enforcing a wage limit regardless of whether it's upper or lower. It distorts the free market. Some are paid more than they are worth, some become unnecessarily unemployed and some who might have gotten a job in the near future are left unemployed. The minimum wage hurts and, in some cases, destroys business. Therefore, the minimum wage is not a compassionate policy. Supporting the minimum wage might make you feel good but it's the result that matters. If you wish to help the poor, then think and don't support such feel-good laws.
Sources and further reading:
The Minimum Wage Good Intentions, Bad Results by Roger Koopman.
Minimum Wage Causes Maximum Pain.
The Sin of Wages by Steven E. Landsburg.
"Show Me The Money: The Minimum Wage Debate" at Uncommon Knowledge.
November 30, 2004.
In early November 2004, Yasser Arafat's condition improved and stabilized. He was dead. Arafish was responsible for creating tremendous misery for the Palestinians, more than any other person or entity.
Muhammed Amin al-Husseini was born in 1893. He was jailed in 1920, by the British, for instigating an Arab attack against Jews. He was made Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1922. He used propaganda and anti-semitism to kill Jews around Jerusalem. He even met, his ideological ally, Adolf.
"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. ... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz."
-- Dieter Wisliceny, Eichmann's deputy, at the Nuremberg Trials.
Of course, in the Muslim world, the Mufti was treated as a religious and political hero. He died in exile in 1974. His place, as hero, was taken by his nephew Mohammed Abdel [blah blah] al-Husseini, better known as Yasser Arafat.
Arafish, the moral monster, feasted off the suffering of the Palestinians. The U.S. and the EU gave his government hundreds of millions of dollars every year during the 90s. Where did the money go? The money went to his bank accounts and cronies. The Palestinians suffered as the sole representative of the Palestinians continually raped them.
Arafish was a brutal dictator. He was elected, in the same sense as Saddam Hussein, by thuggery. He won because he had the most guns and ammo. Summary executions for anyone thought to be an Israeli spy (anyone who criticized him) were quite common. It is sickening to see his glorification by the international media. Example CNN. Then, there is always France.
Arafish cultivated the anti-semitism of the Palestinians. The rest of the dictators of the Middle East enthusiastically supported him. These dictators directed their state-controlled newspapers and television channels to blame Israel for the misery of the Palestinians. The Arabs in the Middle East, as a result, see Israelis as blood thirsty Muslim killers. The majority of Arabs see Israel defending itself as aggression while a suicide bombing on a school bus is considered kosher. That is Arafish's legacy.
Even Saddam, a secular socialist, understood the Arab hatred of Israel. He got a lot of Arab street cred, by firing 39 scud missiles into Israel, in 1991. Today, the majority of the Arab world would want Hamas, a terrorist organization, to replace Arafish.
All Arafish wanted was the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and all of Israel. He didn't mention, in English, that he wanted Israel. He always stated the "the right of return" for the Palestinians. This "right" allows about 3 million Palestinians to enter Israel as citizens. Arafish failed because he never achieved his dream; the destruction of Israel. Israel is prospering and continues to defend itself from barbarians. Whereas, Arafish rots in hell alongside his uncle.
Sources and further reading:
Arafat the monster by Jeff Jacoby.
Arafat's Legacy by Charles Krauthammer.
The man who "was always right" by Gene at Harry's Place.
Who was the Grand Mufti, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini?
A Gangster With Politics by Bret Stephens.
Arafat's Bedroom Farce by Daniel Pipes.
A rant by David Warren.
Arafat's Swiss Bank Account by Issam Abu Issa.
Thoughts on Arafat, Palestine and Events in Ramallah by Athena.
November 27, 2004.
Only two Democratic presidents, FDR and LBJ, have received a higher percentage of the popular vote than George W. Bush. Bush increased his share of the vote in at least 45 states since 2000. Bush won over 60 million votes, more than any president before him. The Republicans gained seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives. By any measure, George W. Bush is the most powerful Republican president in history.
Bush has a long history of lousy opposition. It is baffling to see his opponents misunderestimating him in 2004.
"I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot."
-- John F. Kerry, April 2004
Just wait till John "Jeb" Bush runs; he's the smart one. Seriously, it is one thing to call your opponent names but quite another to actually believe it yourself. It is sad that now, after the election, the liberals are saying that the people who voted for Bush are idiots, rednecks, ignorant, and fundamentalist Christians. I am sure that the increasing number of women, Jews, and hispanics, who voted for Bush, find this analysis amusing. The GOP did not only increase the turnout but also broadened the Republican base. Unfortunately for Democrats, the vile Moore wishes to tweak the temperature, at which truth burns, by 0.5 degrees. Moore wants to make sure that America elects a new Republican president in 2008. Best of luck to him.
Bush will soon start spending his political capital. There will be tax reform. A flat tax would be ideal but most likely we'll see two, perhaps three, income tax rates, down from the six we have now. Young Americans will be allowed to set aside a small percentage of their Social Security money for investments. There will be portable health savings accounts. When it comes to the public education system, the only way we'll have progress there is when the teacher's labor union has less power. The proper choice for parents is between private education and home schooling. The latter being the better option. Judges and the Supreme Court? The Bush administration is going to be very sly and get what they want.
I think Bush will be able to implement most of his domestic agenda. There are a few Southern Democratic senators who'll be up for re-election in 2006 and it doesn't make sense for them to oppose most of Bush's domestic agenda. This assumes that they have learned from the political fiascos over the past few election cycles. If the Democrats take the Daschle route again, then they'll lose even more seats in Congress in 2006.
The Bush Doctrine is finally set in stone. Syria and Iran have tried mightily to turn Iraq into hell. In direct battles the worst kill ratio for Americans vs. Islamists is 1:25. That's historically impressive for urban warfare. The MSM, which seems to have little to no perspective, have termed Iraq a quagmire, a mess at best. Thousands of Americans died at Omaha Beach in the very first day of battle in 1944, and overall, 29 thousand Americans died in the Battle for Normandy. Yet, it was a success. The U.S. liberates 55 million people while losing less than 1500 brave men and women but it's a disaster. No wonder the credibility of the MSM is in the toilet.
Bush's opponents play checkers whereas the Bush administration plays chess. The Architect has a fine mind indeed. If the trend continues, then there'll be more misery for Democrats in two years. Assad will be having nightmares and the Moollahs might get their raisins. When and how that will happen depends on Bush's strategery and tactics. The Battle for Afghanistan is over, the Battle for Iraq is in it's concluding stages, the Battle for Middle East has just begun.
Further reading:
A Message to Liberals by Frank J.
An illuminating interview with John F. Kerry by Jeff Goldstein.
November 20, 2004.
“The jihad has come to the Netherlands.”
-- Jozias van Aartsen, parliamentary leader of the Liberals.
The jihad has been in the Netherlands for a long time Mr. Aartsen. It is only now that the Dutch society is starting to acknowledge it.
Theo Van Gogh made a short movie titled Submission in collaboration with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim and a present member of the Dutch parliament. In it's short running time of 11 minutes, Theo scathingly depicted the life of a woman in Muslim society. Theo had the courage to show the truth rather than be a multicultural boob. The card carrying members of the religion of peace were not happy with Submission. Theo had touched a nerve.
"..the oppression of women by Muslim men in Western Europe gives those men at the same time a sexual partner, a domestic servant, and a gratifying sense of power, while allowing them also to live an otherwise westernized life."
-- Theodore Dalrymple
November 15, 2004
Mr. Dalrymple forgets that this kind of behavior is sanctioned by the religion of peace. If one is critical of such attitudes towards women, then that amounts to criticizing the religion itself. The fact that Theo did it so openly and unabashedly meant that he deserved punishment. On the morning of November 2nd, as Theo was on his bicycle, the demented Mohammed shot him, and then sawed through his neck with a butcher knife. The murderer then stabbed a note on Theo's chest, threatening members of the parliament. On November 2nd, 2004, there was a mini Fallujah in the Netherlands. Theo will not be the last one to die, at the hand of Islamists, for using his freedom of speech. Islamists are not limited by geography as the following demonstrates.
"Hell lives for the infidels! Down with all democracies and all democrats!"
-- A preacher at the Mevlana Mosque in Berlin's Kreuzberg district, in the film made by Germany's ZDF public TV"Islamists in Germany approved of [van Gogh's] murder and many of them actually cheered it."
-- Udo Ulfkotte, a German journalist
These Islamists are the present enemies of Western Civilization. Any system made by man is the antithesis of their religious wet dreams. Countries like Canada, France, and Spain who think that the Islamists will leave them alone are going to be hit with the sledgehammer of reality soon. It is extremely naive to think that this present war is between the United States and Al Qaeda. It's, in fact, all Western countries vs. the Islamists. It is no doubt very tough because the Islamists live in our midst. Western countries must use profiling, using factors such as religion, nationality, race, sex, and age, to catch the Islamists and reduce the threat domestically. For the long run, they should rhetorically and substantially support the U.S. in World War IV. Perpetually scolding the U.S., like France and Germany have done, will not buy any country safety.
Sources and further reading:
How Enlightenment Dies by Andrew Stuttaford at NRO.
Why Theo Van Gogh was Murdered by Theodore Dalrymple.
Jihad wrecks Dutch race harmony by Matthew Campbell.
How do you say "Let's roll!" in Dutch? by Sissy Willis.
Religious violence in Netherlands alarms Germany by Expatica.
After Van Gogh by The Economist.
Reactions escalate in Islam debate by the Copenhagen Post online.
Orthodox Jew shot dead in Antwerp by Ronit Sela.
November 19, 2004.
“I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as a crime.”
-- Peter Hansen, head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)
October 3, 2004 on Canada's CBC
Yes, Peter Hansen thinks that a terrorist organization which seeks to annihilate Israel is kosher. Here, the UN has no problem hiring the modern day Nazis. Make no mistake, Hamas members want the Holocaust of the 21st century.
This is not just my opinion. The U.S. has Hamas on it's list of terrorist organizations. So does Canada and the EU. It is sickening to see someone justify this asininity by saying that Hamas also does humanitarian work. Of course, Hamas members are charitable terrorists. You can see some of their work here: http://www.haganah.us/harchives/003043.html
So, a suicide bomber is a hero and has a spot reserved in heaven. The picture above, caption translated from Arabic, appeared in Hamas children's newspaper Alfatah of September 22, 2004. This is the kind of vile propaganda that is fed to Palestinian kids. Think about it. The surest way for a female to achieve stardom in that sexist society is to kill Jews and herself.
Peter Hansen doesn't wish to be judgmental. Sadly, this logic leads to blaming Israel when she targets Hamas. If Hamas members are just compassionate folk doing charity work, then Israel should be condemned when they attack Hamas. And so they are. It gives one the scope of anti-semitism in this world when Israel is rhetorically lynched for killing Hamas leaders and no fuss is made when the UN hires neo-Nazis.
In a different context, and using this same logic, we'll see that the U.S. attacking Fallujah is an act of terror whereas the "insurgents" beheading innocents is a legitimate act of resistance.
Canada gives $10 million annually to the UNRWA. Why do so many Canadians respect the UN? More importantly why should the U.S. grovel for support from this modern monstrosity?
Sources:
Peter Hansen quote, and the $10 million figure via LFG.
Info about that lovely picture from Israel Insider.
November 07, 2004.
John F. Kerry
Weak, wishy-washy, undisciplined, and liberal. These are some of the words that I associate with Senator Kerry who, by the way, served in Vietnam. His almost 20 year record in the U.S. senate is not very distinguished. His only distinction, if one wishes to call it that, is that he is more liberal than Ted Kennedy.
Today, a week before the U.S. election, we know via LFG, that Senator Kerry will put more pressure on Israel, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Yes, let's lump Israel with a Baathist dictatorship and the desert version of Mordor.
It has been amazing to witness Senator Kerry's complete transformation from being pro-war and anti-Saddam to being anti-war and, in effect, pro-Saddam in less than a year. Let's quote him:
"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- Senator John Kerry During a Democratic Primary Debate at the University of South Carolina May 3, 2003
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President. No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars." -- Senator John Kerry Speech at Drake University in Iowa December 16, 2003
Wow, no one should doubt that we are safer. Okay. Let's quote him again:
"It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." -- Senator John Kerry August 6, 2004
So, is making America safer wrong? No need to answer that, it's a rhetorical question. The more interesting question is why did Senator Kerry, ahem, flip-flop? The answer is simple. He couldn't have beaten Howard Dean who was getting great raves from the anti-war base. Thus, the democratic base demands it's candidate to be anti-war. Of course, Senator Kerry obliged.
Senator Kerry has tried mightily to separate the war on terror from the Iraq war. Let's quote a principled democrat:
"We have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq. Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam." -- Senator Joseph Lieberman In a Wall Street Journal editorial Lieberman authored titled: "Why Democrats Should Support the President on Iraq" October 7, 2002
Senator Lieberman was the best democratic candidate for President. He understood that Iraq had links with terrorists. Senator Kerry either doesn't know or ignores the links. But, at least, Senator Kerry is a nice guy.
"I don't fall down," the "son of a bitch knocked me over." -- Senator John Kerry after falling when a Secret Service Agent accidentally got in his way March 19, 2004
Bursting with class.
George W. Bush
Strong, resolute, religious, and radically conservative. History will view him very favorably. It's surprising that his opponents don't. One constant in his entire political career is that he is misunderestimated. Bush is an idiot. He wins the election to become governor of Texas in 1994. Bush is a dunce. He wins re-election by almost 70% of the vote in 1998. Bush is a yokel. Bush wins the U.S. Presidential election against the creator of the Internet. Bush is a moron. Bush helps the Republicans win back the Senate and add seats to the House in 2002.
It is impressive to see a guy like Bush reach ever higher political heights while his opponents call him dumb. Sure, he has a problem with syntax but his meaning is always clear. For example, here's how Bush put it after 9/11:
"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." -- George W. Bush September 13, 2001
Churchill would have smiled at that sentence. In, perhaps, the greatest speech of his life, Bush said the following:
"These terrorists...we have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." -- George W. Bush September 20, 2001
One of the biggest criticisms of his administration is that they are disrespectful towards the world, and unilateral when taking on Iraq. Question: How many countries does one need for an action to be not unilateral? No, that is not a rhetorical question. Bush unilaterally went to war with over 30 countries providing support. If Senator Kerry added Russia, China, and France, then the war would be multilateral? Please.
"America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." -- George W. Bush January 20, 2004
Incredible, Bush pre-empted the Global Test by over 6 months.
On November 2, 2004, the American people have a choice between the Royal Flopper and the Texan Cowboy. I have faith in their collective rationality and bet that the Cowboy is going to pass the American Test.
Quotes in this article were taken from the following places: Freedom Agenda Right Wing News; Kerry Right Wing News; Bush
October 26, 2004.
We should reject the Western ideas and cleanse ourselves of it's depravity. We should embrace our glorious religion in it's pure form. Only then will we rise again as a world power. The Americans and, of course, the Jews will tremble at our mighty sight and then we shall destroy them and rightfully rule over all. Inshallah.
We have heard such logic before. The foreigners don't have our interests at heart. They are here to rape us. We should get rid of them. The communists in our midst don't care about us either. What did you expect from Karl Marx who was, of course, a Jew? We cannot regain our glorious past till we kill these vermin. Heil.
There are some in our midst who would bring great harm to our system. It is our duty to put them away. These preachers of false religions should not be allowed to corrupt our rich society, comrades. These Kulaks will be "taught" to work for all of society.
We know where such logic leads. In 1933, the Nazis opened the first concentration camp in Germany. In 1936, the Nazis took over the Rhineland. In 1938, Germany announced a union with Austria. In March of 1939, the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia. The rest of the world did nothing. And then on September 1, 1939, Hitler opened the gates of hell on Poland. Hitler finally had the means to match his will.
In June of 1941, Hitler sent forth three armies, a million men each, to invade the Soviet Union. It was the courage of Churchill, the perseverance of the allies, especially the United States, and massive sacrifices by the Russians that destroyed Hitler. Of the 3.3 million Jews in Poland, only 0.3 million survived.
Stalin and his thugs used the same logic. Killing those who didn't agree with him. Stripping families of their property and wealth. Implementing 5 year economic plans which had no basis in reality. Jailing engineers and scientists for not fulfilling the ridiculous economic plans. Sending prisoners to brutally cold locations to perform slave labor. Terrorizing the entire nation in the 30s. Mindless torturing of prisoners. Keeping Eastern Europe under it's boot for over four decades. Providing subsidies to other friendly governments and attempting to start revolutions where possible. And, of course, rounding up and killing Jews in the late 40s and early 50s. All for the common good.
Nazis and Communists had the same logic for achieving their goal. They both wanted absolute power, and were not satisfied with the control of their own country. They both crushed freedom in their paths. Islamism is the heir to these two murderous anti-semitic ideologies.
From MEMRI: "In summary, the Arabs will never have honor, unity, and strength until they return to the fulfillment of the Islamic Shari'a. Then they will speak with one voice, the Arabs will unite, and they will be under one banner, the banner of: 'There is no God other than Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet.'" This picture is quite precise.
Islamists are even more totalitarian than Nazis and Communists. Again from MEMRI: "It is impossible to make peace with the Jews", "Muslims must educate their children to Jihad... and to hatred of Jews and Christians", "Muslim women's rights are a western ploy to destroy Islam".
There can be no peace between the Islamists and us. The Islamists are in a perpetual war against us. Their hatred is red hot. They fortunately don't have the means to match their hatred. They must be destroyed before they do.
August 23, 2004.
Economics departments in universities hire new professors mainly for their abilities in research. Usually these professors teach a course or two during a semester. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a correlation between being a good researcher and a good teacher. But, what exactly is "good" teaching?
Let's start with examples of bad teaching. The teaching here is restricted to the undergraduate level. This one aloof professor would walk in the class, a few minutes late, and then promptly start writing on the board without any notes. In a few seconds, you realized that he is re-writing the same material from the week before. And he made two new mistakes.
You have your second test coming up. Assignments 4 to 8 should be covered for the test. The day before the test the teacher hands back the marked copies of assignment 3. You pick up the rest of the marked assignments after the final exam.
There was this one case where the teacher simply refused to "teach". We should answer the questions by ourselves. Never mind that we came up with different solutions. We simply didn't know who was correct or if we were all wrong. During office hours, one student went to this professor for help. The reply; you should've known that a month ago and, yes, do that yourself.
Sometimes, we just don't understand the professor. The meaning is lost in translation. English is not their first language or second. This is more often the case with tutors.
Names will not be mentioned to protect the innocent, or rather the guilty. One exception though. William Scarth. He is the quintessential example of an excellent teacher. I once missed the first class in one of his courses but made it to the second one. The next day, I met him at his office and told him the situation. My God, he replied, you missed half the course. He then photocopied the notes for me and gave me the lecture as well which took about 45 minutes. I have come across only two other teachers in my life who teach with such care and consideration.
So, a good teacher is well-organized, doesn't repeat himself, gives assignments and tests back on time, does in fact "teach", and speaks crisp english. The only tool used to see how good a teacher is, is the teacher evaluation at the end of the semester. One major flaw exists in this method. The teacher can teach fluffy material throughout the semester and get high marks by the students at the end of the semester. These students suffer, however, when they reach upper-year courses and are not very knowledgeable.
How do you differentiate between good and bad teachers? A proactive student can point that out. Also, an environment where students can anonymously tell the department about such matters would help. Bad teachers are present everywhere. A student, quite publicly, pointed one out at Harvard University. That teacher was soon replaced.
Other aspects that should be taken into consideration: marks on assignments, tests, and exams, and especially peer review. The peer review minimizes the chances of a teacher teaching fluffy material. This way of evaluating a teacher will, of course, require time and effort but quality always does.
Further reading:
World's Greatest University, World's Worst Teachers by Arianne R. Cohen.
August 17, 2004.
The following conversation took place in Saudi Arabia in the summer of 2002. It includes myself (IS), my dad's friend (DF), and his son (FS).
[START]
DF: They found out that the guy is a Muslim, and automatically he's a...
FS: A terrorist.
DF: Yeah, a terrorist.
IS: He fired shots at LAX. What do you think you'd call him?
DF: There are other crimes that occur. Those criminals aren't called terrorists. Only Muslims are terrorists in the West.
IS: Well, on 9/11, all the terrorists were Muslim.
DF: How do you know that?
IS: How do I know what?
FS: How do you know that the people who carried out the attacks on 9/11 were Muslim?
IS: The passengers on the planes made calls on their cell phones. They told their loved ones about the hijacking. That's how the people on the fourth plane knew that their plane will be crashed and they tried unsuccessfully to stop that. Plus, the airlines have the names of these hijackers on file. So, not much doubt that they were Muslim.
DF: What does that have to do with the war in Afghanistan?
IS: I don't understand the question?
DF: Why attack Afghanistan? Why go after Osama?
IS: Because he planned/financed the 9/11 attacks.
FS: Where is the proof that Osama did that?
DF: So, a guy in a place like Afghanistan is responsible for 9/11. Why couldn't the U.S., the superpower that it is, stop the attacks?
IS: How do you stop a hijacking? The police can't help you in the air. Osama was, on tape, gloating about the success of his attacks. Isn't that proof enough?
FS: The U.S. can make a tape like that with actors. They have the technology to do so.
IS: ....[hopeless]....
DF: The real reason the Americans went to war in Afghanistan was to destroy the Islamic state. The Americans can't stand the fact that a pure Islamic state was formed in Afghanistan under the Taliban. They, the Taliban, have suffered setbacks but one day they will rise again and there will be Islamic law over Afghanistan. One day, they will return.
[silence]
DF: So, do you think the U.S. will go to war with Iraq?
IS: Yes.
DF: It's all about the OILLL. What do you think?
IS: I don't think it's about the oil. Saddam's time is up.
DF: Man, you support the Americans on everything. You're practically an American.
IS: Hunh.
[END]
One small detail about my dad's friend. He applied for U.S. citizenship for himself and his family in the 90s. Most of his family has green cards. FS goes to college in the U.S. These people want a good life for themselves and their family while simultaneously trashing the country that provided them that. The level of perverseness, hypocrisy, and ingratitude in that conversation was nauseating. Sadly, this kind of illogic is mainstream in the Muslim world.
August 15, 2004.
Update :: November 08, 2004:
Young Arab Sentiment by Athena in Jordan at Terrorism Unveiled.
Freedom. The people of Eastern Europe could finally taste it after November 9, 1989. In the next few weeks and months the Soviet Union would crumble on its rotten foundations. The Union's demise was accelerated by Reagan's policies. The U.S. would enter the 1990s as the most economically, culturally, and militarily powerful country in civilization.
The 90s would produce more than 19 million new jobs in the U.S. which is more than that were created in Europe and Japan combined. The U.S. has more billionaires than the rest of the world. The U.S., at the end of the 90s, had the highest average income in the world except for two countries; Luxembourg and San Marino which have a total population of under half a million combined. The total output of the U.S. economy was close to 10 trillion dollars. There are more U.S. dollars outside the U.S. than in the country.
Such unrivaled economic power did not always exist in the U.S. It took well over a 100 years since 1776 for the U.S. to be even considered as a major power. After WWII, most of Europe was rubble. The Soviet Union had it's eyes on Western Europe but the U.S. had the bomb. The U.S. defended Western Europe by having tens of thousands of troops stationed there. The U.S. remodeled German and Japanese societies to be democracies and stationed troops in them for insurance. Ever wonder why Japan and Germany are the 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the world?
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, federalism, independent judiciary, religious tolerance, gender equality, the acceptance of Jews, and rugged individualism are the reasons for American power. However, the path to success has been painful. The Civil War almost tore apart the country in the 1860s. Almost a century later, President Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne Division to an Arkansas school to make sure that black students would be allowed to enter. Today, the freest and richest group of blacks live in the U.S.
Intellectuals considers American culture unrefined, crass, and vulgar. The majority of the world digs it. From McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, and Pizza Hut in deserts and cities across the globe to reruns of Friends and Disney cartoons in Hindi, Spanish, and countless other languages. A studio puts up 300 million dollars for a movie trilogy and then the world watches in amazement as J.R.R. Tolkien's classic comes alive on celluloid. Where there's a city, there's IBM, Nike, Schwarzenegger, Intel, Marlboro, Microsoft, Electronic Arts and countless other American brands.
As a result of it's colossal power, the U.S. fields the most well trained, disciplined and lethal military on Earth. In the early 90s, Saddam Hussain's immense and mediocre military was utterly crushed in Kuwait by the U.S. armed forces.
The technology used by the U.S. military is incomparable. M1A2 Abrams tanks, AH-64 Apache helicopters, F-18 Super Hornets, B-2 Spirits, Trident submarines with Trident II D-5 missiles, and 9 Nimitz-class nuclear powered super aircraft carriers are the perfect examples of such awesome technology.
What is most impressive is that the U.S. military is manned by a volunteer professional force. They volunteer to wake up in a desert in a pool of their sweat. They volunteer to embrace the stratosphere at super sonic speeds. They volunteer to spend months surrounded by hundreds of miles of ocean. They volunteer to leave a life of leisure. They volunteer to leave behind their loved ones. For as long as America produces men and women like these, the U.S. will remain the preeminent nation for decades to come.
August 14, 2004.