Christ, What an Asshole - Cheap Political Points Edition
Published by BG on Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 12:35 PM.wcbstv.com - Thousands Honor South Carolina Firefighters
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the (funeral) gathering that the nine firefighters "demonstrated the same bravery our nation witnessed on Sept. 11."
"The tragedy of Monday reminds us that we live in a world in which danger is all around us," he said.
Here's how that last sentence finishes, transcribed from the opening of last night's "Countdown" on MSNBC:
"...we live in a world in which danger is all around us - from accidents, to natural disasters, to deliberate acts of terror."
Yes, that's right. A tragedy in a sofa warehouse fire is used by the Department of Homeland Security to score cheap political points by reminding us that YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN ARE NOT SAFE. Unless, of course, you trust the DHS.
All your freedom are belong to us.
How is this remotely motherfucking appropriate?
Powered by ScribeFire.
Why Can't Johnny Legislate?
Published by BG on Friday, June 22, 2007 at 7:34 AM.Daily Kos: Are You "Aye" or "Nay" on Congress?
Here are the results of six congressional job approval polls taken so far in June:
Newsweek (6/18-19): 25% approve; 63% disapprove
Gallup (6/11-14): 24% approve; 71% disapprove
NBC/WSJ (6/08-11): 23% approve; 64% disapprove
Quinnipiac (6/05-11): 23% approve; 66% disapprove
LA Times/Bloomberg (6/07-10): 27% approve; 65% disapprove
FOX News (6/05-6): 29% approve; 55% disapprove
ABC/Washington Post (5/29-6/1): 39% approve; 53% disapprove
[snip]
If you disapprove of what Congress is doing, is that because you think it ought to be drafting impeachment charges, running more investigations, flying troops home in private jets, passing reproductive rights legislation, or what?
Yes.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Oh, Come On - Residual Forces Edition
Published by BG on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 9:51 PM.Firedoglake - Firedoglake weblog » Why a Democratic President Might Keep Troops in Iraq
The way that Obama, Edwards, and Clinton ought to frame their stances, to avoid boxing themselves in on either side, is not by promising to keep troops in Iraq or to take all of them out. Rather (as I’ve been trying to say for two years now), we need to reinstate the Powell Doctrine, which used to be the essential contract between our government and a volunteer military. If there’s a mission that we can be essentially certain of accomplishing with minimal casualties — and clear ground rules for when that situation no longer holds — then I’m fine with some troops remaining in Iraq. If not, then every last one should come home. That’s a simple standard I think voters across the political spectrum will find easy to grasp.
Does someone smarter than me want to explain this? I'm reading it as, "so long as what we're doing is easy, then okay - but the minute our military involvement gets complicated, get them the hell out of there." What exactly am I missing?
Powered by ScribeFire.
Just Now, On The Girly Internet Chat Thingy
Published by BG on at 6:57 PM.[18:53] CJ: hmmm... neither you or I got the Obama dinner party right
[18:53] CJ: it was kinda down the middle
[18:53] BG: dude, they were cherry picked for sure
[18:53] CJ: yeah, they were cherry-picked, but not because of how much they gave
[18:53] CJ: I didn't think about the other reason to cherry pick
[18:53] BG: i'm just ashamed that the obama campaign couldn't find a handicapped inuit lesbian to add to the dinner
[18:53] CJ: it was kinda down the middle
[18:53] BG: dude, they were cherry picked for sure
[18:53] CJ: yeah, they were cherry-picked, but not because of how much they gave
[18:53] CJ: I didn't think about the other reason to cherry pick
[18:53] BG: i'm just ashamed that the obama campaign couldn't find a handicapped inuit lesbian to add to the dinner
Powered by ScribeFire.
Brown Trouts on a Muthafuckin' Plane!
Published by Human Head on at 4:24 PM.Way worse than snakes.
Airline apologizes for sewage on plane
Airline apologizes for sewage on plane
"I've never felt so offended in all my life," passenger Collin Brock of Washington state told Seattle's KING-TV. "I felt like I had been physically abused and neglected. I was forced to sit next to human excrement for seven hours."
DEMOCRATIC Culture of Corruption? Try Again.
Published by BG on at 4:06 PM.Michelle Malkin » The Democrat culture of corruption, Part 10,001
An ex-New Orleans school board president has pleaded guilty to accepting $140,000 in bribes from a local businessman in exchange for promoting and approving a software education program for the parish schools. Who was the accused briber?
[snip]
While court documents did not name the businessman, an article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune quoted sources as saying it was Mose Jefferson, brother of indicted Congressman William Jefferson.
Sure, blame Democrats and let Momma Jefferson totally off the hook for raising two boys who know the value of a good bribe...
Powered by ScribeFire.
From My Email - Obama Campaign Picks Four For Dinner
Published by BG on at 3:10 PM.Remember the gimmick where a donation to the Obama campaign put you in a pool to possibly be selected for a dinner meeting with Obama? I thought it'd work best as a gimmick if it had the minimum appearance of being random, CJ was more cynical.
CJ was more correct. Feel free to say, "I told you so" in comments.
Here are Barack Obama's "Dinner for Five" guests - in order, a black woman, a hispanic male, a white woman from the South, and a white guy from out West:
CJ was more correct. Feel free to say, "I told you so" in comments.
Here are Barack Obama's "Dinner for Five" guests - in order, a black woman, a hispanic male, a white woman from the South, and a white guy from out West:
Margaret Thomas-Jordan, Gonzales LA
Margaret is a working mother of two boys, age nineteen months and eleven years, and she is attending school to become a nurse. Margaret's husband was shipped to Iraq last month and he is currently serving a fifteen-month tour. Health care costs have grown especially difficult for Margaret, and she is struggling with access to health care because she does not qualify as a traditional student. She writes, "I have not always been where I am today. I encountered a lot of struggles when I was a single mother with one child on my own trying to finish college." She supports Barack in part because "he has faced some of the everyday struggles that a lot of Americans have faced. He's looking at the whole picture."
Haile Rivera, Bronx NY
Haile works as a community program specialist with the Food Bank for New York City, which includes work with food pantries, youth programs and soup kitchens. In his spare time, he founded "Hands on New York," a non-profit organization getting school-age kids involved in civics. As someone who works with poor and underprivileged people, he is chiefly concerned with unemployment and the pressing need to revitalize inner-city schools. Barack's message -- particularly his position that we need to reform No Child Left Behind -- resonates deeply with Haile. He has followed politics for a long time, but never felt that a candidate was "as fresh or as real as Obama." That's why he donated for the first time in his life to a Presidential candidate. "I believe in Barack's vision for the American people," he says.
Jennifer Lasko, Lake Worth FL
Jennifer Lasko is a firefighter and paramedic whose "political views have changed dramatically over the years." She's grown fed up with "conservatives who treat politics like a game they're trying to win, instead of worrying about whether the policies are right or wrong." Back in college, she volunteered with the College Republicans on behalf of Ronald Reagan, but now says that she "wasn't mature enough to understand the consequences of politics -- and unfortunately many others haven't grown up since then." As a Veteran, she's very concerned about the effect of the Iraq war on our military, and frustrated by a sense that some politicians defend the war "just so they don't have to admit that they were wrong." She likes Barack Obama because "he brings a non-divisive approach to politics, trying to find the right answer -- not picking an ideological answer and defending that right or wrong."
Michael Griffith, Fernley NV
Michael is a miner in western Nevada. Michael operates heavy machinery and his health care costs have tripled over recent years. This is Michael's first time participating, in politics and he feels that as his family grew, so did his concern with the direction of the country. "I used to not follow politics as much," says Michael, "but once I had a family I started to care because I realized that politics affects my children's future." Michael read Barack's latest book and was inspired by his "honesty and openness." He thinks "people who stay in Washington too long seem to get corrupted," and he wants a leader who can clean up politics and represent working people.
Powered by ScribeFire.
2Q Fundraising Projections from The Atlantic
Published by BG on at 12:54 PM.Marc Ambinder - The Atlantic
The Democrats:
Sen. Barack Obama: $28M-$35M
-- only a very few Obama staffers have access to estimates, and they're not talking
-- almost entirely primary money
-- cash on hand should be north of $32M
Sen. Hillary Clinton: $26M-28M
-- The primary/general election ratio will be around 5 to 1).
-- Projected cash on hand should be north of $40M
Ex-Sen. John Edwards: $8.5M-11M
-- virtually all for the primary
-- cash on hand should be greater than $15M
Gov. BIll Richardson: $3-7M
Sen. Joe Biden: $3-5M
Sen. Chris Dodd: $2-M
The Republicans:
Gov. Mitt Romney: $17M-20M
-- Romney did NOT have the highest burn rate, contrary to what I wrote earlier. He spent the most money, but his burn rate was well below that of Sen. John McCain's. I'll assume the 50% rate held through the second quarter, so he's in reasonably good shape if he has more than $18M in reserves.
Ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani: $14M-17M
-- cash on hand should be north of $16M assuming a burn rate of less than 50%
Sen. John McCain: $13M-15M
-- cash on hand should be north of $14M assuming a burn rate of less than 50%
Gov. Mike Huckabee: $2M-4M
Powered by ScribeFire.
Just Making Sure We're All Clear on What Happened, That's All...
Published by Pokerwolf on at 12:02 PM.
Operation Arrowhead Ripper: Day One - Michael Yon
This is how the people the U.S. military is currently fighting operate. Just so we're clear on why civilians are dying.
One more thing:
Just so we're clear on things.
Civilian casualties are occurring, despite much discretion being used on the firing. I saw three MLRS rockets hit targets downtown today (June 20) and more were fired. Watched the video feed from the TOC as some of them hit. The targeting was perfect. Our guys had cleared out the civilians, but the enemy starts shootouts using civilians as cover. American officers are trying to account for civilian casualties; media is asking and command is still unable to answer, which of course looks like a cover-up. From what I see on the ground, there is no cover-up. The number is unknown but certainly there must be some.
This is how the people the U.S. military is currently fighting operate. Just so we're clear on why civilians are dying.
One more thing:
A positive indicator on the 19th and the 20th is that most local people apparently are happy that al Qaeda is being trapped and killed. Civilians are pointing out IEDs and enemy fighters, so that’s not working so well for al Qaeda. Clearly, I cannot do a census, but that says something about the locals.
Just so we're clear on things.
The "Liberal" Media
Published by Pokerwolf on at 11:57 AM.
Political Animal: Giuliani Follow-up - Washington Monthly
I'm rather surprised at this myself. Most news outlets look for shocking headlines, so why wouldn't they go after Giuliani over completely ignoring an important study group dealing with what is the biggest issue in a lot of voters' minds?
Remember that Newsday story from yesterday about Rudy Giuliani getting kicked off the Iraq Study Group because he couldn't find the time in his busy schedule to attend their meetings? You could be excused if you don't, since apparently no one in our press corps considered either the news itself or Giuliani's laughable explanation for his absences to be worth commenting on.
A quick Nexis search shows that among the mainstream media, the New York Times wrote a short piece, and the Kansas City Star and Chicago Tribune carried brief blurbs. That's it. On TV, Olberman discussed it, but no one else.
I'm keenly aware that an awful lot of blog criticism of the mainstream media is basically just partisan sniping. But is this seriously not considered news? A guy who's running for president based on his reputation as a hero of 9/11 was given a seat on the highest profile group ever created to investigate a way forward in Iraq, but he decided it wasn't worth his time? He blew off James Baker and Lee Hamilton so that he could give speeches in South Korea and attend fundraisers for Ralph Reed in Atlanta? And the consensus reaction is a big yawn?
I'm rather surprised at this myself. Most news outlets look for shocking headlines, so why wouldn't they go after Giuliani over completely ignoring an important study group dealing with what is the biggest issue in a lot of voters' minds?
Bomb Them Into Smithereens?
Published by BG on at 11:57 AM.Dead Kids and the Cost of Doing Business
Published by BG on at 11:11 AM.From the comments responding to Human Head's post about children as civilian casualties:
Verbosities - Comments
Two days later...
NBC: Attack that killed kids targeted al-Qaida leader - MSNBC.com
Just making sure we're all clear on what happened, that's all...
Verbosities - Comments
Funny how you ignore this part of the article.
"We are truly sorry for the innocent lives lost in this attack," said Army Major Chris Belcher, a coalition spokesman, in a statement. "We had surveillance on the compound all day and saw no indications there were children inside the building."
The statement said children who survived Sunday's raid said insurgents had forced pupils to stay inside the madrasa. The White House accused the Taliban of using human shields."
Of course, that may make the terrorists look bad. -- StB -- 06.18.07 - 8:59 pm
Two days later...
NBC: Attack that killed kids targeted al-Qaida leader - MSNBC.com
According to several officials, and contrary to previous statements, the U.S. military knew there were children at the compound but considered the target of such high value it was worth the risk of potential collateral damage.
Just making sure we're all clear on what happened, that's all...
Powered by ScribeFire.
Cheney Tells Waxman To "Suck It"
Published by BG on at 10:55 AM.Vice President Exempts His Office from the Requirements for Protecting Classified Information :: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform :: United States House of Representatives
The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”
As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President's position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President's staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President's executive order.
I dunno why I find this so funny, but here we are...
Powered by ScribeFire.
Call Me Cynical - Carving Out Space For GOP Hypocrisy
Published by BG on at 10:22 AM.Imperial presidency declared null and void | Salon.com
In private, Bush administration sub-Cabinet officials who have been instrumental in formulating and sustaining the legal "war paradigm" acknowledge that their efforts to create a system for detainees separate from due process, criminal justice and law enforcement have failed. One of the key framers of the war paradigm (in which the president in his wartime capacity as commander in chief makes and enforces laws as he sees fit, overriding the constitutional system of checks and balances), who a year ago was arguing vehemently for pushing its boundaries, confesses that he has abandoned his belief in the whole doctrine, though he refuses to say so publicly. If he were to speak up, given his seminal role in formulating the policy and his stature among the Federalist Society cadres that run it, his rejection would have a shattering impact...
Remember the Chutzpah post from Daily Kos I linked to yesterday? The post argued that the Republican rhetorical hypocrisy of the last six months has put Democratic leaders on the defensive, as America's short-term memory seems willing to accept the Republican's premise that the system is broken because the Democrats are uniquely taking advantage of it. Now, I'm not putting a value on what the Democrats are doing in contrast with the last twelve years of Republican congressional leadership. That's really not the point. What the post discussed was how effective this rhetorical hypocrisy has been, and how they're setting the table effectively to position themselves as the responsible opposition party to the excesses of the majority.
The Kos diarist quotes a post from a blogger named John Emerson:
I think that when the "honest conservatives" reject Bush they're just setting up their assault on the Democratic president they expect to see elected next year. Their way of digging themselves out from under the Bush disaster (and obscuring their own massive role in that disaster) will be to swear that "Never again can an American President be allowed that kind of free hand!" This will justify their fighting the new Democratic President tooth and nail for every inch of ground.
They don't mean "never again," they mean "not so long as it's a Democrat in office."
Conservatives have spent most of the last six years rabidly defending this president's push of his Article II powers, have brayed loudly about the overreach of "judicial activism" every time the courts challenge the president's powers, have told dissenters they should watch what they say (and have suggested freedom of speech might be too much for us at this point of history), have willingly advocated torture, and have tried to claim as "no big deal" the efforts to seed the department responsible for enforcing our laws with the most politically loyal right-wing careerists, illegally creating an established bureaucracy intended to extend the reach of politics into flexible, partisan interpretations of the rule of law.
Okay, to be fair they've done a lot of other things too. Point being, with an unpopular president and an upcoming election, the party that has served as a barely-leashed angry guard dog for the excesses of this administration (and the last twelve years of congress, lest we forget) is now carving out rhetorical space to disassociate themselves from what they had worked so hard to build*.
*Incidentally, this same sort of game is being played with the immigration reform being bandied about in congress. It's something the GOP candidates can slap Bush around on without being accused of hypocrisy. I think the timing of this bill - I mean, did we really talk about immigration reform as a top priority a year or two ago? - isn't at all coincidental, but I also don't think it's out of character for Bush's long-held position on the issue either.
The Blumenthal op-ed, therefore, strikes me as an early warning shot. The "rats are jumping ship," but it's not because they disagree with the captain all of a sudden. It's because they need the room to make the argument that they opposed the power grab under Bush, and they'll be goddamned if they let a Democrat woman in office trample our noble constitution in a remotely similar way.
Look, it's not as if I ever thought this "unitary executive theory" was anything but radical and dangerous to the republic, and it's something that I want relegated to the dustbin of history now. I want the next president taking the oath to make his/her first priority to dismantle the Patriot Act, scrap the despicable MCA, restore habeus corpus, and work to restore the checks and balances our framers wanted us to respect (I guess that's four priorities).
I'm just cynical enough, however, to believe that the opposition party's noise machine will have America focused on keeping the Democratic president constantly on the defensive, with the public concerned (all of a sudden) about the overreaching powers of the presidency. The president and the DOJ will have differing priorities, and the Christian-right careerists that Gonzales, Goodling and McNulty have put in place will at times be just obstinate enough to leadership to give the GOP talking points about the Democratic president's ability to control his own bureaucracy and how he/she isn't strong enough to be a serious leader.
And god forbid it's Hillary. Seriously. Gore or Obama, Biden or Dodd - any of those guys would be subject to the hypocrisy, but if it's Hillary? I can't imagine a scenario where the fear of god is instilled in middle America by the noise machine more than if she's the nominee. If you thought the way conservatives disowned the validity of the Bill Clinton presidency was bad, just wait until Hillary steps off the podium in January, 2009. It'll be a whole new ballgame on talk radio and in op-eds.
So this administration official who helped build the argument for enhanced Article II powers, and now - all of a sudden - thinks it's a bad idea? You'll know his name around November, you'll start reading his op-eds next summer, and he'll be a regular hand-wringer on "Hannity & Colmes" in 2009 who just can't believe we let our constitution be put in danger by those dirty fucking hippie Democrats, and that it's a GRAVE AND SERIOUS issue that RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS should make sure they never let the Democrat president use against them in the names of fearmongering and national security.
Until, of course, we see President Jeb in 2016, the administration official gets his old job back, and the warrantless wiretapping resumes. Business as usual, I suppose...
Powered by ScribeFire.
The threat of Global Warming Cooling?
Published by StB
on at 9:29 AM.
I have problems with all the kooks that are crying about global warming and the harm it is doing to Mother Earth. You know science is suspect when those shouting the loudest claim "the evidence cannot be denied" or "the science is settle" are simply building a wall to back up their claim by ignoring those who disagree.
Thus, this article interested me. The Canadians have it right.
National Post> Read the Sunspots
Let's think of it in simpler terms. Watch your local news and the weather report. I assume most places report record highs alongside the day's high temperature. Though it occurs, most of the time the highest temperature on record is from years ago. Not the last couple of years but decades. How can that be with all the global warming?
The problem is that global warming is now an industry. Those who trumpet it the loudest are the ones making the money. It is in Al Gore's best interest to distort the science that backs him up while ignoring the findings that are contradictory. He has a movie and books to sell, let alone a concert and all those cool Hollywood people to hang out with. All the while doing little to shrink his own carbon footprint.
Governments around the world need to get all of the facts before they start passing laws and taking drastic measure in reaction to the supposed threat of global warming. Millions of dollars has already be wasted in these efforts. But what will be done when it is global cooling that is the concern, not warming?
Thus, this article interested me. The Canadians have it right.
National Post> Read the Sunspots
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant
about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly.
Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and
occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was
about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as
much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming
that has so upset environmentalists.
Let's think of it in simpler terms. Watch your local news and the weather report. I assume most places report record highs alongside the day's high temperature. Though it occurs, most of the time the highest temperature on record is from years ago. Not the last couple of years but decades. How can that be with all the global warming?
The problem is that global warming is now an industry. Those who trumpet it the loudest are the ones making the money. It is in Al Gore's best interest to distort the science that backs him up while ignoring the findings that are contradictory. He has a movie and books to sell, let alone a concert and all those cool Hollywood people to hang out with. All the while doing little to shrink his own carbon footprint.
Governments around the world need to get all of the facts before they start passing laws and taking drastic measure in reaction to the supposed threat of global warming. Millions of dollars has already be wasted in these efforts. But what will be done when it is global cooling that is the concern, not warming?
Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its
weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to
unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a
cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the
Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not
warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a
country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very
little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only
require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.
Worth a Read...
Published by BG on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 3:50 PM.I don't have time to write about this now, but this is a post worth a look...
Daily Kos: Chutzpah
Daily Kos: Chutzpah
There was no way that Republicans would simply accept their defeat in the 2006 elections and be put out to pasture. We all knew that they were BETTER from the attack dog position that they were ever at governing. They thrive on being the persecuted minority; it's hard-wired into their worldview. And since they hate government, attacking those in power is a natural fit.
Still, I'm not sure any of us expected them to have the chutzpah* - there's really no other word for it - to attack the Democrats for the very sins they displayed throughout 12 years of rule in the Congress.
Powered by ScribeFire.
That's Twice Today, Power Line
Published by BG on at 12:10 PM.Power Line: Doing that wudu that they do so well
The Detroit News reports from Dearborn on the University of Michigan's plan to spend $25,000 for the installation of footbaths on campus: "Muslims won't fund footbaths." The article reports that "Muslim leaders in metro Detroit have decided not to raise private money to pay for two footbaths" on campus. For them, it clearly seems less to be about religious observance than about the submission of public authorities to their observance. If you've followed our series on wudu you know, to paraphrase Creedence Clearwater Revival, that there's a bad dhimmitude rising.
The Detroit News also reports that the ACLU finds nothing constitutionally objectionable in public support for the footbaths. Just in case you were wondering, Detroit ACLU director Kary Moss explains:"We view it as an attempt to deal with a problem, not an attempt to make it easier for Muslims to pray," said Moss, who likened the plan to paying for added police during religious events with huge turnouts.
"There's no intent to promote religion."
The unholy alliance between the radical left and radical Islam continues unabated.
Two things worth mentioning... First of all, the ACLU Director quoted above is correct. Here's why:
Muslims won't fund footbaths
The University of Michigan-Dearborn's plan to spend $25,000 on the footbaths was criticized on conservative blogs and radio shows this month. Critics said using public money for the project would violate the First Amendment, which says governments can't favor or subsidize religions.
Muslims are required to wash body parts, including feet, up to five times daily before prayers.
University officials say the floor-level wash basins are needed because some students at the 8,600-student campus wash their feet in the sinks.
[snip]
Kary Moss, director of the Detroit branch of the ACLU, said its review concluded the plan is a "reasonable accommodation" to resolve "safety and cleanliness issues" that arose when Muslims used public sinks for foot cleaning before prayers, which often spilled water on bathroom floors.
"We view it as an attempt to deal with a problem, not an attempt to make it easier for Muslims to pray," said Moss, who likened the plan to paying for added police during religious events with huge turnouts.
"There's no intent to promote religion."
It is illegal to prevent prayer in a public space if it doesn't threaten public safety. Since the prayer itself cannot be prevented, alleviating the safety issues raised when Muslim students wash their feet in sinks is actually more beneficial to non-Muslim students. The slip-and-fall potential is lessened, and the university's possibility of liability is reduced.
One other thing that this Power Line blogger fails to mention as well. The demographics* of Dearborn, MI are not the demographics of Sioux City, Iowa or even New York, NY. Dearborn's population is nearly a full third Arab-American, which puts Dearborn as the most densely populated Arabic community outside of the Middle East.
This isn't about one guy praying to the detriment of five thousand Christians. There is a huge Arab-American population in Dearborn, and as such, the accommodations to Muslims in this specific community are going to look totally out of whack with what seems reasonable in Des Moines or Missoula.
If you believe that our constitution protects your right to worship publicly in any reasonable way you choose, then there is no reason to deny Muslims in Dearborn, many of whom are third- and fourth-generation Americans, the right to worship publicly in the reasonable way they choose. This isn't about the ACLU picking Muslims over Christians, it's about a community that requires accommodation having the numbers to support the implementation of that accommodation. One guy in Topeka in need of a wudu? Just wash up in the sink. Hundreds and hundreds in Dearborn, MI? We can solve this problem without resorting to xenophobic anti-Islamic panic, right?
Powered by ScribeFire.
From My Email This Morning...
Published by BG on at 9:45 AM.
So texting "GO" to "OBAMA" gets you campaign updates. Interesting. I tried texting a few other terms to "OBAMA," and here's what happened:
"SCORPIO" - Returned: Your years of wandering in the wilderness looking for an answer are drawing to a close. Look for charisma, and project your desires without reservation. Someone is listening, and this time it's not via a warrantless wiretap. Your lucky number is November.
"WEATHER" - Returned: A return to "Morning in America" predicted to be mostly cloudy with threat of severe weather looming. Expecting sunshine on a "New Day for America," come November 2008.
"JOKE" - Returned: How many Hillarys does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One thousand and one. One to handle the bulb, the other one thousand to represent a statistically significant and carefully polled cross-section of Hillarys to find the point of centrist consensus as to how best to instruct the bulb-handling Hillary how to screw it in.
"GAME" - Returned: Super Senate Breakout! Use your left and right arrow keys to toggle the "Political Paddle," keeping the ball bouncing in order to destroy the "Partisan Gridlock Bricks" on each level! Collect falling "Rhetoric Tiles" for extra juice! Watch out for the "Crazy McConnell" who will attempt to re-stack those bricks as fast as you can break them up!
"GAME CHEAT" - Returned: For rapid level advancement in "Super Senate Breakout!," simply keep your "Political Paddle" just left of center.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Christ, What an Asshole: The "It's Okay to Lie a Little About a Muslim Congressman" Edition
Published by BG on at 8:24 AM.Power Line: Hip-Hop Congressman
Keith Ellison of Minneapolis has made a splash as the first Muslim Congressman. We have noted his ties with radical groups like the Nation of Islam, CAIR and the Muslim American Society. Yesterday, though, he gave an interview to a less controversial--I guess--news outlet: BallerStatus, an on-line hip-hop magazine.
[snip]
The interviewer asks Ellison about Louis Farrakhan's influence on him; Ellison's answer is, I think, a bit disingenuous:
BallerStatus.com: How great an influence was Minister Farrakhan on you?
Rep. Ellison: Not much.
Naturally, I believe that all Christian politicians should have to answer to how big an influence Christian Reconstructionist R.J. Rushdoony was on their faith, but I'll just assume they're lying when they say, "Who?"
There is a lot of talk about hip-hop, which leads to an exchange about the Don Imus affair, which leads to a general denunciation of talk radio:
BallerStatus.com: But how ironic was it for people like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck to even bring up so called "dangerous rappers" or "snitching" when they preach racism and hate speech on the radio every day?
Rep. Ellison: Oh man, they get up there and speak that nonsense constantly. The fact of the matter is, now matter how you feel about Don Imus, there's a whole lot worse than him on the radio. He was a sacrificial lamb.
It would be interesting to know what "preaching [of] racism and hate speech" Hannity and Beck have indulged in. Needless to say, no examples were forthcoming.
Well, I'll pass Hannity on Hinderaker's narrow reading of "racism and hate speech," but I'd tend to think that Keith Ellison knows a little something about baselessly claiming someone is an assumed enemy simply due to the way they choose to believe in God.
Here's Glenn Beck with Keith Ellison, via Media Matters: "OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. ... With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, 'Let's cut and run.' And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' "
Ellison is trying to make "credit justice" his signature issue as a young Congressman. As best I can understand it, "credit justice" means beating up on credit card companies and shifting costs from some cardholders to other cardholders:
BallerStatus.com:***Anyway besides the war, what are you focused on in the coming months?
Rep. Ellison: One thing I want to work on is the credit justice issue. I mean the fact is a lot of people who aren't making much money will turn to credit cards to make it. If you're late on the credit card, every credit card you own will increase your rates up to as high as 32%. That means it's expensive to be poor, because the poor pay more. It shouldn't be like that. It should be the opposite if nothing else. So I'm trying to do something about these credit cards.
A week or two ago, there was a committee hearing in Washington at which several representatives of credit card issuers appeared before a subcommittee of which Ellison is a member. Ellison took the opportunity to push for legislation he has introduced that would ban certain alleged practices of credit card issuers. One of the country's top experts in credit card marketing happens to be a friend of mine; I asked his opinion on Ellison's proposed legislation. He replied:
The thing is, nobody actually engages in the practices he want to ban...and he knows it.
He's just looking for headlines.
Really?
frontline: secret history of the credit card: eight things a credit card user should know | PBS
Even if you make your credit card payments on time, the credit card bank can raise your interest rate automatically if you're late on payments elsewhere -- such as on another credit card or on a phone, car, or house payment -- or simply because the bank feels you have taken on too much debt.
This practice is called the "universal default" clause and increasingly is becoming a standard clause in credit card agreements. According to credit card executives, the logic behind universal default is that the bank is not being unreasonable in raising rates when it has reason to believe that the risk of being repaid by the customer has increased.
I'm sure someone in Hinderaker's socio-economic class doesn't have to worry about this, as credit card offers to the upper-middle class and above are less likely to carry the "universal default" clause, due to less risk of default to the credit card companies. Ellison is specifically targeting "people who aren't making much money (who) will turn to credit cards" to get by. These are, by nature, riskier borrowers for any lender, and are subject to clauses like this because lenders know the borrower has no power to shop around for a better deal. Many people see this as predatory and a way to keep poor people from getting ahead, and wish to end this lending practice.
At bare minimum, it's not as if Ellison is inventing a problem here. This exists, despite Hinderaker's nameless friend's assertion.
So Ellison will be continuing the Democrats' tradition of economic demagoguery. The interview closed with demagoguery of a scarier kind:
BallerStatus.com: Let's allow you to get back to work. There's a certain balding man from Wyoming who needs to be indicted and put in prison.
Rep. Ellison: Let me just say that you can do anything you want if you just put you're mind to it. ***
I assume the "balding man from Wyoming" is Dick Cheney. In the world of BallerStatus, Keith Ellison passes for a moderate.
Who would have thought BallerStatus.com would be against the biggest baller of them all? Hell, who else in America could send black helicopters after Suge Knight on any given Tuesday? Don't indict the man, give him a three-record deal and see if he can rhyme for chrissakes.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Mormons are Violent - Ergo, Romney Unfit to Lead
Published by BG on Tuesday, June 19, 2007 at 6:01 PM.ESPN - BYU track star arrested following mop attack - College Sports
PROVO, Utah -- A star runner at Brigham Young University was arrested after getting out of his car and striking a pedestrian with a mop, police said.
Kyle Perry's vehicle apparently got too close to the man, who was pushing a bucket with mops across a street June 14, witnesses told police.
"Angry words were exchanged," Provo police Capt. Cliff Argyle said.
Mitt Romney immediately called Wolf Blitzer to unequivocally call for Kyle Perry's pardon, as the fetid water in the mop bucket was in violation of Utah health code, and therefore should have been the initial crime Capt. Argyle pursued instead of the "alleged assault."
"Geeze! Get that frickin' mop bucket out of the street! Flippin' heck!"
Powered by ScribeFire.
Rudy and the ISG: Predictable IOKIYAR Follow-Up
Published by BG on at 5:34 PM.The Corner on National Review Online
Rudy Reax [Jonah Goldberg]
This is a common, though hardly unanimous, reaction to the Rudy-ISG story. From a reader:Hey Jonah,
So Rudy quit a panel that, in the end, advocated a complete surrender in Iraq and for us to get on our knees to Iran?
This is bad why? His mistake was not to quit. His mistake was not to fail to attend meetings. His mistake was to ever have his name attached to this joke of a commission in the first place.
I love your writing and you really seem to know what is going on around that town so I have a question that no one I know can answer….
Who the f**k died and made Lee Hamilton King Solomon? You can’t get two people in that town together to talk about what flavor ice cream to serve in a school cafeteria without Lee Hamilton chairing the ice cream committee. I mean seriously. Are Hamilton, Baker and Gergen the 3 Wise Men all of a sudden?
Anyway, thanks for the great work.
Me: Whatever their shortcomings, I think Hamilton and Baker are different creatures than Gergen. They're respected hard-headed types within their respective parties. Yeah, they like cutting deals and all that, but I think they're pretty serious guys, warts and all. Gergen — David Broder without the smoldering sexuality — honestly believes that if Democrats say 10 and Republicans say 0 then, according to some immutable law of the universe, the right and wise answer must be 5.
There's no way in hell a Democratic candidate is getting let off the hook in the same way. That letter would have read something like this, had it been John Edwards getting the ISG boot:
"Hey Jonah - Funny how even with one less Defeatocrat on the committee they still managed to take the party line from the New York Times and put us one more step on the road to eating baguettes and kissing each other on the cheeks in the name of multicultural humanism, right? Still, the committee did their work seriously and saw a great deal of evidence, even if they couldn't put it together correctly to save their lives, and one of the top Dems can't be bothered between haircuts to show up for a meeting?"
Again, Rudy gets a pass. IOKIYAR.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Christ, What an Asshole: The 9/11 Candidate, Not the Iraq Candidate Edition
Published by BG on at 5:22 PM.Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall June 19, 2007 02:11 PM
From Newsday ...
Rudolph Giuliani's membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel's top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said.
Giuliani left the Iraq Study Group last May after just two months, walking away from a chance to make up for his lack of foreign policy credentials on the top issue in the 2008 race, the Iraq war.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Wrong-O, Steve-O
Published by BG on at 11:49 AM.Verbosities
Yes, I am willing to believe what the Major says. I believe those who serve in the military are of the utmost honor. I know that if they are not, the military deals with them. We have learned that from Abu Graib and Haditha.
Let me correct that for you: I believe those who serve in the military are of the utmost honor. I know that
Let's try not to point to the virtuous nature of the Abu Ghraib aftermath so soon after Taguba's revelations, shall we?
Powered by ScribeFire.
The Head has no reason
Published by StB on at 9:08 AM.
If you are in the military, you apparently are a liar. You are part of the grand scheme to continue to kill children at will, call anyone you want a terrorist and shoot them, and can make up stories to cover your tracks.
That is what some people care to believe. I am not sure Major Chris Belcher would like to be called a liar. Head says:
Yes, I am willing to believe what the Major says. I believe those who serve in the military are of the utmost honor. I know that if they are not, the military deals with them. We have learned that from Abu Graib and Haditha.
But apparently it is not just Major Belcher that is part of the cover up to kill children. If we read the story as reported by the AP, instead of Reuters, we get some more information:
I guess not only is Sgt. 1st Class Dean Welch part of the "media spin", but all of those Afghan troops were involved as well. Yes. Afghan troops. We are to believe that they would not stop Afghan kids from being killed.
If we apply logic to the situation, who do you think is most likely to be surveiling the compound on the ground? Americans or Afghans?
Is it possible that they knew this place was harboring enemy combatants as they had been told? Is it possible that they did have a good count of how many kids may be attending the school and kept a count of them arriving and leaving over a number of days and thus could ascertain that there were no children in the building? Is it possible that the building was no longer being used as a madrassa, that the terrorists had forced the kids out, and thus was technically not a school? One can go on and on playing that game.
So instead of making accusations that you cannot back up, stop trying to smear the names of those who have to live with this tragedy. Put aside your bias. Accidents do happen. What happens is sometimes what really happens. Everything is not a coverup.
That is what some people care to believe. I am not sure Major Chris Belcher would like to be called a liar. Head says:
A "coalition spokesman" wholly smacks of PR rep, even though you obviously view
such mouthpieces as bastions of truth and integrity. Perhaps you don’t think
it’s possible that a Major’s job would be PR spin, or that the military in
general engages in that sort of thing.
Yes, I am willing to believe what the Major says. I believe those who serve in the military are of the utmost honor. I know that if they are not, the military deals with them. We have learned that from Abu Graib and Haditha.
But apparently it is not just Major Belcher that is part of the cover up to kill children. If we read the story as reported by the AP, instead of Reuters, we get some more information:
In an operation backed by Afghan troops, jets on Sunday targeted a compound
that also contained a mosque and a madrassa, or Islamic school, in the Zarghun
Shah district of Paktika province. Early reports indicated seven children at the
madrassa and “several militants” were killed, and two militants detained, the
statement said.
Coalition troops had “surveillance on the compound all day
and saw no indications there were children inside the building,” said Maj. Chris
Belcher, a coalition spokesman. He accused the militants of not letting the
children leave the compound that was targeted.
“If we knew that there were children inside the building, there was no way
that that air strike would have occurred,” said Sgt. 1st Class Dean Welch,
another coalition spokesman.
I guess not only is Sgt. 1st Class Dean Welch part of the "media spin", but all of those Afghan troops were involved as well. Yes. Afghan troops. We are to believe that they would not stop Afghan kids from being killed.
If we apply logic to the situation, who do you think is most likely to be surveiling the compound on the ground? Americans or Afghans?
Is it possible that they knew this place was harboring enemy combatants as they had been told? Is it possible that they did have a good count of how many kids may be attending the school and kept a count of them arriving and leaving over a number of days and thus could ascertain that there were no children in the building? Is it possible that the building was no longer being used as a madrassa, that the terrorists had forced the kids out, and thus was technically not a school? One can go on and on playing that game.
So instead of making accusations that you cannot back up, stop trying to smear the names of those who have to live with this tragedy. Put aside your bias. Accidents do happen. What happens is sometimes what really happens. Everything is not a coverup.
That's NOT The Same Thing...
Published by BG on at 6:56 AM.Iran says won't rule out using oil as a weapon | International | Reuters
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will not rule out using oil as a weapon if the United States resorts to military action against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program, an Iranian oil official said in remarks published on Tuesday.
"When the Americans say that military action in regard to the nuclear issue has not been put aside, Iran can also say that it will not put aside oil as a tool," Iran's OPEC governor, Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, told Iran's Sharq newspaper.
Let me make sure I understand this... We're putting pressure on Iran to stop whatever it is we're accusing them of doing. They are either claiming they aren't doing anything wrong (supplying arms to "insurgents" or "terrorists"), or have the right to do what it is they're doing (continuing with their nuclear engineering). Our leaders are beating the war drums and are pointing towards an incorrigible Iran as a country that must be dealt with, most likely through the business end of a bunch of cruise missiles...
...but if we bomb them, or continue to exert international pressure, we expect them to continue to sell us oil? We expect them to not use the one leverage point they have in their favor in the face of all of these demands?
This isn't news, it's how things work in the world. Hell, if we invaded China, we'd probably do it in the face of poison toothpaste embargoes, and Americans would simply have to sacrifice.
But to assert to the lazy that Iran is using oil as a "weapon?" No, unacceptable. They are using it as a leverage point, and that's clearly not the same thing. Besides, using oil as a weapon is irretrievably messy, and certainly not something you want to do if your soldiers are the ones who'll have to clean up the collateral damage.
Powered by ScribeFire.
The face has no value
Published by Human Head on at 2:18 AM.Funny how you ignore this part of the article.I didn't ignore that part of the article at all. In fact, I had a good laugh at its absurdity.
"We are truly sorry for the innocent lives lost in this attack," said Army Major Chris Belcher, a coalition spokesman, in a statement. "We had surveillance on the compound all day and saw no indications there were children inside the building."
The statement said children who survived Sunday's raid said insurgents had forced pupils to stay inside the madrasa. The White House accused the Taliban of using human shields."
Let's begin.
A "coalition spokesman" wholly smacks of PR rep, even though you obviously view such mouthpieces as bastions of truth and integrity. Perhaps you don’t think it’s possible that a Major’s job would be PR spin, or that the military in general engages in that sort of thing.
(Let’s ignore for this rebuttal the fact that “the coalition” has come out and admitted “at least seven”--which likely means a great many more—were killed. There would be independent verification, except these types of things aren’t often allowed or physically possible in Free and Democratic and Under Control Afghanistan.)
The honest and forthright Major is telling us that they had no idea (“indications”) that there might be kids in the building; the one that had surveillance on it “all day”.
Such a patently idiotic assertion.
There was surveillance on the compound* all day, and they could tell that there were “terrorists” inside, but not kids? What, their equipment can only detect organisms over the age of 18?
*The Major must not know that madrasa (mentioned conveniently following his statement-you never get a second chance to make a first impression) means “school”. After all, his position as “spokesperson” couldn’t mean that he would possibly refer to it as “the compound” on purpose. I’m sure it is purely coincidence that he makes use of words that naturally conjure images of crazy cult-people battling it out with the pure and noble occupying force dutifully following the orders of their wise, pure, and oh-so-just leaders. In the interest of simplicity, we'll stick to the more benign explanation that he doesn’t realize or know that madrasa and “the compound” give two very different impressions. It's probably due to the horrific lack of competent translators, who we would have in greater numbers if not for those slow-to-fund-the-occupation Demo-pussies. At least they got rid of the homo-translators, who were surely reducing morale and hindering the
Perhaps the kids just got to school REALLY early, before the surveillance team arrived, and then the “terrorists” (who we knew were there, hence our decision to bomb “the compound”) kept the kids inside and quiet all day, helping them avoid the surveillance that they themselves could not.
Perhaps it was that we thought that the kids would be on holiday, which was the reason we thought that the “terrorists” were in there. Maybe our intelligence got word that they had it booked for “hiding out” purposes while the kids were home celebrating International Panic Day.
Perhaps the super sneaky advanced propaganda plans and intelligence of the “terrorists” gave them warning in advance that the US was going to come after them in their school hideout, and preemptively forced the kids inside, holding them prisoner and using them as human shields**. After all, the US wouldn’t have accused them of doing so if it weren’t Scouts Honor truth. Our Leaders have never lied to us, have they?
**And touching on the accusation that they were being used as human shields…what we are evidently expected to believe here is that the “terrorists” were cunning enough to leave us no knowledge of children anywhere inside or around “the compound”, but they were stupid enough to think that children could shield them from massive explosive ordinance. Furthermore, if one were enough of a sick fuck to actually use children as shields to stop an incoming attack, wouldn’t that person or people make it well known to everyone around that they were using this manner of shield? After all, if your attackers don’t know you have human shields, what’s to stop them from thinking twice before attacking you? Again we are to believe that the “terrorists” are both diabolical genius and bumbling retard at once.
Or, Maybe they have cloaking devices (most likely sold to them by Ahmadinejad himself).
Considering the Major's swill as it is presented, it is in no way believable that they had no idea there were children around. It is in no way justifiable and is absurd on its face.
How do you justify this propaganda BS? By convincing yourself that the “terrorists” were "high value" targets and therefore worth the price of a few brown kids who are never going to be educated and contribute anything to modern society that's worth anything because they're just going to grow up to be "terrorists" like their parents and unjustly hate the US for its imposed benevolence and freedom? "Worth the price", like Madeline Albright's view?
And did I ask yet, just what the fuck are we doing bombing a SCHOOL??? (Winning Hearts and Minds, duh)
(Hard to claim at this point that it was an accident, an errant bomb. Again, the place was under surveillance “all day”.)
I will not take any of the words of a lying and corrupt apparatus at face value, and neither should you. This Major, whoever he is, is full of PR shit. He is simply a lesser known Tony Snow, and deserves an equal amount of contempt.
Of course, that may make the terrorists look bad.Yes, I’m deliberately leaving out massively important points and information in order to further bolster support for terrorists. What an insightful and wise implication.
I’m quite sure the Major would wholeheartedly agree with you.
Dead kids, $17,500
Published by Human Head on Monday, June 18, 2007 at 8:21 PM.The Measure of a Life, in Dollars and Cents - washingtonpost.com
The Pentagon has set $2,500 as the highest individual sum that can be paid. Most death payments remain at that level, with a rough sliding scale of $1,000 for serious injury and $500 for property damage.
U.S.-led air strike kills seven Afghan children | U.S. | Reuters
KABUL (Reuters) - At least seven children were killed in a U.S.-led coalition air strike on a religious school in Afghanistan, the coalition said on Monday, amid rising anger over civilian deaths from foreign military operations.Continued Prosecution of the bogus "War on Terror", Priceless.
(Reality is quite a tasteless bastard.)
Suffer from "populace disbelief"?
Published by Human Head on at 8:00 PM.Pentagon hires ABC reporter to improve PR - Politico.com
The Pentagon will announce this week that Geoff Morrell, previously a White House correspondent for ABC News, has been hired as the Defense Department’s on-camera briefer, a senior administration official told The Politico. Morrell, 38, will become a familiar face of the administration on television and the Web. The official said that a working journalist was chosen by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in an effort to improve press relations at a time when the administration is under pressure to show progress in Iraq.Then you're not investing in enough quality PR.
PR > Reality.
Opposition = Terrorism
Published by Human Head on at 7:36 PM.Daily Express: The World's Greatest Newspaper :: News / Showbiz :: Opponents of EU treaty accused of being 'terrorists'
Eurosceptics have been branded "terrorists" just days before Tony Blair prepares to fly to Brussels to smuggle in the new EU constitution by the back door. Critics of the EU’s secret plans to bring back the failed European constitution by stealth at this week’s summit were blasted by the Italian President, Giorgio Napolitano. The Italian head of state told a news conference in Siena last week that "those who are anti EU are terrorists". And he attacked eurosceptics who warn that the promised new EU treaty will go too far in eroding the powers of member states, saying: "It is psychological terrorism to suggest the spectre of a European superstate."[Emphasis added]
I guess now I have that definition of "terrorist viewpoint" I was looking for.
(h/t Prison Planet)
I'd Like To See Your Prospectus, Kind Sir...
Published by BG on at 7:22 PM.Media Matters - Neal Boortz:
On the June 18 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Neal Boortz advocated building a "double fence along the Mexican border, and stop the damn invasion." Boortz continued: "I don't care if Mexicans pile up against that fence like tumbleweeds in the Santa Ana winds in Southern California. Let 'em. You know, then just run a couple of taco trucks up and down the line, and somebody's gonna be a millionaire out of that."
Powered by ScribeFire.
But I Don't Want a Fountain Pen!
Published by BG on at 12:51 PM.Lamy 2000 Fountain Pen | Uncrate
During important business meetings, your pen can say as much about you as your suit or car. The Lamy 2000 Fountain Pen ($150) will represent you well with a simple, modern, elegant design, fiberglass-reinforced Makrolon body, and a great patina that will develop over time.
My birthday's coming up, and my mom needs a suggestion as to what to get me. It has to be a thing, no gift cards or cash. Here's some other things it generally can't be:
Liquor (due to PA state laws)
Books or music (have a ton of unread/unlistened)
Cooking supplies (have plenty of this stuff too)
Suggestions?
Powered by ScribeFire.
Thank God, I Thought I Was Just Overreacting...
Published by BG on at 10:02 AM.Freakonomics Blog » And Today Is...
June 18 is International Panic Day, a day “for everyone to be worried and concerned,” according to HolidayInsights.com.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Christ, What an Asshole - Snooty Blogger Edition
Published by Pokerwolf on at 8:55 AM.
35 Killed in Kabul - CrooksandLiars
Here's a newsflash, Mr. Amoto. "Secure" does not equal "impenetrable". Getting on a high horse when people are killed in a war zone (because that's what Afghanistan is, just so you know) is not only idiotic it shows how short-sighted and clueless you are about the entire situtation.
No place is 100% secure from a terrorist threat. Not even a military base.
Wait, I thought it was secure:
Here's a newsflash, Mr. Amoto. "Secure" does not equal "impenetrable". Getting on a high horse when people are killed in a war zone (because that's what Afghanistan is, just so you know) is not only idiotic it shows how short-sighted and clueless you are about the entire situtation.
No place is 100% secure from a terrorist threat. Not even a military base.
LOLing Without RTFAing
Published by BG on at 8:24 AM.little green footballs: UN Secretary General: Global Warming Causes Darfur Genocide
New UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon zeros in on the reason for the massacres in Darfur: Climate change behind Darfur killing: UN’s Ban.
How could we not have seen it before? It’s so obvious.
Is it entirely inconceivable that the Secretary General has a legitimate point? Before the severe droughts that have plagued sub-Saharan Africa, there was enough land for everyone to farm and herd in peaceful coexistence. Once the droughts hit and land became unusable, that's when the fighting started.
Granted, there's always going to be more to a severe crisis such as this than could possibly be summed up in two or three sentences, but it's not entirely illegitimate to point to squabbling over natural resources as the possible genesis of something like this.
Powered by ScribeFire.