This came up in the comments section a few posts down, and I thought I'd put it up for everyone to see:
I have to confess that I don't understand this ceaseless quest for victimhood. Being raped doesn't confer some mystical moral superiority on a woman, it just makes her a victim. And unfortunately, in all too many cases, it just makes her a stupid one.
I'm just curious what basis the moral relativists have for condemning rape in the first place. If I deem the slaking of my desire for lust - or violence, if you prefer that theory of rape - to be an intrinsic good, who are you to condemn it? Certainly, one could argue that it is a violation of private property rights, but then, what of those moral relativists who reject the notion of private property. If all property is held in common, then how can a woman object if I decide to make use of that which belongs to me?
So in case you ever wondered how conservative assholes like Vox Day actually view women, it's as straight-up property.
But maybe Vox is just a nut. I mean, surely the readers of his blog, being decent human beings, will condemn this, right?
Actual rape is another area in which the feminists shot themselves in the foot. Back in the day, women had the protection of their fathers, husbands and brothers. Their fathers, husbands and brothers usually had guns. So what have the feminists been trying to do? Get rid of the men AND the guns! I'd take the protection of a man or a gun over a chastity belt any day!
Ain't that the truth. Because you know that married women, or women who live with their fathers or brothers, are never ever ever raped.
Women treat men like men treat TVs - but in the latter case you can keep pressing buttons and then just hit "off", it doesn't work like that with Men.
This is a problematic subject. It wasn't back when chastity was both valued and assumed - when women (and likely most men) remained virgins until marriage, or at least tried to. This was the milieu where "rape-shield" laws were passed so you couldn't ask a woman about what happened in college.
Today, in a world of one-night-stands, and where a woman might have had a different consensual partner the past few nights, and where provocative dress is the norm, we need to decide if these women were raped when after a series of "yeses", she alleges a final "no".
I don't think Islamic women have these problems, nor their court systems.
Of course Islamic women don't have these problems — from what I see on Fox News, those little ladies really know their place! (and note the capitalized "Men").
"Date rape" is nothing but post-sex buyer's remorse. Male victims refer to it as "beer goggles" or "slumming".
No comment here.
Yes, in a profound and awesome way, rape is actually the possibility for life, whereas the other crimes - stealing, lying, murdering - are all about destruction.
I said that to someone once who built her life on the "my [black] ancestors are the product of rape." She was shocked into silence, but continues to live the ideology of the 'victim'.
Rape is about giving life, not about violence or destruction. That's a new one.
Actually, the only thing that makes me consider rape to be as awful as it is IS the possibility of life, and also STDs. In of itself, while it can be fairly painful, is not that much of a big deal. Certainly, it's trespassing against your property and could result in great bodily harm, and you have the right to defend yourself, but mostly it's psychologically damaging more than anything else.
I'm always very skeptical of women who claim they were raped- especially to completion- because it is actually extremely difficult to rape a struggling, dry woman. Now, if there's a weapon involved I could see why a woman might not resist, but for the most part I think that if a woman regrets having sex, she thinks it was rape.
Rape "isn't a big deal"? And you can't rape a woman who's not aroused. Right.
He said she said is worthless. In the middle east a woman needs a Man as a witness to charge another man with rape. Women are not smart enough to realize what they are doing to innocent men.
Rape in this country, in many places, is a worse crime than murder. What's striking is that there are only 15k convictions for 85k accusations. It has the lowest conviction rape of any major crime. Which is scarey and tells us that women are not capable of making decisions on their own.
We should really make our rape laws more like those in the Middle East, and our problems would be solved. For some reason, I don't think that argument would go over so well with most Americans.
Isn't this obvious? Not to "blame the victim" or anything, but you have to take responsibility for your actions. If a woman dresses like a ho and flirts like a streetwalker, she is probably going to have to deal with a few sexual advances. What else would you expect?
It's a bit like approaching a group of Crips late at night and calling them a bunch of bleepin' faggots and then slapping one in the face. They still wouldn't be within the law when they promptly shot you and stole your jeans, but you still reap what you sow.
Not to blame the victim, but I'm gonna go ahead and blame the victim. And "sexual advances" don't really equal rape.
I've privately mused along the same lines that I never understood the axiological grounds for justifying communal propriety to individual's property on the grounds of need (Shoeing the hungry, feeding the naked, et al), but somehow my biological and thus secularly-humanistically acceptable desire to stick my unit in a warm, wet, and attractive orifice gave me any less of a valid claim upon a woman's body.
Because every man deserves unfettered access to food, clothing and pussy.
It's been particularly interesting to see how my friends who are single, non-feminist career girls are beginning to get very angry at their feminist forebears, as they begin to realize to their shock and horror that the mysogynistic neanderthals were telling them the truth all along. Men don't give a damn about degrees, don't care at all about a woman's career and tend to see these things as a threat, not to themselves, but to the possibility of a romantic relationship.
The two key things that too many women fail to grasp with regards to relationships is that men simply don't think like women, and that the sell-by date is about 32 when it comes to dating men your own age.
Because all men think the exact same way, and they all want a pretty little dumb thing who will stay quiet and isn't interested in all that book-learnin'. His faithful readers have more tidbits of advice:
The answer is not a government program but by the Church teaching and preaching the truth and not running from it. A "materialist" answer (a government program or scheme) is not the answer but the Spiritual guidance from the Scriptures, from God—i.e. women are to be silent—and wear a veil in church.
Shut up, put on your veil, and all of Western society will be saved. Or something.
"The silence of women in the church" also means women are to be silent in politics as well. What goes for the metaphysical sphere goes for the physical sphere. No females are to be in politics nor vote.
Those who reject the Scriptures, reject the way of life. Sadly, it is the Churches that lead their followers onto the way of Death—and that is exactly what Western Society is doing—following the Way of Death.
This same commenter also complains that Islam is taking over the world. And clearly, Islam is evil — just look at the way they treat women! Oh wait.
The Straw Feminists is the argument we attack? no their are plenty of ignorami (correct plural) out there to get all the batting practice I need, thank you much. The key argument I make beyond the basica idiocy of the ideas is exactly this: Feminists will realize after years of militant gender norming that nobody wants them, and will die (if not soon) alone.
Feminists: You're all gonna DIE!
Any ideas on actual good sites for mail order brides? Seriously. There are many out there, but it is very hard to tell the difference between a legitimate bride store and a scam. There is travel, but that is more dangerous (if fun) and isn't always possible. Just curious:) (oh, I would have emailed, but that doesn't seem to show up anymore or am I missing something?) I would love a nice China girl for Christmas… keep the two front teeth, ha.
Now this makes a lot of sense to me, and definitely gives me a better idea as to who these commenters are.
I'll get sexually interested when children are in the plan, not until, and I'm stubborn, ha! I'm looking for a woman to make a family with, not just a typical easy over girl. I've only been able to find the easy overs so far, meaning, three dates and they think sex is fine as long as they don't get pregnant and you don't ask them to cook or clean or something so blase' and in fact think something is wrong if you aren't pumping them by the third date.
Yeah, I can't stand those uppity bitches who won't cook and clean for you by the third date. Cute.
Some of you wanted to see real sexism, well, I hope you enjoyed that.
I wonder if they would be so cavalier about rape if some guy was pounding them in the ass? I think not.
But hey, at least you know where they stand, right?
A good advertisement is designed to grab people's attention, but PETA's recent campaign to stop fishing has some fishermen, very much including MSNBC's Tucker Carlson, pretty annoyed.
PETA is distributing leaflets that show an angry cartoon father figure ripping apart a fish. Plastered over the picture in big letters, it says, "Your Daddy Kills Animals."
On Tuesday, Carlson welcomed Bruce Friedrich, PETA's director of farmed animal campaigns to as he said, "defend the indefensible."
TUCKER CARLSON: I'm offended by this. I can't believe actually that you put this out. This is an attack on fathers aimed at children. How could you do this?
BRUCE FRIEDRICH: Well, Tucker, it's not an attack on cruelty to animals, and our point is very, very serious. If you fish, I can see how you'd be offended by it, because fishing supports cruelty to animals. If you wouldn't take a hook and put it through a dog's mouth and drag that animal behind the car, you shouldn't do that to fish.
CARLSON: Well, there are so many false statements in your last sentence, let me just pick them apart one by one.
First, I want to talk about this comic book ... "Your Daddy Kills Animals." In here you have lines like this, "Since your daddy is teaching you the wrong lessons about right and wrong, you should teach him fishing is killing. Until your daddy learns it's not fun to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals, they could be next."
I assume you have no children, right? You couldn't. Nobody with children would put this out, because that's the kind of thing that gives kids nightmares. I mean, seriously, your daddy's going to kill your dog? Come on.
FRIEDRICH: Tucker, we focus grouped the ad. Kids get it. If you watch MTV, you go to the web sites that kids like, even watch Saturday morning cartoons, this is the sort of hyperbole that kids really like. But it makes a serious point, scientifically, biologically. Fish feel pain in the same way that dogs and cats feel pain. Cruelty to fish is no more morally justifiable than is cruelty to dogs or cats.
CARLSON: What about cruelty to children and their fathers? I'm serious. I'm totally serious. Why go -- why go after kids? Why go after kids? Why? You have an adult point to make. Why not change adult minds?
This would be sad if it wasn't hillarious. PETA seems to be unaware of catch and release fishing, which is mandated in many, many fishing areas in the US and Canada. The lunacy of saying fishing equals killing takes PETA into the realm of Intelligent Design and other fictions.
The fact is that catch and release has been popular for well over a decade and is widely practiced by fishermen, including myself. In Central Park, you can actually fish, but only if you use catch and release. You can argue eating meat, or farming or diets, but to claim fishing is the same as murder is not just a nutty argument, but factually incorrect.
As far as the content of the comic, if this is given out in schools, parents need to complain.
There are several reasons for using this method. First, with our increasing population, it gives fisherman an opportunity to catch more another day. It also helps to preserve fish populations that are challenged by numerous outside factors. When females are released they are given another chance to spawn and lay their eggs. This is vital to maintaining fish populations because the cycle of life is not interrupted. It preserves wild species of fish.
Oh yeah, this might be of interest to people. Seems Penn and Teller did a story on PETA for their Showtime show Bullshit.
The American press is predictably ignoring the story. Yet it is only too plausible that Bush wanted to wipe out what he saw as a nest of terrorists.
By Juan Cole
Nov. 30, 2005 | Last week, the British newspaper the Daily Mirror reported that George W. Bush had told U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair in April 2004 that he was planning to bomb the Al-Jazeera offices in Qatar. The report, based on a leaked top-secret government memo, claimed that Blair dissuaded Bush from bombing the Arab cable news channel's offices. An anonymous source told the Mirror, "There's no doubt what Bush wanted, and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." The Mirror quoted a government spokesperson, also anonymous, as suggesting that Bush's threat had been "humorous, not serious." But the newspaper quoted another source who said, "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan brushed off the report, telling the Associated Press in an e-mail, "We are not interested in dignifying something so outlandish and inconceivable with a response." In a response to a question asked in Parliament, Tony Blair denied that Bush had told him he planned to take action against Al-Jazeera. The two men involved in the leak have been charged with violating Britain's Official Secrets Act.
The report kicked off a furor in Europe and the Middle East. It was, predictably, virtually ignored by the American press. It would be premature to claim that the Mirror's report, based on anonymous sources and a document that has not been made public, proves that Bush intended to bomb Al-Jazeera. But the frightening truth is that it is only too possible that the Mirror's report is accurate. Bush and his inner circle, in particular Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, had long demonized the channel as "vicious," "inexcusably biased" and abetting terrorists. Considering the administration's no-holds-barred approach to the "war on terror," the closed circle of ideologues that surround Bush, and his own messianic certainty about his divine mission to rid the world of "evil," the idea that he seriously considered bombing what he perceived as a nest of terrorist sympathizers simply cannot be ruled out. Add in the fact that the U.S. military had previously bombed Al-Jazeera's Kabul, Afghanistan, and Baghdad, Iraq, offices (the U.S. pleaded ignorance in the Kabul case, and claimed the Baghdad bombing was a mistake), and the case becomes stronger still.
Did the US target Al Jazeera? Probably not, since that would require effort and be, in the end, counterproductive. Besides, they've killed Americans as well.
But did Bush seriously consider bombing Al Jazeera?
The problem isn't whether he did or didn't, but that people believe he did. Which is far worse than any plan he discussed. Besides rank stupidity seems to be Cheney's pervue.
The fact that Blair has to hush this up by the Official Secrets Act is more about that fear of perception than any sort of tantrum by Bush.
My daughter loved the party you being in Iraq made possible
Lloyd Grove thought this of interest in the Daily News
History will forever record Elizabeth Brooks' bat mitzvah as "Mitzvahpalooza."
For his daughter's coming-of-age celebration last weekend, multimillionaire Long Island defense contractor David H. Brooks booked two floors of the Rainbow Room, hauled in concert-ready equipment, built a stage, installed special carpeting, outfitted the space with Jumbotrons and arranged command performances by everyone from 50 Cent to Tom Petty to Aerosmith.
I hear it was garish display of rock 'n' roll idol worship for which the famously irascible CEO of DHB Industries, a Westbury-based manufacturer of bulletproof vests, sent his company jet to retrieve Aerosmith's Steven Tyler and Joe Perry from their Saturday gig in Pittsburgh.
I'm also told that in honor of Aerosmith (and the $2 million fee I hear he paid for their appearance), the 50-year-old Brooks changed from a black-leather, metal-studded suit - accessorized with biker-chic necklace chains and diamonds from Chrome Hearts jewelers - into a hot-pink suede version of the same lovely outfit.
The party cost an estimated $10 million, including the price of corporate jets to ferry the performers to and from. Also on the bill were The Eagles' Don Henley and Joe Walsh performing with Fleetwood Mac's Stevie Nicks; DJ AM (Nicole Richie's fiance); rap diva Ciara and, sadly perhaps (except that he received an estimated $250,000 for the job), Kenny G blowing on his soprano sax as more than 300 guests strolled and chatted into their pre-dinner cocktails. ............................. I'm told that at one point Brooks leapt on the stage with Tyler and Perry, who responded with good grace when their paymaster demanded that his teenage nephew be permitted to sit in on drums. At another point, I'm told, Tyler theatrically wiped sweat off Brooks' forehead - and then dried his hand with a flourish.
Yesterday, Brooks disputed many details provided to me by Lowdown spies at the affair and by other informed sources, scrawling on a fax to me: "All dollar figures vastly exaggerated."
He added: "This was a private event and we do not wish to comment on details of the party."
Wow. Naked war proffitering.
We're creating a landed gentry of CEO children, rich people who have done nothing to earn their money. Say what you want about Donald Trump, but he expanded his father's empire, not spent his money.
November 29, 2005 - The controversy surrounding the sale of adult-themed videogames to minors climbs to another level with today's announcement that Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) intend to introduce federal legislation that would prohibit the sale of "mature" titles to minors when Congress reconvenes in two weeks.
The legislation, called the Family Entertainment Protection Act, will prohibit "any business [from] selling or renting a Mature, Adults-Only, or Ratings Pending game to a person who is younger than seventeen." The Act states that its intent is not to punish "retailers who act in good faith to enforce the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) system" but rather provides them with an "affirmative defense" against liability if they are shown what appears to be a valid identification at the time of purchase.
Further provisions of the Act include:
- an annual analysis of the ESRB rating system to determine its effectiveness,
- authority for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate misleading ratings (this provision is in response to the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas "Hot Coffee" situation),
- the authority for consumers to register complaints with the FTC regarding game content,
- and authority for the FTC to conduct random annual audits of retailers through a "secret shopper survey" to determine the ease with which young people can purchase M and AO rated games with the findings being reported to Congress.
In proposing the legislation with Senator Lieberman, Senator Clinton acknowledged that videogames are "fun and entertaining" and that this legislation does not impose any limitations on the production or sale of games to adults. Rather, the Act would "empower parents by making sure their kids can't walk into a store and buy a video game that has graphic, violent and pornographic content...this is about protecting children."
.................... The enforcement of the Michigan legislation is on hold as a federal judge granted an injunction filed by the ESA, VSDA, and the Michigan Retailers Association that the state had failed to "demonstrate the perceived harm it seeks to protect against" and that the Michigan law could be seen as "stifling free speech" and causing "irreparable harm" to First Amendment freedoms. Courts have used similar arguments to strike down comparable legislation in Washington State, the city of Indianapolis and St. Louis County in Missouri.
Why Hillary, why?
Who do you think this helps you with? The right sees you as the Bride of Satan, the left perplexed.
You know most video game owners are adults and they vote.
By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday defended her vote to authorize war in Iraq amid growing unease among liberal Democrats who could determine the potential 2008 presidential candidate's future.
"I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war," the New York senator said in a lengthy letter to thousands of people who have written her about the war.
At the same time, she said the United States must "finish what it started" in Iraq.
Clinton and other hawkish Democrats have come under criticism from liberal anti-war activists, many of whom will hold sway over presidential primary contests. The former first lady, who is up for re-election in 2006, would likely be an early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination should she decide to seek it.
The 1,600-word letter was sent, mainly through e-mail, on Tuesday — a day before President Bush was to deliver a speech on his Iraqi policies. The president's approval ratings plummeted in recent months as the U.S. death toll and anti-war sentiments grew.
So is Chelsea planning to help "finish what we started?" No?
This is what I mean about her instincts. The war is a loser, no one belives she's a hawk, yet she hangs with this failed policy as if people will vote for her because of it.
And do you think people will not notice her daughter is nowhere near Iraq while making six figures. It's time to start asking pols if they have recommended service to their kin if Iraq is so important.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army, fresh off missing its latest annual recruiting goal, has launched an unprecedented effort to coax former troops to sign up again for active-duty military service, officials said on Tuesday.
The Army this month began contacting 78,000 people who previously served in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps to pitch them on the idea of leaving behind their civilian lives and returning for another stint in uniform, said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon.
Unlike in the past, they now can return to the Army without giving up their previous rank or undergo the rigors of basic training, said Hilferty, who described it as the first program of its kind for the Army.
About 7,000 former officers were among the 78,000 receiving recruiting letters that stated, "There is no higher calling than service in our armed forces, and this is your opportunity to answer the call to duty again."
"You've served our country before, and maybe you miss the adventure, camaraderie, teamwork and leadership opportunities that the military offers. If so, you can put your previous military experience and skills to work again as a soldier in the active Army," the letter adds.
'UNITY OF EFFORT'
Hilferty said the Army would be pleased if this "Unity of Effort" recruiting program coaxes 1,000-2,000 former service members to sign up with the Army. He said it was too early to tell how well the program is doing.
About 80 percent of the letters went to people who served in services other than the Army, Hilferty said.
OK, if you were that eager to go back to Iraq, why not go with Blackwater USA. Why wait over two years to try and re-up? Or join the Guard or Reserves?
If you were in the military, you had the choice of going into the Army and rejected it. So now you're supposed to go back, destined for Iraq?
Four more years in Iraq?
Only if we institute the draft and that's suicide.
During the November 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly decried what he described as the abandonment of the phrase "Merry Christmas" and called for "a coalition of the willing to fight against this secular movement." He accused financiers George Soros and Peter Lewis of being "the money men behind the secular curtain," because they "have financed a number of websites which routinely attack those with whom they disagree in the most vile ways." O'Reilly then threatened to "expose those media which pass along the vicious personal attacks." He predicted that "[t]he defamation pipeline that has been cleverly devised will collapse," and then stated, "This is what the culture war is all about."
O'Reilly made a similar threat in the wake of Media Matters for America's exposure of his remarks regarding the city of San Francisco. In discussing a resolution San Francisco voters passed on November 8 to discourage military recruitment on campuses of public schools and colleges, O'Reilly said: "[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." In response to the firestorm of protest against these comments, O'Reilly blamed "far-left smear websites" and "Internet guttersnipes" for reporting his statements. He stated: "[H]ere's what I'm going to do, ladies and gentlemen, every minion that does that, every one is going to be exposed on The Radio Factor, the television Factor, and on our website, BillOReilly.com. Every one who carries their water, I'm going to put their face up there, their name up there, and tell you exactly what they're doing. So you know in your town who's doing it."
Following up on his threat, O'Reilly has posted on his website a list of "media operations [that] have regularly helped distribute defamation and false information supplied by far left websites."
From the November 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: It is now time to draw the line, ladies and gentlemen. We must decide whether we value our heritage or not. Make no mistake about this. Merry Christmas is an emotional, but small, issue. The drastic change the secular progressive movement wants in this country is the big issue.
Those people want an America free from spirituality and judgments about personal behavior. And they may get it.
So "Talking Points" is putting together a coalition of the willing to fight against this secular movement. George Soros and Peter Lewis, the money men behind the secular curtain, have financed a number of websites which routinely attack those with whom they disagree in the most vile ways.
Most mainstream media avoid the far-left smear sites, but some help them. In the coming weeks, we will expose those media which pass along the vicious personal attacks.
We've already listed some of them on billoreilly.com. And we hope you steer clear of those organizations.
If traditional America rises up and punishes the mainstream media, which furthers the cause of Soros and the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], they will lose. The defamation pipeline that has been cleverly devised will collapse. If Christmas in America can be marginalized, any tradition can be, including marriage and the way you raise your kids. This is what the culture war is all about.
Wow, did Fox hire JFather Coughlin's grandnephew to work for O"Reilly
Father Charles Edward Coughlin was the Catholic priest who became a national figure through his radio broadcasts in the 1930’s. Reading some of his sermons stretches the imagination to call the messages Biblically based. Coughlin had a brilliant mind but appears to have gotten bored with the church work he was so successful with. These types historically take their clergy success and seek to gain a political following.
They take advantage of a religious audience and seek to steer the followers into the power bases of national politics. Coughlin’s messages appeared to have had little to do with the Christian faith later on in his ministry. They dealt with appraisals of the New Deal and how to get out of the Depression. The Father linked up with Gerald Smith and Francis Townsend to form a political party. Coughlin was personal friends with Henry Ford during Ford’s days as a rabid anti-Semite. 1
The radio preacher held a residence, and operated a religious school and church in Detroit. This community helped Coughlin to carry on his dialogues with local citizens Gerald Smith and Ford, both rabid conspiracy buffs who held that national problems resulted from Jewish-European connections. Coughlin, much like contemporary American Right leaders David Duke and E.R. Field, held the belief that Communism was a Jewish organization and battling Communism expansion meant battling against the Jewish community in America. Smith later on tried to take Coughlin’s followers on board his movement. 2 Smith’s social views are best defined by the fact he often taught followers the Fascist salute.
Clandestine writer, Roy Carlson, ran into a great number of Coughlin’s followers during his work as an under cover agent during World War II. Award winning author, Carlson, found Coughlin to be a major influence on the American Nazi movement before the war. Roy said that Coughlin was a large threat to the nation’s security. The Priest’s followers formed an organization know as the Christian Front which often advocated and resorted to violence. Protestant ministers like Gerald Winrod strangely endorsed Coughlin. Winrod, known as the Jay Hawk Nazi, found kinship with Coughlin’s Jew baiting.
The Priest’s followers were a threat to Jews in the New England area. Some were even tied into a terrorist plot against the government. 3 Coughlin promised to deliver votes and at one time addressed the national Democratic Party. His popularity is subject to debate. Many credit him with being the first to use the airways to seek to blend the Christian faith with the Right. One source has his listening audience at 3.5 million while The Truth at Last organization credits his audience at 40 million. 4
The Truth at Last is a leftover of the White Citizen’s Council which sells Coughlin’s books and pamphlets for those interested in the “real truth”. How powerful the movement was is subject to scholarly debate. We do know Coughlin had the scorn and attention of President Franklin Roosevelt who suffered through the dilemma of how to deal with a subversive who was a popular radio figure and also a Catholic priest. Politicians dislike attacking the clergy for obvious reasons. Coughlin would often seek to distance himself from extremist followers but the record shows he rubbed shoulders with the Third Reich...even during World War II. Coughlin’s followers handed out pamphlets that said to have peace and prosperity each nation must kill their own Jews. 5
The Priest was more “politically correct” than this. He did, however, publicly blame the war and depression on Jews through his radio broadcasts. All social problems, according to the radio personality, had a Jewish connection. He had so many followers who listened while in the armed forces during the war some wondered out loud what could be done. The Vatican became aware of his activity and sought to censor the Priest, which, eventually came to pass. The fact that such a public figure as Priest Coughlin had formed the political movement known as the Union Party gave suspicion to the idea that Catholics did not like staying out of the government.
6 Baptist Fundamentalist leader from the last century, J. Frank Norris, praised Coughlin. Like Winrod and Smith, Norris was attracted to Coughlin’s hatred of FDR. Though there is no evidence Norris was an anti-Semite, he did not denounce the Father and his far right positions. Norris believed the Fundamentalists had more in common with Coughlin than with “modernistic machine Baptists. 7
Oreilly is using some very ugly language and images in a way he would never acknowledge. He's blaming the media for attacking him and then names George Soros and links him to money. Why is it ok to accuse Soros in a way which reeks of anti-semitism, and no one says a word.
His use of tradition and secular, using the hobby horse of Christmas in an increasingly diverse America, reeks of the worst kind of Jew baiting.
But O'Reilly attacked George Clooney, he came on to Andrea Mackris, he sued Al Franken, but now he wants to conduct a campaign where he's the victim and the "media" is attacking him. Yet, at the same time, he refuses Media Matters a forum to defend themselves.
O'Reilly. using the most obvious kinds of code words, "secular" "media" and bringing up Soros as a "money man", is using the language of the Catholic past to make himself into a victim.
If O'Reilly wants to do this, he needs to explain his backing down over the Mackris allegations. Why was she paid off?
And more importantly, when he claimed infringement, he was laughed out of court. If he's been so harmed by Media Matters, why is he not filing suit.
Someone at Fox needs to reign him in before he slanders someone on his show and faces legal action. O'Reilly acts as if he's immune to criticism for his public actions, and he's not.
YENAGOA, Nigeria, Nov. 22 - Precisely where in the rogue's gallery of corrupt Nigerian leaders Diepreye Alamieyeseigha will fall is a matter for history to judge. Gen. Sani Abacha, the military dictator who helped himself to at least $3 billion and salted it away in foreign bank accounts, doubtless stole far more.
But General Abacha - who ruled the country from 1993 to 1998 - never fled money-laundering charges in a foreign land by donning a dress and a wig to match forged travel documents, as Mr. Alamieyeseigha, the governor of a small oil-producing state in the Niger Delta, did last week, government officials said.
For their sheer audacity, his antics are likely to earn him a prominent place among the leaders who in the past four decades are believed to have stolen or misspent $400 billion in government money, most of it the profits from Nigeria's oil reserves.
"It is a new low," said Gani Fawehinmi, one of Nigeria's most prominent lawyers and a longtime campaigner for good governance. "And in Nigeria that is saying something."
Mr. Alamieyeseigha is suspected of siphoning millions of dollars in cash and buying an oil refinery in Ecuador along with several houses in London, California and South Africa. He has denied stealing money from the state.
The sordid saga of the governor comes as the federal government has engaged in a broad effort to rehabilitate the country's image around the world.
Long associated with rampant corruption and kleptocratic governments, Nigeria has year in and year out gotten one of the worst scores in Transparency International's world corruption perception index, though this year its rating improved slightly.
Corruption touches virtually every aspect of Nigerian life, from the millions of sham e-mail messages sent each year by people claiming to be Nigerian officials seeking help with transferring large sums of money out of the country, to the police officers who routinely set up roadblocks, sometimes every few hundred yards, to extract bribes of 20 naira, about 15 cents, from drivers.
Parents of slain Ohio woman didn't know she was on B'way - at strip club
The story was reported by: Rich Shapiro in Columbus, Ohio, KERRY BURKE, NANCY DILLON, AUSTIN FENNER, ALISON GENDAR, DEREK ROSE and TONY SCLAFANI in New York It was written by CORKY SIEMASZKO
Topless dancer Catherine Woods, 21, above, who was found slain Sunday night in her East Side apartment, with her father, Jon, director of Ohio State University Marching Band, and with parents, sister Victoria, 13, and brother Stephen, 19. Bright-eyed beauty, who left Ohio after high school to find dancing career here, had worked at Chelsea club Privilege and was currently performing at Flash Dancers.
The father of a 21-year-old aspiring dancer flew to New York last night to claim her body, apparently unaware the brunette beauty had been performing on Broadway - at a topless club under the name Ava.
"She was realizing her dream and she was very excited about it," said Catherine Woods' devastated dad, Jon Woods, as he left Columbus, where he is director of the Ohio State University Marching Band.
"She really met the challenge of moving to New York. It took amazing courage."
Her hometown boyfriend, David Haughn, told cops he found Woods - nearly decapitated, with her larynx and jugular vein severed - in the blood-soaked bathroom of their E. 86th St. apartment Sunday night.
Police sources said investigators, for now, are accepting Haughn's alibi that he was fetching his car to drive Woods to a strip joint when she was slain.
"We haven't been able to shake his story," one source said. "He didn't appear to have the time to do the things that we know have happened, and check out and not have blood on him."
Haughn was still at the 19th Precinct stationhouse last night, where he has been ever since Woods' body was found. An aspiring hip-hop musician from Columbus who worked as a doorman at an upper East Side building, Haughn told cops that Woods had been threatened by a man for failing to return some borrowed CDs.
Ken Szymanski, who was a neighbor of Woods and Haughn when they lived on E. 85th St., said they were "very nice, very mellow people" who often jogged together around the Central Park reservoir.
"They seemed kind to each other," Szymanski said.
But something changed in their relationship after they moved to E. 86th St.
Antonio Ramirez, who manages Gracie's Corner Diner at First Ave. and 86th St., said Woods came in just about every day and always ordered a spinach egg-white omelet. But a month ago, Ramirez said, "She came in by herself and I said, 'How's your boyfriend?'
"She said, 'He's not my boyfriend anymore. I broke it off,' " Ramirez said.
Stripping is a bad life, no matter what they show on HBO.
Men often get obsessed with these women and stalking is one of the hazards of the trade. The cops clearly liked the boyfriend, but he didn't do it. The fact is that she was dating the owner of Flashdancers according to one report, and the club's staff denied she worked there to detectives. So clearly, something was up.
But part of her work problems came from her desperation to be on Broadway at any price. Intead of getting further training, she ran to New York, didn't have the experience to get a lot of Broadway work, and then had the cost of New York living to meet, and the boyfriend wasn't bringing in the cash. When the reality of the money she was making finally hit her, and living on the Upper East Side means it did, the boyfriend became cargo.
The money becomes addictive as well. Thousands a week. That starts to change people. But the price of that is stalkers. It's as likely she picked one up at work than it was someone she knew.
Worried by increasingly strident evangelical rhetoric, Jewish leaders have finally dared to criticize conservative Christians. Will an alliance held together only by a shared support for Israel survive?
By Michelle Goldberg
Nov. 29, 2005 | Throughout the last five years, as the Christian right has assumed ever greater power and prominence in America, the organized Jewish community has been remarkably quiescent. Traditionally, Jewish leaders have been among the most vigilant guardians of American secularism, seeing the separation of church and state as key to Jewish equality. But faced with an evangelical president who seemed inviolable and an alliance of convenience with the religious right over Israel, Jewish leaders didn't raise much of an outcry when billions of taxpayer dollars were diverted toward religious charities through Bush's faith-based initiative. They didn't make a fuss when the administration filled the bureaucracy with veterans of groups like the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition. As leaders of the religious right and their allies in the Republican Party trumpeted plans to "take America back," observers detected growing anxiety among ordinary American Jews, but there was little response from organized Jewry.
This month, that started to change. Two major Jewish figures -- Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, and Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism -- have taken on the religious right and, by extension, the Republican Party. By doing so, they have enraged some evangelicals and opened a fissure in the larger Jewish community. Some leaders are worried about provoking a conservative backlash and ushering in a new era of anti-Semitism. Others rejoice that someone has finally articulated what so many ordinary American Jews have been thinking. Either way, the culture wars have suddenly taken on an overtly sectarian cast.
All those black ministers who made a deal with these folks, you're next. It will be either go along or get attacked.
By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A combative Saddam Hussein lashed out Monday at his treatment by American "occupiers and invaders" and lectured the chief judge about leadership as his trial resumed in a rambling and unfocused session.
Two of the seven other defendants also spoke out during the 2 1/2-hour hearing, complaining of their treatment in detention or dissatisfaction with their court-appointed counsel.
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who has joined the defense team as an advisor, said it was "extremely difficult" to assure fairness in the trial "because the passions in the country are at a fever pitch."
"How can you ask a witness to come in when there's a death threat?" Clark told CNN. "Unless there's protection for the defense, I don't know how the trial can go forward."
The tribunal adjourned until Dec. 5, only 10 days before the country's parliamentary elections, to give the defense time to replace lawyers who have been assassinated since the trial opened Oct. 19. Monday was the trial's second session.
The court's tolerance of vocal complaints from the defendants drew sharp criticism from Shiite politicians who contend the tribunal is trying too hard to accommodate an ousted dictator who should have already been convicted and executed.
"The chief judge should be changed and replaced by someone who is strict and courageous," said Shiite legislator Ali al-Adeeb, a senior official in Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's party.
Look, why not just take him in a truck and drop him off in Sadr City.
That's as fair as this trial.
If they wanted a fair trial, we'd be reading the Hague as a dateline here.
WASHINGTON (AP) - As a Justice Department lawyer, Samuel Alito quarreled with the head of the government ethics office over proposed requirements on personal financial disclosures, according to documents released Monday.
Alito's 1987 letter was issued around the time the ethics office said that his boss, Attorney General Edwin Meese III, had violated financial disclosure requirements over a $60,000 investment with a businessman who was tied to Wedtech, a Bronx, N.Y., defense contractor that was caught up in a wide-ranging federal investigation.
There was no suggestion that Alito, now nominated to be a Supreme Court justice, was aware of the ethics office's issues with Meese's disclosure.
Alito's letter to David H. Martin, director of the Office of Government Ethics, was among 120 documents Alito's service as the deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel from 1985 to 1987 that were released by the Justice Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from The Associated Press and other news organizations.
Alito became the U.S. attorney for New Jersey after leaving Justice headquarters and then was appointed to the federal bench. President Bush has nominated him to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Some of the material in the newly released documents was blacked out for privacy reasons and an additional 60 documents were withheld because they contained classified information or confidential exchanges between government lawyers and their clients or for other reasons, said Paul B. Colborn, special counsel in the office where Alito worked.
How ambitious was Alito? Enough to do anything to get ahead.
Every day, something new comes out and the right is suddenly silent.
Apparently in vindictive retaliation to Cornell's guest blog item published by The BRAD BLOG late last week, titled "Death is Sexier than Sex (to Ann Coulter)" Coulter has now publicly posted a personal Email Cornell had sent to Coulter while she was working on her story for us.
In Cornell's guest blog article, the actress and author reported on her experience attempting to receive a copy of Coulter's recent speech given to the Alachua, FL Republican party in which she called for the repression of the free speech of Democrats, adding "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."
While Coulter had the time to take a 6th grade level ad hominem shot at Cornell ("Well, death is certainly sexier than Lydia Cornell") in her response, apparently the desperate Coulter didn't have the time to actually reply to Cornell's note, ask her for permission before publishing it publicly, or most despicably of all, have the decency to redact the personal information from the note before posting it online.
Coulter (whose personal email address we're tempted to post, but are attempting to avoid our impulse to sink to her slimy depths) most recently called decorated Korean and Vietnam war vet and one-time Iraq War support, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) "gutless" because he had the temerity to call for the withdraw of U.S. troops in Iraq.
But the true gutlessness displayed by Coulter in the posting of the personal information of one of her critics on her own widely read website would seem to demonstrate the true nature of the "courage" of Coulter's convictions. That is, if she still actually has any actual convictions left besides her desperate and vainglorious attempts at making money through hate speech and at the cost of the blood of the American men and women she continues to advocate should die for her imagined freedoms. What a horrendous "human being".
I think there are many Ann Coulter stories which, because of good taste, have not become public. For some reason, I think people should share them. Privacy is a right to everyone online regardless of politics, or so I thought.
The Italian Football Federation has ordered all games in the country this week to kick off five minutes late to allow players to demonstrate their opposition to racism.
The decision was sparked by Messina's Ivory Coast defender Zoro, who threatened to leave the field in protest against racist jeering from visiting Inter Milan fans in a Serie A match over the weekend.
The Federation said that all the midweek Italian Cup fixtures along with next week's league games at all levels down to amateur football would be delayed with the players taking to the field holding banners declaring 'No to Racism'.
Zoro, who had been jeered by Inter fans throughout the game, picked up the ball in the 66th minute and headed off the field towards the fourth official before other players urged him to continue with the game.
In the US, racial taunting is extremely uncommon in sports and not tolerated by the leagues. Race is now down to membership in private clubs for golf tournaments.
It isn't unknown, like the idiotic taunting at the Giants-Saints game, but it's rare enough to be an oddity.
FIFA needs to step in with a heavy hand to prevent what could lead to the next Heysel. Despite 20 years of progress and shedding the image of yobbo infested, violence tolerant sport. Open racism is not only bad ethically, but could hurt the worldwide growth of European football, the sport's highest and most financially lucrative form. If MLS was competative, many African players would find life in US stadiums much more appealing.
But sport only reflects wider tensions within the society. As Europeans debate how to become multiracial societies, the animus towards minorities is reflected in the terraces and on the pitch
Juan Cole posted this up and I doubt I could do better, so....
This diary over at Daily Kos discusses both Hersh's reporting on this military issue and what his sources are saying about Bush and the White House.
Hersh reports that US Air Force officers are alarmed by the implication that Iraqi targeters may be calling down air strikes using US warplanes. I remember that Iraqi troops (mainly Kurds) were allowed to call down airstrikes in Tal Afar last August, and if my recollection serves, the Tal Afar operation may even have been conceived as an opportunity for Iraqi troops to get practice in doing so. They levelled whole neighborhoods of the Sunni Turkmen (many of whom had thrown in with Saddam in the old days).
The Air Force officers are right to be alarmed. It has been obvious to me for some time that US air power will be used to try to keep the guerrillas from taking over Iraq as the ground troops depart. This is why last August I argued for keeping some US Special Operations forces embedded with the new Iraqi army, since I felt that the US military should remain in control of the use of American air power (i.e. the laser targetting should be done by Navy Seals and others, not by Iraqis).
Likewise, I argued that the US should only make this airstrike capability available for defensive operations. Say that the 1920 Revolution Brigades got up a militia force to march on Hilla from Mahmudiyah, and the brigade made short work of the Iraqi infantry sent against it. In such a situation, the US should use air power to stop the neo-Baathists and Salafis from massacring the Shiites of Hilla. But the US Air Force should not be a toy in the hands of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who will most likely be the most powerful politician in Iraq come Dec. 16. If one keeps some Special Ops forces in Iraq, it would require a continued ability by the US to rescue them if anything went wrong, which is one reason both I and Congressman Murtha envisaged a continued over-the-horizon US presence in the region for a while.
But Hersh's sources in Washington strongly give the impression that George W. Bush is incapable of making coherent policy in Iraq, and is fixated on his legacy there 20 years down the line.
Even Bush allies such as former transitional Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, however, are already bringing his legacy into question. Allawi asserts that governmental abuse of human rights in Iraq today is even worse than in the time of Saddam. If yours truly had said something like that, Jeff Jarvis would have called me pond scum and Andrew Sullivan would have given me a Sontag award. Jarvis and Sullivan were big supporters of Allawi (who is alleged to have been involved in a terrorist attack in Baghdad in the 1990s that blew up a school bus full of children). So what do they have to say now that the bad news is coming from the secular, pro-American politicians and they aren't playing pollyanna any more? By the way, President Jalal Talabani rejected Allawi's charges, but then he heads the government that Allawi is critiquing.
Bush's legacy as a builder of democracy and promoter of rights in Iraq, all he has left going for him, was dealt another black eye by the emergence of a video that appears to show private security guards in Iraq firing at civilian vehicles for sport out on the road to the airport.
Hersh appeared on Wolf Blitzer on Sunday, and Wolf read out this quote from the New Yorker piece by Hersh:
" 'The president is more determined than ever to stay the course,' the former defense official said. 'He doesn't feel any pain. Bush is a believer in the adage, "People may suffer and die, but the Church advances." ' He said that the president had become more detached, leaving more issues to Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney. 'They keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway,' the former defense official said."
Hersh goes on to tell Blitzer that Bush disparages any information about Iraq that does not fit his preconceived notions, and that he feels he has a (perhaps divine) mission to bring democracy to the country. Hersh's inside sources paint a president who is detached and in the grip of profound utopian delusions, which Hersh charitably characterizes as "idealistic."
Congress really has to step in here. Senators and representatives should demand that Bush get the ground troops out without turning control of the US air force over to Shiite clerics like Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Presidents cannot do anything without money, and Congress controls the money. The wiser and more knowledgeable heads on both sides of the aisle have to start telling Bush "No!" when he comes to them asking for another $100 billion so he can level another Sunni Arab city. He is counting on the public punishing "no" votes on military affairs. But the American public would at this point almost certainly be grateful for it. And apart from telling him "No!" they should put strict reporting requirements on how the money is used. For instance, only defensive operations should any longer be funded.
Let me finish with a word to W. As for your legacy two decades from now, George, let me clue you in on something--as a historian. In 20 years no Iraqis will have you on their minds one way or another. Do you think anyone in Egypt or Israel is still grateful to Jimmy Carter for helping bring to an end the cycle of Egyptian-Israeli wars? Jimmy Carter powerfully affected the destinies of all Egyptians and Israelis in that key way. Most people in both countries have probably never heard of him, and certainly no one talks about the first Camp David Accords anymore except as a dry historical subject. The US pro-Israel lobby is so ungrateful that they curse Carter roundly for all the help he gave Israel. Human beings don't have good memories for these things, which is why we have to have professional historians, a handful of people who are obsessed with the subject. And I guarantee you, George, that historians are going to be unkind to you. You went into a major war over a non-existent nuclear weapons program. Presidents' reputations don't survive things like that. Historians are creatures of documents and precision. A wild exaggeration with serious consequences is against everything they stand for as a profession. So forget about history and destiny and the divine will. You are at the helm of the Exxon Valdez and it is headed for the shoals. You can't afford to daydream about future
The following text is an excerpt from Air Power and Colonial Control: The Royal Air Force, 1919–1939 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990). Omissi often refers to "Mesopotamia," the older name for the territory that would soon be called Iraq. Omissi is Senior Lecturer in the Department of History, University of Hull (UK)
Whatever shape the future administration of Iraq might assume, there were many within the British government who could justify, in various ways, a continued British presence in the country, although their reasoning was often challenged by those sections of the press and public who deplored a lengthy occupation. Mesopotamia had only been wrested from the Turks with the sacrifice of many lives and much money, and some clear advantage had to be derived if the imperial victories, and defeats, were to seem worthwhile. A secure route to India across the Middle East offered a useful alternative to the main links by mandatory relationship and the repeated denials of British occupation. As the Royal Navy gradually converted from coal-burning to oil-burning ships, it became more and more difficult to obtain supplies of high quality fuel. Dependence upon the production of the United States and Mexico was a strategic embarrassment which might best be averted by the development of Mesopotamian reserves. The motive power of these hopes for British policy in the early 1920s is not diminished by the fact that they were never entirely fulfilled.
But Churchill persisted in his attempts to find cheaper method of holding Mesopotamia. By early 1920 the garrison still included 14, 000 British troops, besides Indians, and expenditure was then running at about £18 million a year. Driven by this financial imperative, Churchill now began to think along more radical military lines. In mid-February he asked [Chief of the Air Staff Hugh] Trenchard whether he would be ‘prepared to take Mesopotamia on’: the bat an increase of five or six million pounds in the air force estimates and appointment of an Air Officer as Commander-in-Chief. Churchill believed that the country could be cheaply policed by aircraft armed with gas bombs, supported by as few as 4,000 British and 10,000 Indian troops; and he invited Trenchard to submit a scheme along those lines. Trenchard obliged, as he wanted to find an independent peacetime role to secure the future of his obliged, as he wanted to find an independent peacetime role to secure the future of his fledging service. The Air Staff drew up a plan by which Mesopotamia would be garrisoned by ten air force squadrons, mainly concentrated at Baghdad. Regular troops would be used only to guard air bases and perhaps for some limited co-operation with the bombers. As Trenchard pointed out, aircraft could strike swiftly into areas barely accessible to ground forces, could distribute propaganda and could obtain early intelligence of hostile masses. Churchill outlined his scheme to the House of Commons on 22 March.
[President Woodrow] Wilson’s skepticism about air control might have been discounted as his usual scaremongering were it not for the outbreak of a full-scale uprising in Mesopotamia in the summer of 1920. It is impossible to accept the assertion of [professor Elie] Kedourie that the rising was the product of ‘encouragement from outside’ and was important only in so far as external agitation ‘succeeded in magnifying its extent and significance’. On the contrary, the revolt shook the very foundations of British rule in Mesopotamia, and brought about major changes in political and military policy. The rising, mainly a response to British tax policy, began in Rumaitha in early July and insurrection was general along the lower Euphrates by the middle of the month. After a column composed mainly of the 2 Manchesters was almost entirely destroyed by a rebel ambush, a division of Indian reinforcements was hastily summoned to Basra, but the first of these reserves did not arrive until 7 August. The situation was at its most serious during the last week of August when the rebellion spread to the upper Euphrates and to the countryside around Baghdad: there were also the first signs of unrest in Kurdistan. At the height of their effort the tribesmen fielded about 131,000 men, of whom perhaps half were armed with modern rifles. Their leaders were drawn mainly from those groups whose power had waned under British rule: Shia mujahids, former Ottoman civil servants and ex-officers of the Turkish armies. The leading Arab patriots in Baghdad and the wealthy merchants of Basra, men with more to lose, stood aloof and awaited the event. For the British the crisis had passed by mid-September but heavy fighting went on until the end of the following month.
Before the rebellion the squadrons of the Royal Air Force had already been active in the policing of Iraq. Lieutenant-General Aylmer Haldane praised the ‘admirable work of …the Raf under extremely arduous conditions’ after bombers had been used to suppress unrest in Kurdistan in the winter of 1919-20 and again the following spring. Aircraft also patrolled the British line of communications between Baghdad and Mosul and took punitive action against the Sufran tribe in the Diwaniyah area. But the 1920 rebellion convinced several observers that aircraft could not replace ground troops as the main imperial police force in Iraq. Haldane acknowledged that aeroplanes had proved proved of great value during the revolt for reconnaissance, close support, pursuit, rapid communication and demonstration; but he denied that aircraft alone could force the submission of tribes who were committed to rebellion. [Civil Commissiner] Arnold Wilson believed that the main the main cause of the revolt was the perceived military weakness of the imperial forces after the reduction of the garrison: ‘to kick a man when he is down is the most popular pastime in the East, sanctioned by centuries of precept and practice’. He also suggested however, that the ‘use of aeroplanes against recalcitrants’ had created deep currents of resentment which had surfaced in rebellion. In August 1920 the Times ran a leading article which claimed that the revolt had tested the methods of air control and found them wanting; and this before they had even been tried.
Both Churchill and Trenchard tried to vast the most flattering light upon actions of the Royal Air Force. During the first week of July there were fierce fighting around Samawa and Rumaitha on the Euphrates but, Churchill told the Cabinet on 7 July, ‘our attack was successful...The enemy were bombed and machine-gunned with effect by aeroplanes which cooperated with the troops.’ During the blockade of Rumaitha, aircraft attacked rebel positions and dropped ammunition and food to the beleaguered imperial garrison. ................
I can't wait to see the 2006 parallel comment to this:
Darling Father. Here is the first letter to go to you in Ceylon [Sri Lanka] via Mother. But I shall try to catch you next week on the Moldavia at Port Said which will be a very intelligent thing to do. You should arrive there about the 17th I reckon.
The most interesting thing which happened during this week was a performance by the R.A.F., a bombing demonstration. It was even more remarkable than the one we saw last year at the Air Force Show because it was much more real. They had made an imaginary village about a quarter of a mile from where we sat on the Diyala [(Sirwan)] dyke and the two first bombs, dropped from 3000 ft, went straight into the middle of it and set it alight. It was wonderful and horrible. They then dropped bombs all round it, as if to catch the fugitives and finally firebombs which even in the bright sunlight, made flares of bright flame in the desert. They burn through metal, and water won't extinguish them. At the end the armoured cars went out to round up the fugitives with machine guns. "And now" said the AVM wearily, "they'll insist on getting out and letting of [sic] trench mortars. They are really no good, but the men do love it so that I can't persuade them not to." Sure enough they did.
I was tremendously impressed. It's an amazingly relentless and terrible thing, war from the air.
What needs to be said is that the US government letting various factions controlling AC-130's is asking for a truly horrible result. Expect whole villages to be obliterated.
Of course, the fewer US troops, the more AAA weapons hauled from storage and used against American planes. But Bush isn't thinking about that, in his fantasies.
Citing the success of pro-war film The Passion of the Christ, the Hollywood editors of Open Robe Media are engorged with warlust and, since they have their finger on the pulse of the American heartland after flying over it two weeks ago to get sloppy drunk in New York, they think the time is right for a rah-rah all-American Mission Accomplished movie:
Die Hard star Bruce Willis is taking on two Hollywood traditions in his attempt, reported by the Timesonline Sunday, to make a pro-war feature film about United States involvement in Iraq. Willis is bucking a nearly unbroken skein of Tinseltown anti-war films that goes back to such Vietnam era favorites as Coming Home and Platoon. And the actor is doing it not with mainstream media source material, but basing his movie on the reporting of a blogger - former Green Beret Michael Yon. Chosen by Willis for his story is Yon's on the scene reporting of the heroics of the Deuce Four unit in Mosul, Iraq.
As Hollywood insiders would tell you, however, despite the participation of a bankable star, the film is still far from making it to the silver screen. Nevetheless, blogs are weighing in heavily in support of Willis, and of Yon, as if the movie were already a fait accompli. Betsy's Page has praise for Yon and wishes Willis luck. Captain's Quarters sees the potential movie as an antidote to the "idiotic Constant Gardner." The Bernoulli Effect wonders if its the next The Passion of the Christ. PJMedia's RogerLSimon also sees box office gold, if the film is made, and relates its potential to a poll in the Washington Post. And The Minefield is just plain "excited!"
Little word so far from liberal blogs that are probably hoping the project dies in what is known in Hollywood as "Development Hell."
Well it would be unkind of us to wish that it dies in "development hell" since it already comes with a deathwish of it's own in the name of Bruce Willis who is a decade past his action hero days...unless you're one of the few, the proud, the couldn't get into the movie you really wanted to see, and saw Hart's War or Tears of the Sun.
And Jeebus knows that the American public is just clamoring for flag-waving war movies like The Great Raid which pulled down a whopping $10 million at the American box office; not that the folks who green-light movies take such things into account. But Captain Cubicle gives it a thumbs-up because it's not like non-war movie The Constant Gardener and Roger "Scenes From A Mall" Simon sees "box-office gold" which kind of speaks for itself, so if the movie doesn't make it to the screen it's because Hollywood is objectively pro-terrorist and hates it when movies make lots of money like Saving Private Ryan
On the other hand, they could get Jason Apuzzo to direct and that guy who wrote Scooby Doo to write the screenplay.
I smell a hit.
Well, I smell something..
Oh, I have something to say:
So, Bruce wants to make a movie about.....Special Forces.
During the war......
So I guess the fact that no one could stomach the realism of Over There on the same network which allows Michael Chiklis to beat the shit out of black people and Denis Leary to play a drunken lout with a fucked up family, can't tolerate the Iraq War. So now it's time to spend good money after bad?
Farenheit 9/11 was just the start of a series of war documentaries, some hours long. None portray anything like some kind of fake war heroism. If Willis wants to make that kind of film, he can watch veterans laugh at it as well, just like they did John Wayne.
By THOMAS M. DeFRANK and KENNETH R. BAZINET DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Embattled White House aides have begun to believe President Bush must take the reins personally if his evaporating agenda and credibility are to be salvaged.
"We're just plodding along," admitted a senior Bush aide from deep within the West Wing bunker. "It's up to the President to turn things around now."
Even as his poll numbers tank, however, Bush is described by aides as still determined to stay the course. He resists advice from Republicans who fear disaster in next year's congressional elections, and rejects criticism from a media establishment he disdains.
"The President has always been willing to make changes," the senior aide said, "but not because someone in this town tells him to - NEVER!"
For the moment, Bush has dismissed discreetly offered advice from friends and loyalists to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and bring back longtime confidant Karen Hughes from the State Department to shore up his personal White House staff.
"He thinks that would be an admission he's screwed up, and he can't bring himself to do that," a former senior staffer lamented.
So aides have circled the wagons as Bush's woes mount, partly hoping they can sell the President on a December blitz of media interviews to help turn the tide.
"The staff basically still has an unyielding belief in the wisdom of what they're doing," a close Bush confidant said. "They're talking to people who could help them, but they're not listening."
....................... "There is just no introspection there at all," he said in exasperation. "It is everybody else's fault - the press, gutless Republicans on the Hill. They're still in denial."
Not ready to throw in the towel and declare the boss a lame duck, the Bushies are hoping two issues can help firm up their base and perhaps make inroads with centrists who voted for Bush: the anticipated confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, and a plan to reinforce the border with Mexico to help stop illegal immigration.
This week Bush will begin to press the border security issue, while Alito's Senate confirmation hearings start early next year. Aides hope those issues will draw attention away from the war and leak probe.
Alito will solve their problems? I wouldn't surprised to find his membership in the He-Man Woman Hater's Club next up for discussion. Border Security? You mean Mr. Guest worker program? Please.
WASHINGTON - President Bush will hear no evil on the Iraq war - even when the bad news comes from military brass and top government officials, a new report says.
Bush "remains convinced that it is his personal mission to bring democracy to Iraq," according to The New Yorker magazine.
The article, echoing a Daily News story yesterday, says Bush and his inner circle are so determined to follow their own plan that generals fear saying what's wrong in Iraq - and senior advisers are snubbed if they have bad news.
"I tried to tell" the President about problems in Iraq, one former senior official told the magazine. "And he couldn't hear it." ...................
New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh said that Bush is motivated in part by religious fervor and that he believes the war must be judged on a time line of decades, not years. "He's a utopian, you could say, in a world where maybe he doesn't have all the facts and all the information he needs and isn't able to change," Hersh said on CNN yesterday.
"I'll tell you, the people that talk to me now are essentially frightened because they're not sure how you get to this guy."
Hersh said such tunnel vision helps explain why the Bush administration went ballistic when Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a Vietnam War hero, recently declared the war is tanking and it's time to bring the troops home.
"The generals know him and like him," Hersh said. "His message to the White House was much more worrisome than maybe to the average person in the public. [White House officials] know that generals are privately telling him things that they're not saying to them."
The female condom is a mystery to myriad New Yorkers, but city teens will learn about them soon as part of the Education Department's new HIV/AIDS curriculum, the Daily News has learned.
It is one of several changes in the long-awaited guidelines, which tell teachers to mention "sexual contact" in fourth-grade lessons but save the "three types of sexual intercourse" for high school, according to a memo obtained by The News.
School bosses plan to unfold the curriculum Thursday - on World AIDS Day - but abstinence-only advocates already are crying foul.
"You wonder why only 50% of kids are graduating? Maybe it is because too much emphasis is placed on condoms and sex in schools," said state Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long.
Fourth-graders are too young to learn about the controversial subject, Long charges, but educrats softened the language for the 9- and 10-year-olds from the last curriculum in 1992 and promise that abstinence is "strongly encouraged" in all grades.
Teachers will now be instructed to say "HIV can be transmitted by sexual contact with an infected person. When you are older you will learn more."
The previous version alerted fourth-graders that the virus can be contracted without effective use of a condom, and explained that condoms are used to "prevent transmission of semen, blood or vaginal fluids."
Betty Rothbart, director of the Education Department's Health Education and Family Living, said the last fourth-grade lesson plans caused a stir with parents. "Now the language is more age-appropriate," she said.
Mike Long should worry about his party and not sex ed. Because one is going down the tubes.
BY MICHAEL SAUL and PETE DONOHUE DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
The city has begun preparing for a possible transit strike that would leave millions of New Yorkers stranded in the middle of the holiday season, the Daily News has learned.
With the transit workers contract set to expire Dec. 15 and a top union leader refusing to rule out an illegal walkout, city leaders are putting together a contingency plan, expected to include:
# Banning cars without passengers from entering Manhattan.
# Creating car pool-staging areas in the Shea and Yankee stadium parking lots, among other areas.
# Allowing yellow cabs to pick up additional street hails with paying customers already onboard.
# Prohibiting truck deliveries to Manhattan during peak commuting hours.
# Urging authorities who run the ferries, PATH trains and commuter railroads to increase service.
Members of the city's Office of Emergency Management and Transportation Department, the NYPD and other city agencies have held at least two recent meetings to gear up for a walkout - which would come amid record ridership expected with the TA's holiday MetroCard discounts, sources said.
Giuliani bullied the TWU in 1998, and managed to avert a strike, at the cost of electing a more militant leadership.
Bloomberg is far more likely to push the sides to come to an agreement, and has the power to do so. A Christmas time transit strike could cost the city billions.