Nudnik - n. U.S. colloq. Esp. in Jewish usage: a pestering, nagging, or irritating person
"You said something I didnt say. Now Shove it!"#4. Sean Hannity to Ted Rall...
#3. Joe Nameth's Drunken exchange with Suzy Kolber...
"You are thoughtless, mean and hateful."
"I want to kiss you."
#2. O'Reilly vs. Paul Krugman on Russert...
O’Reilly: You are in with the most vile form of defamation in this country. You are pandering to it. And I resent it, sir.
Krugman: We resent you, too.
O’Reilly: Yeah, I know you do. And you know what you’ll do about the
resentment? You’ll lie about me and attack me personally. That’s what you’ll do.
#1. Pat Buchanan on Da Ali G show... Just too good to even quote from. If you have never seen it, you missed out. At one point he has Buchanan saying BLT instead of WMD. If you have Comcast on demand it is episode #8 or 9. A must see... trust me.
Ok... so this is the part where you chime in with your list.
So began another year in which liberals engaged in, and mostly got away with, grotesque slanders and slurs about conservatives -- the kind of poisonous rhetoric that should be beyond the pale in a decent society. Once again, too many on the left -- not crackpots from the fringe, but mainstream players and pundits -- chose to demonize conservatives as monsters rather than debate their ideas on the merits.Undoubtedly there have also been outrageous statements from the Right, and Jacoby acknowledges it. But the point is that inevitably the Left is never taken to task for its asinine and malicious statements.
As in years past, Republicans were almost routinely associated with Nazi Germany. Former Vice President Al Gore referred to GOP activists as "brown shirts." Newsday columnist Hugh Pearson likened the Republican National Convention to the "Nazi rallies held in Germany during the reign of Adolf Hitler." Linda Ronstadt said that the Republican victory on Election Day meant "we've got a new bunch of Hitlers." Chuck Turner, a Boston city councilor, smeared National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as "a tool of white leaders," like "a Jewish person working for Hitler."
What has happened? Sometime around the 1980s, the Right saw the demise of the Soviet Union as an opportunity to evolve beyond realpolitik to promote not just anti-Communism but grassroots democracy, coupled with free-market globalism from Eastern Europe to Latin America and Asia. In contrast, the hard Left stayed in its knee-jerk suspicion of the West and continued to give a pass to authoritarians from Cuba to Iran who professed socialism, thinking that the world was a static zero-sum game in which somebody's gain spelled another's loss oblivious that real wealth could be created by a change of mentality and technology and not mere exploitation.
The big news is that the academy's panel couldn't identify any benefits of decades-long effort to reduce crime and injury by restricting gun ownership. The only conclusion it could draw was: Let's study the question some more (presumably, until we find the results we want).Of course actually saying that gun control is counterproductive (see the example of England which recently banned all guns and has seen an upsurge in crime) is not politically correct. So the NAS has in effect tried to hide the results. So much for scientific rigor.
The academy, however, should believe its own findings. Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.
From the assault-weapons ban to the Brady Act to one-gun-a-month restrictions to gun locks, nothing worked.
Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing America bombing of Iraq? And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue) whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards.Roger Kimball pens an obituary in the New Criterion blog Armavirumque, looking at her work.
There can be no doubt that Susan Sontag, the doyenne of (to use Tom Wolfe's apposite coinage) radical chic, commanded rare celebrity throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Accordingly, her influence in those decades and beyond was great. The question is, was it a beneficent or a baneful influence? Sontag has been celebrated as a towering intellectual. In fact, though, what she offered were not so much arguments or insights as the simulacra of arguments and the mood or emotion of insights.Most offensive, although perfectly in-line with leftist artistic opinions, were her statements regarding Cuba and Vietnam.
[A]fter ten years, she writes, "the Cuban revolution is astonishingly free of repression and bureaucratization"; even better perhaps, is this passing remark delivered in parentheses: "No Cuban writer has been or is in jail, or is failing to get his work published."
Sontag concocted a similar fairy tale when she went to Vietnam in 1968 courtesy of the North Vietnamese government. Her long essay "Trip to Hanoi" (1968) is another classic in the literature of political mendacity. Connoisseurs of the genre will especially savor Sontag's observation that the real problem for the North Vietnamese is that they "aren't good enough haters." Their fondness for Americans, she explains, keeps getting in the way of the war effort.
GAZA CITY - The ruling Fatah movement has displayed what it calls its latest and greatest surface-to-surface missile.
The missile has been named "Yasser Arafat," after the late leader of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority and the 1994 co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
What we do know for certain is that the krill's chances of survival are a lot greater than, say, the Italians, or the Germans, or the Japanese, Russians, Greeks and Spaniards, all of whom will be in steep population decline long before the Antarctic krill. By 2025, one in every three Japanese will be over 65, and that statistic depends on the two out of three who aren't over 65 sticking around to pay the tax bills required to support the biggest geriatric population in history.
Does the impending extinction of the Japanese and Russians not distress anyone? How about the Italians? They gave us the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa, Gina Lollobrigida, linguine, tagliatelle, fusilli . . . If you're in your scuba suit down on the ice shelf dining with the krill and you say you'd like your algae al dente in a carbonara sauce, they'll give you a blank look. Billions of years on Earth and all they've got is the same set menu they started out with. But try and rouse the progressive mind to a "Save the Italians" campaign and you'll get nowhere. Luigi isn't as important as algae, even though he too is a victim of profound environmental changes: globally warmed by Euro-welfare, he no longer feels the need to breed.
Crichton's subject is today's fear that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change, a belief now so conventional that it seems to require no supporting data. Crichton's subject is also how conventional wisdom is manufactured in a credulous and media-drenched society.It reminded me of this speech that Chricton gave two years ago at CalTech, showing how global warming is being caused by aliens.
"At this stage there will be two states," Khaddoumi told Iran's Al Aram television. "Many years from now, there will be only one."
The blame with this war falls not with Donald Rumsfeld. We are more often the problem - our mercurial mood swings and demands for instant perfection devoid of historical perspective about the tragic nature of god-awful war. Our military has waged two brilliant campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. There has been an even more inspired postwar success in Afghanistan where elections were held in a country deemed a hopeless Dark-Age relic. A thousand brave Americans gave their lives in combat to ensure that the most wicked nation in the Middle East might soon be the best, and the odds are that those remarkable dead, not the columnists in New York, will be proven right - no thanks to post-facto harping from thousands of American academics and insiders in chorus with that continent of appeasement Europe.
Out of the ashes of September 11, a workable war exegesis emerged because of students of war like Don Rumsfeld: Terrorists do not operate alone, but only through the aid of rogue states; Islamicists hate us for who we are, not the alleged grievances outlined in successive and always-metamorphosing loony fatwas; the temper of bin Laden's infomercials hinges only on how bad he is doing; and multilateralism is not necessarily moral, but often an amoral excuse either to do nothing or to do bad - ask the U.N. that watched Rwanda and the Balkans die or the dozens of profiteering nations who in concert robbed Iraq and enriched Saddam.
we can barely manufacture 500 armored Humvees (read: jeeps) a month (in World War II we could produce almost 10,000 combat airplanes a month).It is not Rumsfeld or the Pentagon that wants to fight this war "on the cheap", it is American society that does. Until we realize that this is a real war, we will continue to send out our armed forces without all the necessary resources.
Much research remains to be done in adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell therapies before we can confidently predict ultimate success. But if less newsy stories involving embryonic stem cells are worthy of enthusiastic coverage, surely the more hopeful and advanced breakthroughs, albeit no sure things, warrant at least equivalent levels of media interest. Perhaps if the media stopped taking sides in the ongoing political debates over biotechnology, a more balanced picture would emerge.
It was a series of unfortunate events.Undoubtedly the death of Arafat had a lot to do with the new possibilities of progress, yet as Robert Satloff describes this has much more to do with the direction of the policy emanating from the White House.
How did we get to this sudden moment of cautious optimism in the Middle East? How did we get to this moment when Egypt is signing free trade agreements with Israel, when Hosni Mubarak is touring Arab nations and urging them to open relations with the Jewish state? How did we get to this moment of democratic opportunity in the Palestinian territories, with three major elections taking place in the next several months, and with the leading candidate in the presidential election declaring that violence is counterproductive?
How did we get to this moment of odd unity in Israel, with Labor joining Likud to push a withdrawal from Gaza and some northern territories? How did we get to this moment when Ariel Sharon has record approval ratings, when it is common to run across Israelis who once reviled Sharon as a bully but who now find themselves supporting him as an agent of peace?
It was a series of unfortunate events.
VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran will continue preparing raw "yellowcake" uranium for enrichment, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons, until the end of February, despite a recent pledge to freeze all such activity, diplomats said.Will someone do something more than "being disappointed" this time? Or will the world continue to be disappointed until Iran unveils a nuclear bomb? The "international community", as represented by all those transnational institutions is simply a joke.
But it isn't just the stench of death I remember so vividly; the odor of betrayal also hung heavily in the Rwandan air. This was not a genocide in which the U.N. failed to intervene; most of the U.N.'s armed troops evacuated after the first two weeks of massacres, abandoning vulnerable civilians to their fate, which included, literally, the worst things in the world a human being can do to another human being.It is a well known fact that even with the small force that Gen. Dallaire could have stopped the murder of 800,000 people. Instead he was ordered by Annan to do nothing.
It did not have to happen. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the U.N.'s force commander in Rwanda, sent Mr. Annan a series of desperate faxes including one warning that Hutu militias "could kill up to 1,000" Tutsis "in 20 minutes" and others pleading for authority to protect vulnerable civilians. But at the crucial moment, Mr. Annan ordered his general to stand down and to vigorously protect, not genocide victims, assembled in their numbers waiting to die, but the U.N.'s image of "impartiality."
"Do you think the U.N. was at fault?" I asked. Not the soldiers, she said, but the leaders. "If they had done their job, and were responsible, this would not have happened." I asked if she'd heard about the current controversy over Mr. Annan's leadership. Yes she had. So I asked if she thought he should resign. It was not oil that fueled her angry answer, but genocide: "Yes," she said, waving her hand, "all the U.N. leaders. They could have reacted if they wanted to. If the U.N. goes somewhere now, how can the people there believe or trust that the U.N. will save them?"The UN was founded in the wake of WWII and the Holocaust to prevent genocide from ever happening again. Yet in every instance of genocide the UN has done nothing, allowing it to happen despite the ability to prevent it. Even now, with the evidence of genocide in Darfur, the UN can not bring itself to act. With such a record, how can it ever be trusted again?
The most immediate challenge, of course, is terrorism. And one could make a strong case that the European Union's agreement to open membership negotiations with Turkey will be a bigger contribution to winning the war on terrorism than the American-led occupation of Iraq.I highly doubt that Osama and his supporters would care whether Turkey is admitted into the EU or not. To them, Turkey, whether in the EU or not, is even more evil than the US. Their goal is the establishment of the Caliphate on all lands that once belonged to Islam - parts of Europe included.
Ash concludes by saying"The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom," President Bush has said. Yet by overlooking the true dimensions of European power, America is failing to recognize the potential of what could be its greatest ally in the most hopeful project of our time: the advancement of liberty around the world.
Iraq is now a bloody playground for existing groups of Islamist terrorists - and probably a breeding ground for new ones. The European Union's offer to Turkey, by contrast, sends a clear signal that Europe is not an exclusive "Christian club," that the West is engaged in no crusade, and that a largely Islamic society can be reconciled not only with a secular state but also with the rules and customs of modern liberal democracy.
Robert Kagan describes the difference between America and Europe as the difference between power and weakness - American power, that is, and European weakness. This description is sustainable only if power is measured in terms of military strength. In the way that some American conservatives talk about the European Union, I hear an echo of Stalin's famous question about the Vatican's power: how many divisions does the pope have? But the pope defeated Stalin in the end. This attitude overlooks the dimensions of European power that are not to be found on the battlefield.The pope defeated Stalin?? If he means by this analogy that soft power defeated the Soviet Union, he is completely wrong. It was not the soft power of engagement and negotiation that defeated the Soviet Union, but the hard power of a military build-up. More importantly, soft power is powerless without the threat of hard power behind it.
But the ability to attract new members and new immigrants is not necessarily a positive; More important is who you are attracting. And it is in this that Ash leaves out the main problems of Europe - a large and growing unassimilated mass of uneducated and unemployed immigrants. Unlike the US, which attracts people who want to work, Europe attracts those who want to live on the public dole. In taking in so many immigrants from North Africa and the Arab world, the EU is facing a crisis, one that it is only now opening its eyes to. (The most popular name for newborn boys in the Netherlands is Mohammed). Europe is also facing an economic crisis tied not just to immigration, but to the aging population and the welfare state that has been built up. These will undoubtedly detract form Europe's power going forward.
is a fourth dimension - one that the United States wholly lacks. It is the power of induction. Put very simply: the European Union is getting bigger, and the United States is not. Haiti cannot hope to follow Hawaii into the American union, and even an American territory like Puerto Rico faces resistance in becoming the 51st state. But Ukraine can hope to follow Poland into the European Union.
"The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom," President Bush has said. Yet by overlooking the true dimensions of European power, America is failing to recognize the potential of what could be its greatest ally in the most hopeful project of our time: the advancement of liberty around the world.Yet in its refusal to support the US in Iraq, in its support for Arafat and his cronies, and in its utter impotence in Bosnia and now Darfur, the EU has shown that it is not interested in the "advancement of liberty around the world", only in its own narrow interests.
Some Americans get angry at parents who want to ban carols because they tremble that their kids might feel "different" and "uncomfortable" should they, God forbid, hear Christian music sung at their school. I feel pity. What kind of fragile religious identity have they bequeathed their children that it should be threatened by exposure to carols?
I'm struck by the fact that you almost never find Orthodox Jews complaining about a Christmas creche in the public square. That is because their children, steeped in the richness of their own religious tradition, know who they are and are not threatened by Christians celebrating their religion in public. They are enlarged by it.
It is the more deracinated members of religious minorities, brought up largely ignorant of their own traditions, whose religious identity is so tenuous that they feel the need to be constantly on guard against displays of other religions -- and who think the solution to their predicament is to prevent the other guy from displaying his religion, rather than learning a bit about their own.
Follow up from Elder of Zion #6
On a personal note, I was helping my girlfriend sell Christmas trees the other day (its true, the Jews are making money off the birth of the baby Jesus this year) and after the completion of a sale I wished the buyer a happy holiday. The guy then mumbled something about secularism and as he walked away all I could hear under his breath was...
“blah blah mumble mumble its God damn Christmas… happy holiday my ass!!!”
To be honest, I liked him the most. He was the best non tipping customer this Jew has ever sold a Christmas tree to.
Moreover, few of any note in the Arab Middle East speak out against the racial hatred of Jews. Almost no major Islamic religious figure castigates extreme Muslim clerics for their Dark-age misogyny, anti-Semitism, and venom against the West; and no Arab government admonishes its citizenry to look to itself for solutions rather than falling prey to conspiracy theories and ago-old superstitions. It would be as if the a state-subsidized Ku Klux Klan or the American Nazi party were to be tolerated for purportedly voicing the frustrations of poor working-class whites who suffered under a number of supposed grievances.
What is preached in the madrassas on the West Bank, in Pakistan, and throughout the Gulf is no different from the Nazi doctrine of racial hatred. What has changed, of course, is that unlike our grandfathers, we have lost the courage to speak out against it. In one of the strangest political transformations of our age, the fascist Islamic Right has grafted its cause onto that of the Lefts boutique multiculturalism, hoping to earn a pass for its hate by posing as the other and reaping the benefits of liberal guilt due to purported victimization. By any empirical standard, what various Palestinian cliques have done on the West Bank suicide murdering, lynching without trial of their own people, teaching small children to hate and kill Jews should have earned them all Hitlerian sobriquets rather than U.N. praise.
The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan was supposed to demonstrate NATO's ability to operate outside of its traditional European theatre. Letting non-U.S. members of NATO command and man ISAF was their opportunity to contribute to the war against terrorism.In effect, militarily NATO is non-existent. The question then is, why do we still need it?
Instead, NATO has failed to deliver on its promises. Non-U.S. NATO, with over two million troops, has scraped together just 8,500 soldiers for duties in and around Kabul. NATO's October 2003 pledge to expand ISAF's role outside of Kabul remains largely unfulfilled.
C. Ted Rall
Ted Rall continues to mock the death of Pat Tillman in this holiday offering… but it is cute and witty and intelligent and just seems to shirk revulsion… 1 Mississippi… pondering… 2 Mississippi… and…. there it was… gag reflex kicked in.
[t]he interview contrasted with strong praise in the Palestinian Authority's official media for an armed attack on an Israeli border post in the Gaza Strip on Sunday.As it was under Arafat, what is said in the West and what is said directly to the Palestinians are two different things.
"The use of live weaponry has harmed the intifada and it should stop".The fact that it is immoral, and evil to target and kill innocent men, women, and children, is not a factor in his desire to stop these attacks. This omission clearly shows that there is still no true desire for peace on the Palestinian side. Abbas wants the attacks to stop because it is bad for the Palestinians, but if it becomes useful for them would he then condone them?
"From the time people were kids, people have laid their heads on their mothers'
laps to get their ears cleaned"
European and U.S. policymakers must repeatedly and jointly articulate that they seek to hold Iran to the obligations it has accepted under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to refrain from building nuclear arms.This is the type of platitude one expects from diplomats. But this is not a solution, or even an idea. Telling Iran that we don't want them to have nuclear weapons is pointless. They already know that, and still build nuclear weapons.
Second, the major nuclear suppliers (Russia, the United States and Europe) should provide a firm guarantee to supply fresh reactor fuel for civilian nuclear power and to retrieve and dispose of spent fuel in exchange for Iran's agreement to permanently forswear its own nuclear fuel-cycle capabilitiesThis, of course, has already been proposed to Iran and rejected out of hand. Do the Foreign Ministers really think that repeating this offer will make Iran accept it?
Europeans must prove to the Iranians that severe political and economic consequences will result if Iran does not renounce the nuclear weapons option. In the event that diplomacy fails and Iran decides not to abandon its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, Europeans should be ready for alternative courses of action, including going to the U.N. Security Council, and they should repeatedly stress their willingness to act.So the end result is that if ran continues to violate agreements and build nuclear weapons, then the way to punish them is to continue talking about doing something. Everyone understands that the Security Council will do nothing, especially with Russia and China threatening to veto any resolution. In effect, the ideas of these Foreign Ministers is to allow Iran to continue and for the rest of the world to learn to live with a Mullah Bomb.
Every schoolchild or member of the public who walks into U.N. Headquarters today (and the entire month of December) will be greeted by a large display in the front entrance put on by that main U.N. body, the Committee on Palestinian Rights. It includes a series of pictures "Fashion for Army Checkpoints," that conveys the alleged degradation of being searched for a suicide bomb strapped to one's body. Of course, nothing is said about the degradation of being blown up by a suicide bomb strapped to those bodies who manage to avoid such searches.
Is this just a problem for Israelis? Not if one compares the extensive Palestinian exhibit gracing the U.N. lobby with the minimal display they managed to squeeze alongside on the subject of AIDS.
But the public U.N. entrance is just the tip of the iceberg. There is only one entire U.N. Division devoted to a single group of people — the U.N. Division for Palestinian Rights (created in 1977). There is only one U.N. website dedicated to the claims of a single people — the enormous UNISPAL, the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. There is only one refugee agency dedicated to a single refugee situation — UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (in operation since 1950.)
(2004-12-09) -- President Bush today expressed his support for Kofi Annan, saying that the beleaguered United Nations leader is "technically not a criminal as far as we know, or can prove, at this time."
It was a telling sign when senior commanders in the Central Command recently started counting the number of Palestinian stone-throwing incidents in the West Bank. For the past four years of the latest conflict, called by the Palestinians the "Aksa Intifada," the army counted mainly suicide bombings, shootings and petrol bomb attacks. Stonings weren't even mentioned.This victory was not achieved by negotiations, as was made out, by the left, to be the only way to end terrorism. In fact,
the relative calm Israel is experiencing now is not connected to the death of Yasser Arafat or other changes in the Palestinian nation, but is rather the direct result of the aggressive action against terrorists by the IDF, aided by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and Border Police. The army said it has arrested six suicide bombers since Arafat died a month ago. This shows the motivation is still there, but the capabilities are steadily deteriorating.With the assassination and arrest of the top leaders, the next in line just don't have the experience and are being captured before they can do anything. So much for the myth that killing terrorists will only create more. It turns out that there is a military solution to terrorism.
Within 100 days, al Qaeda is routed and the Taliban overthrown. Then the first election in Afghanistan's history. Now the inauguration of a deeply respected democrat who, upon being sworn in as the legitimate president of his country, thanks America for its liberation.The answer is pretty simple: the left-dominated media is not interested in any successes of the Bush Administration, including this story showing that Taliban members have been contacting the US military there
This in Afghanistan, which only three years ago was not just hostile but untouchable. What do liberals have to say about this singular achievement by the Bush administration? That Afghanistan is growing poppies.
Good grief. This is news? "Afghanistan grows poppies" is the sun rising in the east. "Afghanistan inaugurates democratically elected president" is the sun rising in the west. Afghanistan has always grown poppies.
willing to lay down their weapons following an arms-for-amnesty offer by the US envoy to the country.Krauthammer goes on to comment why we have succeeded in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq.
Iraq has for decades been exposed to the ideas of political modernism -- fascism and socialism as transmuted through Baathism (heavily influenced by the European political winds of the 1920s and '30s) to which Saddam Hussein added the higher totalitarianism of his hero, Stalin. This history has succeeded in devaluing and delegitimizing secular ideologies, including liberal-democratic ones. In contrast, Afghanistan had suffered under years of appalling theocratic rule, which helped to legitimize the kind of secularist democracy that Karzai represents.It seems to me that this could also be applicable to Iran and hopes for a regime change there.
The Israeli "anti-French neurosis," said Araud, began with the crisis in relations that developed during the Six-Day War.Well, aside from that betrayal there may be a few other reasons for Israel disliking the French. Perhaps it has something to do with France's active collaboration with the Nazis during WWII. Or perhaps it was France prostrating and prostituting itself to Arab terrorists. Or perhaps it has something to do with Chirac calling Arafat a "man of courage and conviction" on his death. Or perhaps it has to do with France's Ambassador to England referring to Israel as "that shitty little country", and saying "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?" Or perhaps it has to do with the rabid and unpunished anti-semitism currently sweeping France.
"Until 1967 the relationship was close and it was a love story," said Araud. "In 1967 Israel felt betrayed by the French embargo [on arms sales to Israel], and since that trauma, Israel has continued to build the case against France. It is possible to find new reasons for the hatred, but in essence we are talking about the same pathology."
The Middle East and the Arab world – plus the extended Middle East, including, say, Iran – is a very special problem. For historical and cultural reasons – some of them the influence of the Wahhabis – I believe it is a very, very big task. But what I love to tell my European friends is that although it’s going to be difficult to bring democracy and the rule of law to the Arab world and the rest of the Middle East, it won’t be nearly as hard as it was to bring it to Europe. And they say, what?
And I say, well, you know, the German Empire the first part of the century, the Nazis, the Fascists, the Communists. At times in the 20th century, Europe was entirely under either empires or autocratic states, or one type of totalitarian dictatorship or another. It took us two hot wars, World War I, World War II, a cold one, something on the order of a couple hundred million deaths from war, the Holocaust, and so forth, before we got Europe sorted out – we and the British and some others. So, I think the Arab world is going to be tough, but it can’t be as hard as Europe was.
Sheikh Yusef stated to the Israeli media that the "hudna" that he suggested would last for ten years.It is clear from their statements and their fundamentalist reading of the Koran that Hamas's goal is to destroy Israel, no matter what they say to Western journalists.
Yet "hudna", often mistranslated as a “ceasefire” or armistice, connotes no more than a temporary respite in the war between Islamic forces and non-Islamic forces.
The authoritative Islamic Encyclopedia (London, 1922) defines "hudna" as a “temporary treaty” which can be approved or abrogated by Islamic religious leaders, depending on whether or not it serves the interests of Islam, and that a “hudna” cannot last for more than ten years. The Islamic Encyclopedia mentions the Hudaybia treaty as the ultimate “hudna.” Arafat also referred to a hudna in his speeches when he would refer to the Oslo accords. In the words of the Islamic encyclopedia, “The Hudaybia treaty, concluded by the Prophet Muhammed with the unbelievers of Mecca in 628, provided a precedent for subsequent treaties which the Prophet’s successors made with non-Muslims. Muhammed made a hudna with a tribe of Jews back then to give him time to grow his forces, then broke the treaty and wiped them out. Although this treaty was violated within three years from the time that it was concluded, most jurists concur that the maximum period of peace with the enemy should not exceed ten years since it was originally agreed that the Hudaybia treaty should last ten years.”
In certain departments, Republicans are literally nonexistent. There are no Republicans in either the anthropology or sociology departments at Stanford or UC-Berkeley. At Berkeley, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is 11 to 1 in the economics department and 14 to 1 in the political science department. Stanford is a model of intellectual diversity by contrast, with a Democrat/Republican ratio of 7 to 3 in economics and 9 to 1 in political science.Moreover, the bias among the faculty is self-reinforcing due to the tenure system of US universities. It is incredibly difficult, if not outright impossible in some departments, for an academic with non-progressive credentials to get hired or to get tenure.
In a larger study, Klein looked at voting patterns from a survey of academics throughout the country. He found that in anthropology, there are more than 30 votes cast for Democratic candidates for each 1 cast for a Republican. In sociology, the ratio is 28 to 1. Republicans do best among economists, who only vote Democratic by a 3 to 1 margin. In political science, the ratio is 6.7 to 1. On average, across all departments, Democrats get 15 votes for every 1 going to Republicans.
And the hiring process is unlike anything in a private business. In most cases, one needs a unanimous vote of the professors in ones department to get tenure. This puts a high priority on intangibles like collegiality, which often translates into sharing the same politics and ideology.If the point of universities is to provide a "marketplace of ideas", they are failing miserably.
Bias works in other ways as well. It is extraordinarily difficult to get an article in a top academic journal or get a book published by a university press unless it slavishly parrots the liberal line. That is because such things must be peer-reviewed by experts in the field before they can be published. This makes it very easy for anonymous reviewers to blackball those with a conservative point of view, effectively killing the careers of those who must publish or perish.
a propaganda bid for renewed Western sympathy and pressure on Israel for unilateral concessionsAnd Steven Stalinsky, the executive director of MEMRI, provides some quotes from the Palestinian leadership that show their true intentions. Hopefully the Bush administration will pay attention to what is being said in Arabic, and not just in English as the Clinton team did.
Some of the [Arab League] members . . .maintain that the Baghdad government is not legitimate. Why? They argue that it is not elected and was appointed by the American occupation. This widespread view has some basis. . . . However, the talk of the illegitimacy of the [Iraqi] government. . . . allows us to raise questions regarding most of the regimes in the region . . . some of which emerged as a result of coups or internal conspiracies, when no one asked the people what it thought.This is why elections can not be postponed. Delaying them may once again push these voices into hiding, and then the invasion will not have achieved any real objectives.
Abdel Rahman al-Rashed
director-general of Al Arabia TV, writing in the London-based daily Al Sharq Al Awsat
Annan is merely a symptom of the UN's sickness, not the cause of it. His resignation would do nothing to reform the UN into the engine of peace and liberty its founders envisioned. Better that Annan remain in place as a symbol of UN fecklessness and failure, and a spur to those who can envision something better.While it would be great to see Annan humiliated by a forced resignation, I think that it might accomplish the opposite of what it would be intended to do. If Annan resigns, and someone like Havel is put in his place, then without doing anything the UN will regain some measure of legitimacy and respect. Much better to keep Annan in place as a reminder of what a cesspool of corruption and immorality the UN has become. Maybe then the democracies of the world would form their own organization and consign the UN to the ashheap of history where it belongs.
The UN is a corrupt institution, one that long ago squandered whatever moral legitimacy it once had. The UN's founding documents venerate justice and human rights, but for the past 40 years, the organization has been dominated by a bloc of states -- essentially the Afro-Asian Third World -- most of whose governments routinely pervert justice and violate human rights.
"I see the end of the Diaspora of Jews in Europe," Lau said. "I call on the government to prepare for a new phase in the spiritual and physical absorption of European Jewry before they consider emigrating to the United States or Australia," Lau said.
There may well be even more terrible things to come in Iraq than what we have seen already, but there will also be far better things than were there before. And there will come a time, when all those who slandered the efforts — the Germans, the French, the American radical Left, the vicious Michael "Minutemen" Moore, the pampered and coddled Hollywood elite, the Arab League, and the U.N. will assume that Iraq is a "good thing" like Afghanistan, and that democracy there really was preferable — after they had so bravely weighed in with their requisite "ifs" and "buts" — to the mass murders of Saddam Hussein. Yes, they will say all this, but it will be for the rest of us to remember how it all came about and what those forgotten soldiers and people of Iraq went through to get it — lest we forget, lest we forget....
Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the United States on Friday of pursuing a dictatorial foreign policy and said mounting violence could derail progress toward bringing peace and democracy to Iraq."Dictatorial foreign policy"??? He has got to be kidding. And wasn't he one of the ones who was opposed to "bringing peace and democracy to Iraq" and instead wanted to keep Saddam in place?
Putin also criticized the West for setting double-standards on terrorism, pursuing Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Iraq while giving refuge to "terrorists" demanding Chechnya's independence from Russia.I seem to recall Russia scolding Israel for killing Hamas leaders and other terrorists, and criticizing Israel's invasion of Jenin while reducing Grozny to ash. Of course there are no double standards there.
"Even if dictatorship is packaged in beautiful pseudo-democratic phraseology, it will not be able to solve systemic problems," Putin said. "It may even make them worse."A perfect description of Putin's rule.
"We see them after school in a world of their own.
To some it may seem creepy what they do.
The neighbors on the right sat and watched them every night.
I bet you’d do the same if it was you.
Wizzing and pasting and Putin through the day.
Ronny helping Kenny
helping burn his boots away."
A strong argument can be made that America's conduct over the past three years in fighting the War on Terror against Islamic extremists has borne surprising fruit in the glorious and thrilling display of liberty in the streets of Kiev.By pushing for democracy in the Islamic world the US has, in effect, given support for it everywhere.
Millions of Ukrainians are creating an entirely new kind of democratic revolution: They've simply refused to let their election be stolen by a government run by a kleptocratic mafia, and they've taken to the streets of the capital. As their peaceful, high-spirited, optimistic and profoundly moving protest has grown over the past weeks, it has taken an amazing turn.
Thus Zbigniew Brzezinski, a fierce opponent of the Bush administration's democracy project in Iraq, writes passionately about the importance of democracy in Ukraine and how, by example, it might have a domino effect, spreading democracy to neighboring Russia. Yet when George Bush and Tony Blair make a similar argument about the salutary effect of establishing a democracy in the Middle East -- and we might indeed have the first truly free election in the Middle East within two months if we persevere -- "realist" critics dismiss it as terminally naive.
If you had said 20 years ago that Ukraine would today be on the threshold of joining a democratic Europe, you, too, would have been called a hopeless utopian. Yes, Iraq has no democratic tradition and deep ethnic divisions. But Ukrainian democracy is all of 13 years old, much of it dominated by a corrupt, authoritarian regime with close ties to an even more corrupt and authoritarian Russia. And with a civilizational split right down the middle, Ukraine has profound, and potentially catastrophic, divisions.
So let us all join hands in praise of the young people braving the cold in the streets of Kiev. But then tell me why there is such silence about the Iraqis, young and old, braving bullets and bombs, organizing electorate lists and negotiating coalitions even as we speak. Where is it written: Only in Ukraine?
When their ideas were in vogue, leftist advocates took electoral defeat in stride, as they were confident that their vision was far more popular - because far more accurate - than their opponents' view of the world. History and logic were on their side. But no more. Incoherent rage and unbridled personal attacks on the winners are sure signs of a failed vision.
Ironically, the Left's view of history provides us with part of the explanation for its death. Marx and Hegel both understood that the world constantly changes, and ideas change along with it. The world they knew - and successfully transformed - was a class-bound society dominated by royalty and aristocracy. They hurled themselves into class struggle, believing it to be the engine of human history, and they fought for liberty for all. Successive generations of leftists preached and organized democratic revolution at home and abroad, from the overthrow of tyrants to the abolition of class privileges and the redistribution of both political power and material wealth.
In true dialectical fashion, they were doomed by their own success...
Conventional wisdom also insists that the US is hated by Muslims because it is pro-Israel. That view is shared by most American officials posted to the Arab capitals. But is it not possible that the reverse is true – that Israel is hated because it is pro-American?I think that in part he is right in this assertion - one need only to look at Iran's view of the US as "The Great Satan" and Israel as the "Little Satan" as confirmation. However, one needs to look at the different parts of the Arab world. For the part that is secular, Israel is seen as an outpost of America in their neighborhood. Their hatred of Israel clearly has to do with Israel's support of the US. But in the fundamentalist part, US or not Israel is an intruder - an occupier of holy Muslim land. It would not matter who was supporting Israel or whom Israel was supporting, the issue would be the same - Israel's very existence.
International inspectors are requesting access to two secret Iranian military sites where intelligence suggests that Tehran's Ministry of Defense may be working on atomic weapons, despite the agreement that Iran reached this week to suspend its production of enriched uranium, according to diplomats here.The whole basis of IAEA inspections relies on the honesty and good faith of the countries which the IAEA is inspecting. Iran has been cheating for almost 20 years, yet the EU-3 makes agreements with them ignoring this record. Since the military sites where Iran is doing nuclear "research" are not subject to inspections, a country that chooses to develop weapons can easily get around the whole inspection and non-proliferation regime.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the I.A.E.A., said in an interview here on Wednesday that he had repeatedly asked Iran for access to the two sites, but that it had not yet been granted.
Achieving peace in the Holy Land is not just a matter of pressuring one side or the other on the shape of a border or the site of a settlement. This approach has been tried before without success.Unlike his predecessors (or his opponent in the last election), Bush has an ideology and is willing to stand up for it. His steadfastness in the pursuit of these goals could actually produce dramatic and long lasting results in the Middle East.
As we negotiate the details of peace, we must look at the heart of the matter, which is the need for a Palestinian democracy. The Palestinian people need a peaceful government that truly serves their interests. And the Israeli people need a true partner in peace.