Soccer Dad

Council speak 12/29/06

This past week's Council winner was Follow your surges (great title, great argument) by Done with Mirrors. It required a tie breaking vote by the Watcher himself to prevail over the American Future's The Coming of Neo-Mulilateralism a discussion of the post-Bush Doctrine.

The winning non-council post was an extended history of modern (say the past 30 years or so) Iran, From Khomeini to Ahmidinejad by Matthias Kuntzel. The runner up was Is Federalism Tainted by Slavery and Jim Crow? at the Volokh Conspiracy.

The full results are here.

We'd also like to welcome a new watcher, Eternity Road, taking the place of the departing Gates of Vienna. Seems that is was just about 2 weeks ago that Dymphna was complaining that she was the only female watcher, now there are none.

And if you would like to participate in the voting as an outside observers follow the instructions here to be considered.

Blogdigger tag: Watcher's Council.

Soccer goat?

This is gross

Palermo general manager Rino Foschi received a surprise in the mail for Christmas - the severed head of a young goat, covered in blood.

At least Mr. Foschi is taking it in stride.

"I don't have anything to do with that stuff, those are things you see in films," Foschi said. "I've lived in Palermo for five years and I've never received any threats. I feel safe in Palermo. I don't have anything to fear.

"I really don't have any explanation. I don't have any suspects to signal. Maybe some idiot wanted to make an ugly Christmas joke ... Maybe I'm disliked for some soccer market moves."

Crossposted on OTB Sports and Soccer Dad.

Blogdigger tags: Soccer, Italy.

If ... you must 12/29/2006

If you haven't read Imagine-Life's Hateful Imagination at Maryland Conservatarian; you must.

If you haven't read The enemy of my enemy is ... what? at Secular Blasphemy; you must.

If you haven't read On more than one occasion at Instapundit; you must.

If you haven't read Whisper of Peace at Cox and Forkum; you must.

If you haven't read A measured Response at Treppenwitz; you must.

If you haven't read the UN and Saddam at the Spine; you must.

If you haven't read Will Saddam send the NY Times a thank you note at It Shines for all; you must.

If you haven't read Dead by Dawn at Jules Crittendon; you must. (h/t Don Surber.)

If you haven't read ScrappleFace editor Responds to Real Editor at (where else?) Scrapple Face; you must.

If you haven't read Monica Lewinsky's Modern Day Detractor at CrabLaw; you must.

Blogdigger tags: Israel, Hamas, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Monica Lewinsky.

Ravens outlook

Well the Baltimore Sun is as excited about any fan about the Ravens' prospects for this year. Columnist John Eisenberg measures this year's team vs. the 2000 version and finds them pretty similar in Comparison to 2000 no stretch.

Not surprisingly ...

Their passing game is much more productive under quarterback Steve McNair, averaging 38.7 more yards per game than the Super Bowl team and featuring three receivers with at least 60 catches, as opposed to one. Although the overall scoring and yardage totals of the two offenses are surprisingly comparable, this season's unit is tougher to defend, more capable of big plays, less plodding.

Not as obvious ...

And defensively, though some may consider it heresy to compare any unit with the one that dominated the Super Bowl and is considered among the best in NFL history, this season's Ravens defense increasingly bears a resemblance.

It isn't quite as physically overpowering, but it is faster and more athletic, less predictable tactically with its array of blitzes and, in the end, just as dominating. The Super Bowl winners yielded 10.3 points per game. This season's Ravens are allowing 12.9.

and ...

The impregnable run defense (with linemen Trevor Pryce, Haloti Ngata and Kelly Gregg reprising the roles of behemoth run-stoppers Siragusa and Sam Adams) puts pressure on opposing quarterbacks to invent plays, which inevitably leads to turnovers. The Super Bowl defense forced 49 during the 2000 regular season. The Ravens have forced 37 this season. (But they have recorded 57 sacks this season as opposed to 35 by the Super Bowl team.)

So I guess what they lost (in comparison) in turnovers, they gained in field position (with those extra sacks).

I guess what's missing though, is the feeling that there's one guy who can change the complexion of a game. In 2000, I finally realized how a defensive player could be an MVP. Ray Lewis was everywhere, it seemed. Whether he was making a crucial tackle or deflecting a pass or intercepting, in the late season and post-season, he seemed to be in the middle of every play.

Eisenberg also left out the special teams. In 2000 Jermaine Lewis had a number of really nice returns including a record breaker in the Super Bowl.

And the Ravens this year don't seem to have a runner as strong as Jamal Lewis was six years ago.

But if 2000 the Ravens won based on the play of special teams and defense, this year, they're winning with offense contributing a bit more. I guess that's what you'd call balance.

But will it be enough to win it all?

A number of analysts don't think that they'll overcome the Chargers - even though they beat them earlier this year.

Ravens-Chargers Super Bowl? With no great team emerging from the NFC, many fans and writers think the AFC Championship game could be the real Super Bowl this year. Sports Illustrated's King is among those buying into that idea:

Watching as much football as I have for the last couple of months, I'm starting to think that the shame of this playoff season will be that the two best teams won't meet in the Super Bowl. San Diego and Baltimore clearly are superior to every other team. They're a combined 17-1 over the last nine weeks.

So which team will have the edge if they do meet in the AFC Championship? ESPN.com poses that question to analysts and former players Eric Allen and Joe Theismann. Allen says the Chargers would come out on top:

I gotta go with the Chargers. This team plays passionate, hungry football just like the Ravens, but the biggest difference is the balance the Chargers possess. The Chargers can beat you with the defense, through the air or on the ground and that's how you beat the Ravens. You can't beat that team with just one facet of the game. You have to do it with every facet of the game.

Theismann agrees:

The Chargers look unstoppable out there. They are playing excellent football and are my favorite to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. What other team has every phase working like the Chargers?

In a chat with fans, Ed Bouchette from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is asked who the favorites are from the AFC:

I too like San Diego and Baltimore. Not many people talk about Baltimore, which beat the Chargers this year in Baltimore. Also, no one's talking about Brian Billick as coach of the year and I think he deserves at least a mention.

(Is this a reason for optimism, McNair lately has been moving up the QB ratings and Rivers has going downstream?)

And talk about a championship wouldn't be complete if it didn't also identify stars among the coaches. This year ( obligatory Lewis reference: in 2000 it was Marvin Lewis who was tapped as head coaching material as a reward for his performance that year. He's made the Cincinatti Bengals respectable, even if the team's fallen back a little this year) the guy getting talked about is Rex Ryan - coming from a fine defensive pedigree who might be heading for a top job. It would appear that there may be no shortage of opportunities for him next year either.

The list of potential openings at the end of the season could include: the Cleveland Browns (Romeo Crennel has 10 wins in two seasons), Miami Dolphins (constant rumors of Nick Saban leaving), Oakland Raiders (team hasn't responded to Art Shell), New York Giants (late-season collapse could be costly for Tom Coughlin), Atlanta Falcons (continue to regress under Jim Mora) and Arizona Cardinals (Dennis Green has not lived up to expectations).

His father, Buddy, though, didn't just have a defensive reputation, he had an offensive one too: ask Kevin Gilbride.

Rex, though, seems to have a more relaxed temperment.

Buddy Ryan had a brash, in-your-face approach that sometimes rubbed people the wrong way. Rex Ryan is the exact opposite, an affable coach who is considered one of the most popular people on the Ravens' staff.

"He's the ultimate players' coach," Lewis said.

Ryan frequently laughs and jokes with players during practice. He even allows them to have input on game plans, discussing which calls work best with them throughout the week.

The article also points out one of the strengths of the Ravens: their defensive coaches:

Billick's first defensive coordinator, Marvin Lewis, has turned around the Cincinnati Bengals. His second one, Mike Nolan, has improved the San Francisco 49ers in his second season. And former Ravens linebackers coach Jack Del Rio has led the Jacksonville Jaguars to the playoffs.

Clearly, they're doing something right as an organization.

Finally, I have no idea how this is impacting the Ravens' preparation but they've got a fancy new toy to see X's and O's in 3D.

Created with a new technology called Play Visualizer, the pictures that Roman's charges see in these strategy sessions show plays from a variety of viewpoints - behind the offense, even through the eyes of the quarterback - rather than from the limited angles available through traditional video.

The technology, developed by Hunt Valley-based sports technology company 3D MVP, will officially launch next month. But the Ravens, headed to the playoffs in January after winning 12 of their first 15 regular season games, have been testing it since inception two years ago.

"There's no question that as a teaching tool it's far superior to anything we've gotten or used," Ravens head coach Brian Billick said of Play Visualizer. "It's taken what we do to another level."

And this is interesting too:

Dave Nash, a video technician for the Oakland Raiders, also has access to the technology, Taylor said. Mike Working, who is quarterbacks coach and passing game coordinator for the Canadian Football League's Winnipeg Blue Bombers, owns a piece of 3D MVP and also uses the technology.

Right now it's fun. Nothing's pre-ordained. If the Ravens' season ends with a loss, all these good feelings will pass - quickly. Still with the frustration Baltimore fans over the serial mismanagement of the Orioles it's nice to have something to root for.

Blogdigger tags: Baltimore Ravens, Sports, NFL.

Crossposted on OTB Sports and Soccer Dad.

Council for the self-interest

Boker Tov Boulder wrote about an ad taken out the NY Times "Is Bethlehem Dying" by the Council for the National Interest. She cites (as does Israel Matzav and ADL background report on the group.

CNI was founded in 1989 by several former U.S. government officials, including Paul Findley and McCloskey (both former U.S. congressmen), Andrew Killgore (former U.S. ambassador to Qatar), Eugene H. Bird (formerly with the U.S. foreign service) and Richard Curtiss (former U.S. Information Agency chief). CNI is an offshoot of the Washington D.C.-based American Educational Trust (AET), an anti-Israel group that publishes the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Curtiss and Killgore appear to be the ones who are most aggressive in seeking publicity. Back in 2004 there was a group of former diplomats and military officers who publicized a letter critical of President Bush's support of then PM Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan. To read the reports at the time (such as the one preserved here) is to assume that these people are experts whose views are strictly professional.

Sixty former U.S. diplomats have signed a letter to President Bush contending that his "unabashed support" for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is costing the United States credibility and friends.

The letter expresses deep concern over Bush's April 14 endorsement of Sharon's proposal to pull out of Gaza but keep some Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

"By closing the door to negotiations with Palestinians and the possibility of a Palestinian state, you have proved that the U.S. is not an evenhanded peace partner," the letter said.

The number of diplomats who have signed the letter was disclosed by the office of Andrew I. Killgore, who was ambassador to Qatar from 1977-80. It was coauthored by Richard H. Curtiss, a former chief inspector of the U.S. Information Agency.

If professional means "paid" then that's probably accurate as serving as an ambassador to the Arab world has its benefits as noted by Ron Dreher.

The number of ex-U.S. ambassadors to Riyadh who now push a pro-Saudi line is startling. Walter L. Cutler runs the Meridian International Center, which has been heavily supported by the Saudis. Richard Murphy wields influence as a pro-Saudi voice at the Council on Foreign Relations. Chas W. Freeman Jr. now runs the robustly pro-Arab Middle East Policy Council, and heads a firm that sets up joint international business ventures. And lower-level diplomats with Riyadh experience on their resumes can be found throughout U.S. foreign-policy circles.

Prince Bandar, the colorful Saudi ambassador to the United States, makes no bones about how it works. The Washington Post has quoted Bandar as observing, "If the reputation builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office, you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office."

Dreher also quotes Hume Horan, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia

Hume Horan is a retired career diplomat whose service includes two stints in Riyadh. He says, "There have been some people who really do go on the Saudi payroll, and they work as advisers and consultants. Prince Bandar is very good about massaging and promoting relationships like that. Money works wonders, and if you've got an awful lot of it, and a royal title -- well, it's amusing to see how some Americans liquefy in front of a foreign potentate, just because he's called a prince."

Horan, by the way, was an exception as portrayed in this appreciation that appear in the Middle East Quarterly.

In essence many of these former foreign servince officers are benefitting from Gulf largesse. It many simply be a matter that they are being paid for views they hold and have held for a long time, and not that they're loyalty is being bought. But the ex-diplomats of the Council for the National Interest and related organizations are not disinterested observers. They have strong views - about Israel those views are negative - and are well compensated for holding them. Unfortunately, the source of they funding is too often ignored.

Blogdigger tags: Council on the National Interest, Saudi Arabia.

The answer to the question in the ad: Yes, Bethlehem is dying as a Christian city, but it has nothing to do with Israel.

Right universe, poor logic

In an alternate universe I read the following editorial in the NT Times, "Hamas's militant message"

The Hamas led Palestinian Authority has made some encouraging progress recently, refusing to launch terror attacks though competing terror groups in Gaza have not respected the truce reached a month ago. This respect for the peace process hopefully will boost Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert currently suffering for low approval ratings. Unfortunately Hamas threatens to undercut the good it has done by failing to rein in the rogue factions firing rockets into Israel.

Hamas's space for peace diplomacy is tightly constrained. It must contend with its own ideology denying Israel's right to exist, numerous terror groups operating without challenge and a Holocaust denying President of the Palestinian Authrority. Without any obvious partner to make peace, Israel's defense minister has chosen to authorize a new settlement to accomodate Jews expelled from Gaza last year to further the peace process. Though we don't approve of settlements, this is no excuse for the continued terror Israel has had to endure especially after giving the Palestinians their own territory to live in.

We hope that the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh will take the initiative and order the many men he currently has under his authority to protect Israeli civilians. We would be encouraged if, for once, he would take an action - any action - that could be unambigiously interpreted as promoting peace and coexistence.

Then I pinched myself and returned to reality and read "Israel's Mixed Message in the Times. I was greatly relieved to be home, in the correct universe.

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, took some encouraging steps over the weekend to ease the frustrations Palestinians face at West Bank and Gaza checkpoints. He hoped in that way to strengthen Mahmoud Abbas, the embattled moderate who presides over the Palestinian Authority. Unfortunately, Israel’s defense minister, Amir Peretz, has undercut these moves by approving the first new West Bank settlement in more than a decade.

Israel’s space for peace diplomacy is tightly constrained. It must reckon with a Hamas-led Palestinian cabinet that denies its right to exist and rejects the very notion of a negotiated peace. Yet those facts of Mideast life do not justify authorizing a new settlement. That self-defeating move adds nothing to Israel’s security and needlessly complicates the quest for an eventual negotiated peace.

We hope Mr. Olmert or Israel’s Parliament can reverse Mr. Peretz’s damaging decision, taken in defiance of the international road map for Middle East peace, which Israel’s governing coalition has pledged to support.

It may be the correct universe, but there is no logic here. Does the Times really expect Israel to accede to every demand of the roadmap if the governing party of the PA rejects the roadmap because the roadmap assumes that Israel has the right to exist?

Boker Tov Boulder defined "sops" and reveals this bitter irony

I had to look up the word, sop, just to make sure. It is "something yielded to placate or soothe, a bribe." So Israel is bribing some of the Gaza "settlers" with a place to live, a year and a half after dragging them out of the homes they built in Gush Katif.

It Shines for All judges the value of promises

Prime Minister Sharon repeatedly and emphatically said that Israel's obligations to the roadmap don't start until there is an end to terrorism. The end to terrorism never happened, so the roadmap never took off and none of Israel's "promises" had to be kept. The promises were contingent on an end to terrorism. Otherwise Israel would be rewarding the Palestinian Arabs for abandoning peace and continuing with terrorism. Something no Israel leader would do, and something America did not demand Israel do.

Meryl Yourish is inspired to reduce silly criticisms of Israel to numbers as shorthand.

I’m about done with being able to post on Israeli issues. I am simply seeing the same scene played over and over again, on different days, and sometimes with different players.

I’m going to start assigning numbers, like in that old joke about the prisoners.

Let’s see, Israel being bashed for settlements and checkpoints with no mention whatsoever of the need for those checkpoints: We’ll call that 2. One will be the “exercise restraint” after the pals get a suicide belt through the area that was previously checkpointed, and Israeli civilians are murdered.

Blogdigger tags: Israel, Hamas, Media Bias, New York Times.

Ford or chevy?

One of the oddities of the Ford presidency was that he was mocked throughout by Chevy Chase as being a klutz. Ford, having been a college football player was probably not much of klutz, but a few well publicized mishaps and the klutziness became his signature. Unlike other Saturday Night Live "presidents" Chevy Chase didn't much look like President Ford, but appearance wasn't as important as pratfalling. (And here's a classic Weekend Update item.)

I didn't appreciate at the time if the mocking was particularly vicious or not. For a teenager it was hilarious and that's all that mattered. However the mocking was received by President Ford he maintained enough of a sense of humor about it that the fifth anniversary of the Ford Presidential Library was marked by a symposium on Presidential humor. At the event then ex-President Ford tripped Chevy Chase for good measure.

The event's most memorable moment: the Jerry and Chevy show, in which Ford, just for the fun of it, literally tripped up Chase, who made a career on Saturday Night Live out of poking fun at the President. Chase claims he has two injured vertebrae from re-enacting Ford's pratfalls. "Retribution," said Chase, "has been had." In spite of his professional injuries, Chase's tongue is still sharp. "Thank you for having me here," he told the man who pardoned Richard Nixon. "I'm kind of embarrassed (pause), and I hope you'll pardon me."

I suppose that the mocking could have played a role in Ford's being a one-termer, but he didn't show bitterness about it. He was above all else, a good sport.

UPDATE: Outside the Beltway.Chris Lawrence remembers President Ford like this:

Ford is probably most famous to my generation from Chevy Chase’s bumbling impression of him on Saturday Night Live, even though his role in history–restoring honor to a party and office tainted by the criminal acts of Nixon’s underlings and Nixon’s cover-up of the same–was a critical one.

UPDATE II: Don Surber sees a lesson in Ford's pardon of Nixon for the current resident of the White House.

The war was unpopular? Rare is the popular war. Polk lasted one term because of the Mexican-American War, and U.S. forces won that one decisively.

Cronkite threw in the towel on Vietnam in 1968. Kent State happened in 1970. Yet in 1972, Nixon took 49 states. Wars may be unpopular but running from one is even less popular, as George McGovern discovered.

Then Nixon settled for 2nd place in Vietnam a month later.

Losing is unforgivable.

By August 1974, Nixon was gone. Ford was in. Ford pardoned Nixon. It was the right thing to do.

Lots more at memeorandum.

UPDATE III: Buzztracker here and here. Tailrank.

Right Wing Nuthouse has a nice story rememberin the ex-president:

Blogdigger tags: President Gerald R. Ford, Chevy Chase, Presidential Humor.

Harry potter and book #7

h/t Penny Stock and Elie's Expositions.

I'm not going to reveal the name of the 7th Harry Potter Book. Then again if you haven't been living in some spider hole, you probably know it already. But in case you don't - don't follow the links above! - go to her site, click on the eraser on the desk and do the stuff in the correct sequence - not all of it obvious - that gets you to the Hangman game. (Heh, spider hole, Hangman.)

The title is interesting and I have no idea what to make of it.

Presence has an idea that he expresses at Harry Potter Prognostications.

The problem I have with his understanding is that it necesarily means that Harry Potter will not survive Book 7. I already wrote that I doubted that Rowling would kill off Harry Potter.

I'd be very surprised if Harry gets killed. I believe his destiny is to become the Defense of Dark Arts teacher at Hogwarts. But I can also understand her wish to "own" Harry Potter exclusively. Harry Potter, while it may be appreciated at a number of levels, is still a children's series. Having a children's series whose main character is killed just wouldn't work. If that happened Harry Potter would be deemed too dark for children younger than teens. I can't imagine that's something that Rowling seeks.

Rowling foreshadows a lot of what happens in her books. Harry giving the DaDA classes in the Order of the Phoenix suggests that this is something that he may well do in the future. Given that she also has a theme that there's a connection between Harry and Voldemort, and Voldemort (as Tom Riddle) was refused the position, suggests that Harry will get the job in the future.

My other thought is outside the scope of the narrative and has more to do with its marketing but I don't think that it can be dismissed either.

Since Book 4, JK Rowling has been promising to kill off major characters. But she does it in a coy way to provoke interest. Except in Book 6, the character killed was not of great significance. (In book 5, the character was important to Harry, but he'd only had significant roles in two of the books.)

I thought it would be interesting to go over the first 6 titles and the importance of each title to the plot.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's (or Philosopher's) Stone - The Sorcerer's Stone was a magical stone that could be used to create a potion that would give the one imbibing it immortality. Harry and his friends figure out over the course of the book where the stone is, why Voldemort wants it and, ultimately, how to keep him from getting it. Relationship of title to main plot - Very strong.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - The Chamber of Secrets is where evil lives within the bowels of the Hogwarts castle. Harry, Ron and Hermoince eventually figure out how to get there and defeat a young Voldemort. Relationship of title to main plot - Very Strong.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - The Prisoner of Azkaban is a wizard suspected of betraying Harry's parents to Voldemort. In the end not everything as it seems. Relationship of title to main plot - Strong.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - The Goblet of Fire is the spell that chooses the champions for the triwizard tournament. Somehow it produces Harry's name and propels him into the contest. Relationship of title to main plot - Very Strong.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - The Order of the Phoenix is a secret group of wizards seeking to counter Voldemort's rise to power. But there's so much else going on the book. Harry Potter takes Umbridge doesn't quite have the proper cadence. Neither does Harry does Dark Arts. Relationship of title to main plot - Weak.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - The Half Blood Prince is discovered to be a wizard (or witch) with potions. But who is it? The answer is surprising but hardly crucial. (Though it may be crucial in book 7.) Relationship of title to main plot - Very Weak.

What could I expect the title of Book 7 to be? I'd expect that as the final book in the series that the title would be crucial to the plot of the book, possibly even to the plot or theme of the series. (That would bolster Presence's thought.)

I leave you with a question: what do you think the title tells about the book and/or series?

Blogdigger tags: Harry Potter, Book 7.

Is Islam Compatible With The Democratic Party?

After the early success of the US in the Iraq War, a major point of contention in the proposed establishment of a new government in Iraq was whether Islam and Democracy were in fact compatible.

One could also ask whether Islam is consistent with the Democratic party it has become increasingly associated with. As Powerline puts it, in connection with Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress:

Surely one of these days some bigfoot journalist will ask Ellison what branch of Islam he adheres to in reconciling Islam with the Democratic platform on abortion rights, homosexual rights, the rights of women and the like. Perhaps some bigfoot journalist might then ask a question or two about how Ellison's branch of Islam views the legal equality of Muslims and infidels and the supremacy of the United States Constitution over Sharia law. Until that time, we will have pay attention to the friends of Keith Ellison for the light they may shed on his views on these subjects.

Joel Mowbray did a five part piece on Ellison, on these friends--radical Moslem groups such as CAIR and the American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Ellison's failure to openly discuss the money he has received from radical Islamist groups.

Despite the apparent disconnect between Islam and the Democratic party, they have done well by each other. Although the Arab/Moslem vote came out for Bush in the 2000 Presidential election, in 2004 it came out solidly for Kerry. For their part, the Democrats are doing well for Moslems as well:

John Conyers, Democratic Representative from Michigan, and Chairman designate of the House Judiciary Committee is the author of House Resolution 288, denouncing religious bias and seeking religious tolerance in general--while at the same time placing a heavy emphasis on Islam in particular. This in spite of the disproportionate percentage of anti-Semitic bias attacks which have increased from 2004 to 2005 while the much smaller percentage of anti-Moslem attacks has actually gone down.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, calls herself a "proud" cosponsor of Conyer's End Racial Profiling Act in 2004.

As Katherine Kersten of the Minnesota Star Tribune notes:

One of the act’s central features is its definition of illegal profiling. Under it, if airport security personnel question passengers who are disproportionately Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent, this alone would constitute a presumptive violation of the law. Law enforcement agencies would bear the burden of proving that discrimination was not the cause.

With the addition of Ellison to the mix, Muslims with have increased influence in government--but so too will Islamists such as CAIR and the American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

While Moslem values, as Powerline above points out, may not be shared by the Democratic platform, shared politics is something else. The Muslim political interest in Conyers' End of Racial Profiling Act, with its over-emphasis on Muslim bias crime is obvious, and their interest in turn has drawn the attention of the Democratic Party. It is questionable whether Conyers' bill, in it's current formulation, is in the interests of US security--but there is no question that in the realm of politics, Moslems and the Democratic Party are seeing eye to eye.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Islam and Democratic Party and Keith Ellison and Nancy Pelosi andJohn Conyers.

Yes, let's give him a promotion

City passes '05 homicide total

With six days left in the year, a pair of Christmas weekend homicides pushed the number of homicides in Baltimore this year past the total for 2005, city police said yesterday.

The city has recorded 270 homicides, one more than in 2005.

And then there's this editorial - the Baltimore Disparity - that shows that Baltimore isn't quite doing so well in other areas either.

But then you look at Baltimore.

Here is a city with one of the higher poverty rates in the nation. Yet Baltimore's suburbs have less poverty than those of just about any other metropolitan area. What can account for this stark, and long-entrenched, disparity? Why did Detroit's suburbs suffer with the collapse of their core city, but Baltimore's did not? The answer, we suspect, is rooted in part in the fact that, unlike eastern Michigan, Central Maryland remains one of the wealthiest areas in the country - and that choices and tradition and prejudice have served to isolate the city.

Prejudice? (In a city that's 65% black and 32% white the city council is split 60/40.) How about one party mismanagement? Or would that go against the Meme that the past 5 years have been a rousing success?

Blogdigger tags: Baltimore City, Murder Rate.

Unprecedented?

Today the Baltimore Sun featured

... an unprecedented exchange of letters between two of the Middle East's most respected journalists: Salameh Nematt, an Arab, and Akiva Eldar, an Israeli. The exchange, which was commissioned by the Common Ground News Service (www.commongroundnews.org), appears today in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, the Palestinian newspaper Al Quds and here in The Sun.

Akiva Eldar is respected in Israel, the same way that Paul Krugman is respected in America. There's a leftist elite in both countries that finds the work of both to be profound. But I hardly think that Eldar is on the level with, say, a Walter Cronkite in his heyday. Eldar is significantly to the left of Israeli mainstream opinion, still it's interesting how far apart these two really are.

Nematt (Hopefully I'll provide the CommonDreamsNews link when the article appears there.)

You know very well that Israel, in defiance of international law, has deliberately and consistently worked to undermine and abort every local, regional or international peace plan that has ever been tabled. The aborting of these plans was also achieved with the help of Palestinian and Arab militants, but isn't it Israel's policies that have undermined Palestinian and Arab moderates?

This "jihad" business was first championed by Arabs seeking the liberation of Palestinian and Arab lands, before it became an international phenomenon plaguing the entire world, overtaken by their more violent Islamic successors. Don't you agree that Israel's occupation inspired the secular, PLO jihadists before they were overtaken by their more violent Islamic successors? Is it conceivable that nobody knows, including the Israelis, where the borders of Israel are, or where they should be?

What will it take, dear Akiva, for Israel to realize that it has to do the right thing before it can claim the higher moral ground? What would it take for Israel to realize that force alone does not bring legitimacy?

Eldar

Dear Salameh, I remember the day, in the early summer of 1994, when King Hussein of Jordan and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the peace treaty between both our countries. ... A Jordanian newspaper editor who was introduced to me in Washington refused to shake my hand and respond to my excited congratulations on this historical occasion. Several years later, the Jordanian Press Association expelled a group of journalists who had visited the Ha'aretz offices in Tel Aviv. Most leading Egyptian intellectuals also boycott Israel and avoid contact with even the most moderate elements of Israeli society. The reason, or excuse, is always the Israeli occupation.

If Nematt is as open to Israel as anyone in the Arab world, there would seem to be quite a gulf between him and even someone as critical of Israel as Eldar. Eldar keeps wanting to see peace, but it keeps looking away from him but he doesn't get the hint.

Eldar's slightly mistaken history is also telling.

Your claim that Israeli occupation inspired the first Arab terrorists as well as international terrorism is far from accurate (unless the definition of "occupation" applies to Haifa and Tel Aviv as well). The PLO first recognized Israel and U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and renounced terrorism only as late as 1988. The Palestinian covenant, which called for the destruction of the Zionist entity, was only canceled following the Oslo agreement, signed five years later. Unfortunately, the light which shone over Oslo is dwindling, in great part because of our leaders, who missed countless opportunities, but also because of indolent Palestinian leaders.

Well the Palestinian covenant was never cancelled and certainly not in 1993. (then-Pres Clinton visited the PLC in 1998 for a phony vote saying that the the PLC had revoked the Covenant.) Eldar can't stay away from criticizing his country's leaders, but notes that they aren't alone. Nematt can't even muster a mild rebuke to Arab leaders for embracing terrorists or denying Israel's legitimacy.

Eldar and Nematt have apparently been having some joint appearances lately, this op-ed pairing seems to be in the context of these appearances. And yet for all the latitude Eldar gives Nematt, the latter puts the onus of making peace on Israel, effectively denying any Arab responsibility (and justifying anti-Israel violence.)

It is a performance that reminds us that the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East is the failure of even moderate Arabs to accept Israel's legitimacy. The exchange of letters may have been unprecedented, but Nematt's views unfortunately were not.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Blogdigger tags: Akiva Eldar, Salameh Nematt.

Land for pieces

Elder of Ziyon reports on Egyptian attempts to claim Gaza for the Palestinians and concludes.

Evidently the heralded Egyptian Israeli peace treaty is not as great an example of cooperation and understanding as many would have you believe. Even Egypt looks upon it as a first step towards slicing Israel up into smaller and smaller slices until it is gone.

(Excellent maps.)

In Context shows a bitter irony related to this claim.

The subject recently gained media attention with the establishment of the People's Front for the Liberation of Umm Rashrash, a group founded by Egyptian MP Tala'at Sadat.

Sadat, as in the late Anwar Sadat, his uncle.

My right word explains that the problem isn't just southwest of Israel but northeast too.

Can you say Netiv Ha'asara?

UPDATE: Mere Rhetoric tells the legal implication of the Egyptian perfidy.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Israel, Egypt, Syria, Land for Peace, Netiv Ha'asara.

Generally holding

Media Backspin notes that AFP has a strange way of categorizing a truce as generally holding.

Elder of Ziyon has a handy dandy calendar that lets us know which days the ceasefire held.

Has it generally held or is it fragile as Mere Rhetoric observes.

Meryl Yourish isn't so circumspect. The ceasefire's an "utter sham"! Who'd have thought that. She's being much too negative isn't she?

But the Baltimore Sun recently described the situation in Gaza like this:

A two-day-old truce that had halted factional violence was in shreds yesterday as fresh gunbattles broke out between Hamas and Fatah militants, leaving analysts wondering if any truce would be strong enough to calm the conflict.

So it seems that continuing violence in Gaza can shred a truce. (I remembered this paragraph incorrectly.) But Qassams against Israel proper apparently don't.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Blogdigger tags: Media Bias, Qassams, Gaza, Truce, Ceasefire.

Jakob Allerhand

Vienna's Gentle Voice for Jews

In the early 1970s he moved to Vienna, received his doctorate in Jewish studies and became a professor for the few Viennese -- nearly all of them non-Jews -- who wanted to study Jewish history and Yiddish. One doctoral student told me Allerhand conducted his Yiddish classes this way: One student would be assigned to bring the herring, someone else supplied the dark bread and the professor invariably brought the vodka. Then the afternoons would fly past as he discussed with them literature, philosophy and drama, often throwing back drinks and reeling off from memory entire paragraphs of his favorite novels.

Headline of the day

Exercise for Your Aging Brain

What? Now I have to schedule time on the elliptical trainer for my brain too?

via Buzztracker Betsy's Page has a more serious suggestion based on the editorial

And if the Times is going to start recommending government programs because of the effect they have on elderly cognitive abilities, how about that tax code?

Well if it works better get back to Sudoku.

Blogdigger tags: Brain Exercise, New York Times, Sudoku.

Remembering championships past

For some reason my favorite memory on the Orioles 1983 World Championship season was the Orioles victory over the KC Royals (then not quite so hopeless) after being no-hit for 7 innings by Gaylord Perry. When I mentioned this on the Orioles mailing list, I was reminded that I had mis-remembered the wrong staring pitcher for the Orioles. It was not Mike Flanagan, but another lefty, Scott MacGregor.

Also for some reason that's the game I remember not the more incredible game less than a week later against Toronto in which Tippy Martinez stopped a Toronto rally in the 10th by picking off three straight base runners at first while John Lowenstein played second, Gary Roenicke Third and Lenn Sakata caught. More incredible: Lenn Sakata hit the game winning 3 run home run. (The next night was pretty crazy too.)

Well maybe I didn't remember things so clearly because that was over 20 years ago. But it turns out the my memory of the Ravens championship season were not all that clear either.

I seemed to remember that the Ravens turned their season around in 2000 against Tennessee in a crazy game. While there were a few lead changes the game wasn't nearly as crazy as I remember. I thought I remembered a critical Ravens interception, but it appears that there were none. The Ravens did have a late scoring drive that put them into the lead by a point that stood up, but that seems to be the extent of the Ravens' miracles. (Al Del Greco missing his first point after in seven years was a Titans miracle; a negative though.)

It wasn't exactly the team's turnaround but it was the second of six consecutive wins with which the Ravens closed out the regular season to end up 12-4.

I don't know if there's going to be a signature game for this season. Though I'd guess a lot of people would consider either the Atlanta or the first Pittsburgh game. The Ravens beat Atlanta 24-10 November 19 sacking Michael Vick 5 times. The next week they shut out Pittsburgh Steelers 31 - 0 and sacked Ben Roethlisberger nine times. Or the turning point might just be after the bye week when Coach Billick fired Jim Fassel.

This year it looks like the most serious challenge to the Ravens getting to the Super Bowl is San Diego. (Indianapolis and New England are looking less intimidating.) Though I'm getting ahead of things a bit, if and when they win the Super Bowl, which game will the fans look at as the turning point?

Crossposted on OTB Sports and Soccer Dad.

Blogdigger tags: Baltimore Ravens, Baltimore Orioles, NFL.

Heard on the 'street'

John Murphy of the Baltimore Sun writes in Boys' killings raise tensions between Hamas, Fatah

Shunned by the West after its defeat of Fatah in elections this year, Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel or renounce violence, has fallen deeper into the arms of Syria and Iran. While the United States, the European Union and Israel have subjected the Hamas government to crippling sanctions, Iran and Syria have emerged as eager sponsors of the new Palestinian government.

In the same article he also writes

Abbas' cozy relationship with the U.S. makes him appear weak in the eyes of ordinary Palestinians, Fighel said, especially when his ties to the West fail to result in any tangible improvement in their lives, such as releasing prisoners or easing Israeli army checkpoints in the West Bank.

Now both can't be true can they? In the first instance Murphy's arguing that America's shunning of Hamas has driven Hamas further into the arms of Syria and Iran and has no negative effect on the credibility of Hamas. In the second, he's writing that American support for Abbas weakens him because he has failed to deliver.

Well, Hamas, by that measure, has failed to achieve those same tangible benefits. Does that mean that Iranian and Syrian support for Hamas, make Hamas appear weak?

The only way to resolve these contradictory implications is to conclude that the United States ought to be supporting the Hamas government, despite the fact that Hamas, as even Murphy ackowledges, refuses to recognize Israel or cease its terror.

This is illustrative of one of the problems underpinning reporting from the Middle East. There is an interest in giving special importance to the Arab (or in this case, specifically, the Palestinian,) street.

But the troubles plaguing the Palestinians aren't the result of Israeli intransigence or American indifference to the electoral process. They have everything to do with the political culture that was nurtured by Yasser Arafat. Dead two years, the thuggery that marked his leadership continues.

Arafat didn't create a national liberation movement, he created a criminal organization devoted to destroying Israel and accumulating wealth and power to its leaders.

Remember that once Hamas assumed power it was supposed to devote itself to the duties of governing. But instead of building factories and an economy Hamas devoted itself to building rockets and smuggling tunnels.

The violence we're seeing now between Fatah and Hamas is the violence of two crime families turning against each other.

This is Arafat's legacy.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Blogdigger tags: Hamas, Syria, Israel, Media Bias.

Full of himself

Senator-elect James Webb had a Q & A session with the NYT's Deborah Solomon in yesterday's NYT Magazine. In it there's this exchange.

You have seen President Bush, with whom you had a famously tense exchange at a White House reception shortly after the election.

I think that was vastly overblown.

Bush, according to the story, asked you about your son, a marine serving in Iraq. You replied that you’d like to get the troops out of Iraq, prompting Bush to say: “I didn’t ask you that. How’s your boy?”

I think what I said was appropriate.

Yes. I was surprised that it erupted into a national debate about manners and etiquette, which seems so trivial compared with the issue of ending the war.

This was something that emanated from the White House. I did not say anything about this for two weeks. I said nothing publicly at all.

(Italics are the questions; Webb's responses are in a regular font.)

Something seemed wrong about this exchange. Riehl World View working off of a prepublication article on the interview at Editor and Publisher observes

First, who is pushing the issue? Webb has been pushing it since at least the end of November and admitted he didn't know the truth. [if the story came from the White House - sd]

and

As you'll see from that link, the primary unnamed source was an unidentified Democrat staffer. It's unclear if said staffer also passed along the bit about the confrontation, but it certainly isn't a stretch.

The link referred to is to this article in the Washington Post that had the reference (that I'm aware of) to exchange between President Bush and Sen. elect Webb. The article appeared two weeks after the event.

But look again at what Webb told Solomon

I did not say anything about this for two weeks.

That would be the time of the article in the Washington Post, the main source of the controversy.

The Washington Post article about Webb could best be characterized as flattering. It's hard to

If the exchange with Bush two weeks ago is any indication, Webb won't be a wallflower, especially when it comes to the war in Iraq. And he won't stick to a script drafted by top Democrats.

And most of the sources (not just the anonymous one cited by Riehl World View) are Democrats. There's even this quote about Webb that's precious.

"He's not a typical politician. He really has deep convictions," said Schumer, who headed the Senate Democrats' campaign arm.

Typical politicians don't have deep convictions? Present company Chuck?

The whole article is painting Webb as a maverick, I hardly think that the material is coming from adversarial source.

So, yes, I think that Webb is full of it (and quite full of himself - though that's a quality he has in common with most politicians). He's the one - or it's been his partisans - who has/have carefully cultivated the tiff with the President. While there's no proof this is true, most indicators suggest that it is.

(And no the President wasn't rude to him. Had Webb answered the President's question with "I'd prefer not to discuss my son's situation right now," then the President's response was out of line. But Webb tried to score some political points; the President was correct in his handling of the question. If he had not wanted to speak with the President he should have declined the invitation. Going to the event and being churlish, though, was a much more effective way of raising his profile.)

Blogdigger tags: James Webb, George Bush.

What's wrong with princesses

In her article, "What's wrong with Cinderella?" author Peggy Orenstein squares off against the marketing of "princesses." After noting the oddity that baby blue and pink have switched gender assignments

When colors were first introduced to the nursery in the early part of the 20th century, pink was considered the more masculine hue, a pastel version of red. Blue, with its intimations of the Virgin Mary, constancy and faithfulness, was thought to be dainty. Why or when that switched is not clear, but as late as the 1930s a significant percentage of adults in one national survey held to that split.

comes to the conclusion that

It is no wonder that parents, faced with thongs for 8-year-olds and Bratz dolls’ “passion for fashion,” fill their daughters’ closets with pink sateen; the innocence of Princess feels like a reprieve.

So she seems to understand that parents have reacted to the loss of childhood innocence by returning their little girls to protective cocoons. But she objects to it, dismissing the "Princesses" theme as a creature of marketing. Or maybe, as she suggests here, that the marketing worked because society rejected the objectifying of little girls.
I know that my five year old loves pretending to be a princess and has no self-esteem problems. It would seem that this is perfectly healthy behavior for little girls.
Don Surber rejects a premise the article that objects to the segregation of genders. There's no longer a reason to assume that gender differences mean nothing. Women can do many of the same things that men can do, we no longer need to pretent that they're the same.
via memeorandum.
Blogdigger tags: Girls, Princesses.

How'd I do that?

On Thursday night, I went to a Channukah party at my son's school. They had a jar filled with Channukah Gelt. (Chocolate coins.) And a contest who could guess the correct number of coins.

The 5 year old said 48.
The (nearly) 8 year old said 78.
Their old dad looked at the amount and guessed that he could see about 100 coins in the front and assumed at least 100 more in the back. Then he guessed that 200 was probably a bit low and wrote down 283.

The correct number was 284. Since someone else guessed 285, the loot was split in half. My half was put into a shoe box.

So in case you're wondering what 142 pieces (minus about 4) of Channukah Gelt look like:

Finally, Channukah's over. I couldn't take pictures of the last night's candles burning because of Shabbos (the Sabbath), but sometime Thursday night they were all read to go.

Blogdigger tags: Channukah, Channukah Gelt, 8th Night of Channukah.

Haveil Havalim #99 is UP!

Take the route to an End of an Era:Haveil Havalim #99 at Me-Ander (or Shiloh Musings.) She's put together a wonderful Channukah and post-Channukah selection of blogs. Please check it out.

Next week's host is Bagel Blogger. Use the Blog Carnival form or e-mail him at bagelblogger at gmail dot com. (And even if you don't ask how Amber is doing and send your best wishes.)

Oh and in honor of the 100th edition, let's do something a little different. Send only 1 current entry but send a second entry from a year ago. If you weren't blogging a year ago, then send in you first entry (or one of your first entries).

I'd like to thank the wonderful folks at BlogCarnival for this wonderful Blog Carnival Widget that gives information on upcoming hosts and past editions.

As you can see there are volunteer hosts and hostess leading up to the 100th edition of Haveil Havalim in four weeks! Thanks for participating, reading and keeping Haveil Havalim going!

In addition to e-mail you may submit entries to Haveil Havalim using the submission form over at BlogCarnival. Or feel free to e-mail me at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com.

Also if you'd like to host an upcoming edition e-mail me at the above address.

Remember, that while the hosts and hostesses of Haveil Havalim do a wonderful job of editing and searching for interesting posts, they can't see everything. If you want a better chance of being included in Haveil Havalim please submit one or two posts for inclusion.

Listed at the Truth Laid Bear Ubercarnival.

Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism.

Most recent editions of Haveil Havalim at Blog Carnival
#22 Mystical Paths
#21 Rabbinical Authority Consortium of HACKers
#20 Shiloh Musings
#19 Devarim
#18 Soccer Dad
#17 Mystical Paths
#16 Critical Mastiff
#15 Soccer Dad
#14 Multiple Mentality
#13 IsraPundit
#12 DovBear
#11 Kesher Talk
#10 Biur Chametz
#9 Soccer Dad
#8 It's Almost Supernatural
#7 Bloghead
#6 Willow Tree.
#5 Crossing the Rubicon2
#4 Dov Bear
#3 Biur Chametz

No one likes an oswald

Charles Krauthammer turns his attention to America arrogance in No Dancing in the End Zone.

My beef with American arrogance is not that we act like a traditional great power, occasionally knocking off foreign bad guys who richly deserve it. My problem is that we don't know where to stop -- the trivial victories we insist on having in arenas that are quite superfluous. Like that women's hockey game in the 2002 Winter Olympics. Did the U.S. team really have to beat China 12-1? Can't we get the coaches -- there's gotta be some provision in the Patriot Act authorizing the CIA to engineer this -- to throw a game or two, or at least make it close? We're trying to contain China. Why, then, gratuitously crush them in something Americans don't even care about? Why not throw them a bone?

I say we keep the big ones for ourselves -- laser-guided munitions, Google, Warren Buffett -- and let the rest of the world have ice hockey, ballroom dancing and every Nobel Peace Prize. And throw in the Ryder Cup. I always root for the Europeans in that one. They lost entire empires, for God's sake; let them have golf supremacy for one weekend. No one likes an Oswald.

Technorati tags: Charles Krauthammer, America.

Christmas in gaza

It's a Somber Christmas for Gaza's Christians according to John Murphy of the Baltimore Sun.

During the past six years of violence in the Middle East conflict, the Christmas season has been marked by muted celebrations among the Palestinian Christians. In Bethlehem, the traditional place of Jesus' birth now penned in by Israel's separation barrier, city officials are again anticipating a poor turnout at festivities planned on Manger Square.

In Gaza, the mood is even more somber after a year that has brought Israeli military sieges, a debilitating economic boycott against the Hamas-led government and escalating violence between rival Palestinian political factions that many residents fear may devolve into all-out civil war.

What do "penned in," "military sieges" and "economic boycott" have in common? They are not attributable to the Palestinians themselves. And even the "escalating violence" doesn't suggest that the problems Christians are suffering have anything to do with Muslim antagonism.

The articles sure doesn't want us to get the wrong impression.

The Rev. Manuel Musallam, the only Catholic priest in Gaza, who ministers to a flock of about 200 people, insists that there are no divisions between Muslims and Christians in Gaza. He dismisses the tensions of the past year as the work of a few extremists.

"Christians in Palestine are not a segregated community pushed into a corner," he said during an interview at his office in the Holy Family School in Gaza City. "They are not foreigners. With Muslims, they form one body. The suffering of Muslims is the suffering of Christians, and suffering of Christians is the suffering of Muslims."

and

Since the Hamas-led government took office in March, it has been very sensitive to the Christian population and has been eager to offer its support whenever it can, condemning the attacks against Christian churches and donating $50,000 for Christmas decorations in Bethlehem.

And the general status of Christians in the Middle East?

The number of Christians in the Middle East has been in sharp decline over the last century because of low birth rates, emigration, and in some countries, persecution. There are believed to be about 50,000 Christians living in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, making up about 2 percent of the Palestinian population.

Apparently though the persecution does not lead to emigration and the persecution, at least from reading this article, apparently doesn't exist in the PA.

(The VOA for its part doesn't acknowledge such persecution either.

Atallah Mansour, who is an expert on Arab Christian populations throughout the Middle East, says Christians are leaving the region, mainly for economic reasons. He says some Bethlehem Christians who had returned to the city in recent years are leaving again because of the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Zogby, naturally provides the polling to support this

While the Christians of Bethlehem overwhelmingly (78%) blame the exodus of Christians from the town on Israel's blockade, Americans are more likely (45.9%) to blame it on Islamic politics and are reluctant (7.4%) to blame Israel.

Of course the Christian exodus from Bethlehem preceded the construction of the security fence.)

The numbers suggest a different reading of the situation according to What Will the Wise Men Bring to Bethlehem?
.

Midway through this century, Christians comprised about 80 percent of the population of Bethlehem. Christians now make up less than 15 percent of the town. This is a trend that mirrors the Christian flight throughout the Palestinian Authority. However, this exodus began long before Israeli checkpoints and the security wall. It is estimated that nearly two-thirds of the Christian population fled during the time when Jordan occupied the West Bank. The Christian population under the Palestinian Authority has suffered from a negative growth-rate and now number less than 50,000, or about 2.4 percent of the population.

In fact, the Christian population throughout the Middle East has been in rapid decline. In 1900, Christians comprised 20 percent of the population of the Middle East; now, they are less than 2 percent. While the Muslim population has expanded rapidly in Europe and the U.S., Christians in the Middle East have experienced a negative population-growth rate.

And if Israel's to blame for the flight of Christians from Palestinian areas, how do you explaing this?

The only country noting a positive growth rate for Christians is Israel.

In Israel proper, the Christian population in 1948 was 34,000. Christians now number 146,000, or 2.1 percent of the total population. Projections are that by 2010 the Christian population in Israel will reach 163,000, reflecting an average yearly growth-rate of 1.9 percent. Among non-Jewish students in Israel, the rate of high school graduation is highest for Christians. Employment rates for Israeli Christians remain much higher than for their fellow believers in the Palestinian territories.

And the reasons for the declining Christian population in the areas of the PA are:

Continual marginalization of Christians has increased tensions, making Christians feel even more vulnerable to their Muslim neighbors. Christians report that Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise in Bethlehem and the surrounding area. Death threats, warnings for Christian women to veil, and extortion to gain land are sadly part of the landscape for Bethlehem’s Christians.
. . .
The leader of Hamas on the Bethlehem municipal council, Hassam El-Masalmeh, told Wall Street Journal reporter Karby Legget that Hamas will reinstitute the jizya tax. Traditionally, the jizya was imposed upon non-Muslim men as a compact. By paying the tax they submit to living as inferiors under Islamic rule. The tax is one of the rules applied to dhimmi peoples — non-Muslims conquered by jihad; it creates a discriminatory system between Muslims and non-Muslims. The Hamas official added that everyone is welcome to live in Palestine as long as they agree to live under Islamic rule.

There is a wider picture than the one the Sun's Mr. Murphy is willing to show us. Christian are feeling marginalized and are leaving PA controlled areas. But it's not Israel's fault.

UPDATE: Israel Matzav has a long list of links concerning Christmas in the PA, including a link to JoshuaPundit on a related topic.

Blogdigger tags: Christians, Bethlehem, Hamas, Israel.

Council speak 12/22/06

The council has spoken.

This week's winner among the council members was Directions in Iraq: A blogging Colloquium at the Glittering Eye. Second place went to Joshuapundit's investigation into the financial support a certain ex-President receives in Ex-President and Jew Hater for sale - Jimmy Carter's little secret.

Among non-council post the winner was the ROC from the Fourth Rail. It is about one of the units training the Iraqi military. Ironically, this week we watchers learned that one of our number, Major Andrew olmsted has been called to Iraq to do just that. The runner-up for non-council posts went to One Muslim Voice on the Holocaust - Unheard from the Y-Files. It's about the Palestinian who wanted to go to Holocaust conference in Tehran, but was denied a visa because he believed that the Holocaust really occurred.

If you're a blogger and want to get in on the fun but aren't a member of the council follow these instructions and you too could be considered next week.

Blogdigger tag: Watcher's Council.

Kahanaism Lives

• Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.
• But we cannot destroy Islam.
• Nor can we democratize Islam.
• Nor can we assimilate Islam.
• Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.

Sound familiar?

But this is not coming from Israel.
And this is not being espoused by a follower of Rabbi Meir Kahane.

Instead, this is coming from the blogger View From The Right:

I subscribe to the now tiny but, I believe, some-day-to-be prevalent Separationist School of Western-Islamic Relations. We separationists affirm the following:

* Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.
* But we cannot destroy Islam.
* Nor can we democratize Islam.
* Nor can we assimilate Islam.
* Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.

Other writers who might be called separationists include Serge Trifkovic, Diana West, Randall Parker, the Norwegian blogger Fjordman, and Hugh Fitzgerald. Of course, each of these writers has his or her own emphases, and I don’t wish to impose an unwanted label on anyone. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is a common core of ideas among the writers mentioned, and “separationism” would be as good a way to describe it as any.

He then goes on to quote from each of his fellow 'separationists' on the need to stop and reverse the stream of Moslem immigration.

I'm curious if something like this is going to catch on or whether, like the use of the phrase Islamofascism it will just generate some debate and then just fall of the radar of pundit-conversation.

One thing is for sure--CAIR will have a field day with this.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Rabbi Meir Kahane.

From syria with skepticism

Yesterday Time Magazine reported that Syria [was] in Bush's Crosshairs

The Bush Administration has been quietly nurturing individuals and parties opposed to the Syrian government in an effort to undermine the regime of President Bashar Assad. Parts of the scheme are outlined in a classified, two-page document that says that the U.S. already is "supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists" in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that "these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists."

The report is classified. Why would that be?

But American experts on "democracy promotion" consulted by TIME say it would be unwise to give financial support to a specific candidate in the election, because of the perceived conflict of interest. More ominously, an official familiar with the document explained that secrecy is necessary in part because Syria's government might retaliate against anyone inside the country who was seen as supporting the U.S.-backed election effort. The official added that because the Syrian government fields a broad network of internal spies, it would almost certainly find out about the U.S. effort, if it hasn't already. That could lead to the imprisonment of still more opposition figures.

Now that Time Magazine has published this information, the report's not secret anymore, is it? Thanks for satisfying my "right to know."

Still I'm skeptical about this report. If the United States wished to pressure Syria without actual saber rattling, this is just about the only way to go about it. Is that a secret?

Also if it were true it would appear to go against the advice of Judge Abraham Sofaer who believes that there are ways to negotiate with Syria and Iran, and he bases his strategy on the way President Reagan engaged the Soviet Union.

To make negotiations possible the U.S. adopted specific policies, including:

• Regime acceptance. The U.S. refrained from activities aimed at destroying the Soviet regime it was seeking to influence, while vigorously denouncing its political and moral legitimacy.

• Limited linkage. Negotiations on human rights, arms control, regional issues and bilateral relations were pursued without linkage to Soviet conduct, enabling negotiations to proceed while the U.S. responded firmly through deeds.

• Rhetorical restraint. Reagan vigorously criticized the Soviet system and its behavior, but promised not to "crow" when the Soviets agreed to U.S. proposals, enabling Soviet leaders to avoid being seen as capitulating to U.S. demands.

• Self-interest. U.S. negotiating policy was based on convincing the Soviets to act in their own best interests.

Judge Sofaer goes on to emphasize the benefits of engaging Syria and Iran and what President Bush is doing to make that more difficult. His suggestions don't make the Iraq Study Group's recommendation any more palatable. Despite his grounding his suggestions in recent past history, it looks like the engagement he's proposing gives Syria and Iran too much without holding them to account.

Was there really a classified report telling how the U.S. is and will target Syria? I'm skeptical. Is there a way to engage Syria and Iran effectively without giving them too much? Possibly, but I don't think that Judge Sofaer's suggestions are the way to go.

Israel Matzav has more, including a correction that one of the political opponents - Ammar Abdulhamid - is not a member of the Muslim brotherhood that many in the West laud as "reformist."

Blogdigger tags: Iraq Study Group, Iran, Syria.

Channuka house

Here are pictures of Baltimore's Channuka House.

The whole house

Focusing on the sign that says "Chag Sameach" or "Happy Holiday"

Inspired, in part, by a nice mention at the DailyKos. Thanks Crablaw!

Blogdigger tags: Channukah House.

My 4 menoras

The Ignoble Experiment has a noble meme:

Here's the deal:

1) Take or find a picture of the menorah you're using this year OR any special menorah in your life.

* If you really can't upload pictures, you can try to find one that looks just like yours.

2) Tell a little story about how you got it, what it means to you, or whatever else you find appropriate.

3) Tag 8 people.

4) Forward me the link to your post. I'll get all the stories together and put them up Friday afternoon. My e-mail is sicat222 at gmail dot com.

Four steps. Sounds easy. But how about if I tell you about 4 special menoras?

1) When I was in about 5th grade my parents let me choose my own Menora. (I had used a family one before then.) I chose one that looked like an old lamp with the candle holes arranged like a horseshoe. I liked it because it was different.
Because the candles were placed in such a compact order, at the end of Channuka the concentrated heat caused them all to melt just a little bit quicker.

2) A few years later for my Bar Mitzvah the Rabbi's mother-in-law gave me an oil menora. It had a base with 8 cups and a middle piece that went over it. It had an ornate back that attached to the base.
I used to enjoy tearing up cotton balls and twisting the fibers into wicks. The trick was to make wicks that weren't too thick so that they'd absorb (and burn) too much oil and not too thin so that they'd produce a good flame.
I believe that the longest I got a light to last was about 3 hours and averaged about an hour and a half.

3) The year we got engaged, it was right before Channuka. So when she came down to Baltimore for the first time, Anne brought me a beautiful modern oil Menora. The stems came together in a spaghetti like pattern in the bottom.
I would have to say that this was my favorite for it was the first gift she gave me.

4) However Menora #3 didn't exactly flourish in its later years. The cups came loose from the stems. So two years ago she got me a new Menora. It has a more traditional shape and is a good deal taller.
It is quite beautiful and here's a picture:

So now who will I tag? The list is below...

Tagged: Mom in Israel, Elie's Expositions, Oy Vay Blog, It's Almost Supernatural, Sweet Rose, Ocean Guy, West Bank Mama, and Israel Matzav.

Thanks to Mom in Israel and Elie's Expo for responding at this late date!

Blogdigger tags: Menora Meme, Channuka.

Two red herrings out of three ain't bad

The Washington Post gets it partially right in its editorial Enemies of Peace.

The politicians and pundits outside the Middle East who have been insisting on the need for a Middle East settlement, including the Iraq Study Group, tend to describe the obstacle as passivity by the Bush administration or obstructionism by Israel. Mr. Abbas knows better. In calling for elections, a desperate and risky measure with uncertain legal justification, the moderate president delivered a speech describing how Hamas and its sponsors had paralyzed Palestinian government and made peace talks impossible. "They give orders from afar, and reject offers from afar," he said. He was referring to Hamas hard-liner Khaled Meshal, who from a base in Damascus has blocked political agreements between his movement and Mr. Abbas's Fatah party, and who has prevented the release of a captured Israeli soldier, even in exchange for 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. There is also Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, who flew to Tehran this month to accept tens of millions of dollars from the Iranian regime -- and to announce that Hamas would never compromise with Israel.

They're right the problem isn't the Bush administration's passivity or Israel's obstructionism. But Abbas "moderate?" I don't buy it.

Recently Israel Matzav reminded us that Abbas has the same goal as Hamas (and as Arafat before him) but they differ on means

Erlanger is correct that efforts to prop up Abu Mazen are a waste of time. But he's mistaken that the problem is that Abu Mazen lacks the power to enforce what the world thinks is Abu Mazen's will. Abu Mazen may have more weapons per capita than any army in the world. What Erlanger - and the United States and Tony Blair and Ehud Olmert - don't understand is that Abu Mazen has no desire to rein in the terrorists. For Abu Mazen, first and foremost is preventing the current 'Palestinian' Civil War from getting worse.

Hamas and Fatah don't disagree on their ultimate goal - a 'Palestinian' state reichlet from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea - they disagree on the method. Hamas wants to destroy Israel now, while Fatah is willing to be more patient and diplomatically correct and to destroy Israel in phases. Fatah has not changed since the Khartoum Conference of 1973 whose final communique called for Israel's phased destruction. Yet the world cannot or does not want to see that.

Since the editorial mentions American passivity and Israeli obstructionism, it's proper to address these issues.

There was no American government that pushed more for peace in the Middle East than the Clinton administration. Did all that pushing lead to a peace deal at Camp David in July 2000?

And has any Israeli government given more to the Palestinians than the Sharon government a year and a half ago when it ceded Gaza to the PA? And what was the result? A stop to terror? A stop to rockets?

American passivity and Israeli obstructionism are red herrings that have gained a currency. But in the end they are excuses; masking another red herring: Palestinian moderation.

I'm glad that the Washington Post rejected the first two red herrings. Unfortunately, it is much too wedded to the most damaging one. As long as there's phony Palestinian moderation there will be pressure for "movement" in the peace process. Movement, that in the past, has been shown to be quite dangerous.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Blogdigger tags: Israel, Washington Post, Palestinian Authority, Peace Process, Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas.

5 + 2 = 7 ?

The FEC fined three groups for their illegal contributions during the 2004 Presidential election.

The biggest fine went against the Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth, an organization that attacked 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s combat credentials.

It has agreed to pay nearly $300,000 after the FEC found that the anti-Kerry group had failed to properly register as a political committee and violated campaign donation limits imposed on such groups, according to an announcement released by the FEC today.

A political arm of the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental group, agreed to pay $180,000 for a door-to-door canvassing operation that the FEC concluded was designed to promote the election of Kerry.

MoveOn.org Voter Fund, which operated separately from the online arm of the liberal organization, reached a settlement for $150,000. The Voter Fund received much attention when it accepted millions from New York financier George Soros to run television ads attacking President Bush.

A recent Washington Post editorial recently weighed in on the matter with Finally 527s

The Swift Boaters alone (fine $299,500) spent more than $13 million that shouldn't, it turns out, have been allowed into the political system. Ask Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) about the effect that money had.

Some things about that sentence don't add up.

For one thing, the implication here is that Sen. Kerry was hurt more by this illegal activity than was President Bush. Except the editorial notes that a total of $29 million was spent illegally. If $13 million was spent by the Swift Boat Veterans, then $16 million was spent by the anti-Bush organizations. Somehow President Bush was re-elected despite that extra money his opponents spent to unseat him.

Maybe it was because John Kerry testified to a memory that was "seared" into his conciousness that turned out to be false. The Swift Boat Veterans exploited Kerry's faulty memory. That's why their tactics worked.

The other problem is that one could argue that a newspaper making a major issue out of a single word could have a major effect on a campaign. Just ask soon to be retiring Sen. George Allen. Should we start regulating what newspaper may or may not report lest it unfairly damage a candidate's chances at winning?

For that reason PostWatch is unimpressed with the editorial.

When the Washington Post advocates a law banning newspapers from publishing negative stories about politicians during a campaign, I'll start to take them seriously.

Blogdigger tags: Campaing Finance, 527, Washington Post, Media Bias.

A baseball revolution

(via The Loss Column) There's going to be a new minor league team in the area, the York Revolution. Given that southern Pennsylvania is Orioles territory, the Revolution have shrewdly exploited some Oriole connections. Oriole great, Brooks Robinson - whose professional career started in York - has been hired as a special assistant to York Professional Baseball

(Peter Kirk, chairman of York Professional Baseball, is president of Maryland Baseball the group that once owned the Baysox, Keys and Shorebirds.)

According to today's Baltimore Sun, the Revolution will be cementing the Orioles connection by hiring former Orioles Chris Hoiles, Al Bumbry, Tippy Martinez and Ryan Minor as manager and coaches.

The newly formed Atlantic League team announced the coaching staff for its inaugural 2007 season, and it will feature three members of the Orioles' Hall of Fame as well as the answer to a historic trivia question.

Former catcher Chris Hoiles, who played his entire 10-year big league career with the Orioles and was inducted last summer into the club's Hall of Fame, will be the first manager of the Revolution.

Tippy Martinez, one of the best relievers in Orioles history, will serve as pitching coach, and former outfielder Al Bumbry will be a part-time coach and base-running instructor.

Rounding out the staff will be infielder-hitting coach Ryan Minor, who played three seasons with the Orioles and is best known for replacing Cal Ripken in the starting lineup on Sept. 20, 1998, ending Ripken's record consecutive games played streak at 2,632.

(Ryan Minor hitting coach? Minor was convinced to give up his basketball dreams to play for the Orioles but it never panned out. He was eventually traded to Montreal for Jorge Julio. Tippy Martinez previously had a minor league connection. The first year the Baysox played they were in the old Memorial stadium. Tippy had a barbecue stand there.)

Now if I travel 45 minutes and go east on I-97, I can see the Orioles AA affiliate Bowie Baysox; 45 minutes and go west in I-70, I can see the Orioles A affiliate Frederick Keys; 45 minutes and go northeast on I-95 I can see the Orioles short season affiliate Aberdeen Ironbirds; and now about an hour and travel north on I-83 to see the independent York Revolution. (I could also travel about half that time and take I-83 south to the see the Orioles, but given their likely level of success this year - 4th place again - why bother?) Baltimore is becoming a hub for minor league ball.

A little further away another Maryland minor league team, the Blue Crabs won't be starting play next year due construction delays.

With all this minor league expansion, where will all the players come from? Well Congress has been looking out for that and recently passed a Minor League Immigration Bill.

The House and Senate did pass an immigration bill as they headed for the exits last week — one for minor-league baseball, basketball and hockey players and icecapade skaters.

The bill allows an unlimited number of those athletes to enter the U.S. on the same terms as major-league players and international sports stars. Currently, the minor leaguers enter on H2-B visas, which are good for only six months and are limited to 66,000 a year. That visa category is intended for seasonal workers like crab pickers and ski-industry employees, but as the popularity of minor-league and farm-team sports has spread, entire leagues have become dependent on foreign players.

Who says that Congress is out of touch? And who says that they don't have a sense of humor?

After the Senate passed the measure, one of its sponsors, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, issued a press release saying the “legislation would level the playing field for minor league athletes.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad and OTB Sports.

Blogdigger tags: York Revolution, Minor League Baseball, Baltimore Orioles, Brooks Robinson, Chris Hoiles, Tippy Martinez, Al Bumbry, Ryan Minor.

The billick era - continues

One thing I can't stand about sportswriters is that they often meander off into generalizations and unsupported speculations. Then they figure that you won't remember what they wrote when emerging evidence proves them wrong. For example last year some idiot wrote that the Billick era is over

I don't follow football as closely as I follow baseball, but almost two months late, it's safe to say that the Billick era is over. ... I'm not denigrating Billick. Not many coaches win the Super Bowl. Fewer in their second year. But there are lingering problems with the Ravens that haven't been properly identified. I suspect that he's the one most (but not solely) responsible for that failure. The team needs to commit itself to a painful and hopefully short rebuilding process.

Now that "genius" will probably tell you that Billick is the main reason the Ravens have made it to the playoffs and can be realistically considered serious contenders for winning a second Super Bowl in their short history.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was the doubter last year. But I've come around.

I have to admit that I was skeptical when Billick fired his offensive co-ordinator, Jim Fassell. I wasn't alone in wondering if that would really help. So did the Loss Column

Ummm…did I just say that Brian Billick will take over the play calling? This is great news for fans of the Browns, Bengals, and Steelers. And every other team left on the Ravens schedule this year. Write it down: this. will. not. end. well.

here too

So I’m going to go ahead and say it: it’s time for Billick to go. And nothing he does from here to February will change that opinion. Beginning with the decision to dismiss Trent Dilfer following his Super Bowl win, Billick has made one boneheaded, egocentric, and ultimately unsuccessful decision after another. I’m not saying he’s a bad coach or a bad guy (though I have my suspicions on both counts), I’m just saying his time is up. The Ravens need a new voice and a fresh start — mark it down.

But like me, they're coming around

That said, this team is really, really good. I said to a friend of mine who is a huge fan that if they went into Kansas City and dominated then all bets would be off. They did that, and at this point I don’t know how anyone could argue that they’re not one of the top three or four teams in the league. I see teams in the AFC who could give them trouble (San Diego, Indy, a Cincinnatti rematch), but nobody they can’t beat. This looks a lot like 2000. I said a few weeks ago that the Brian Billick play calling scenario would “not end well,” and I was horribly wrong. I’ve got crow in the oven right now, simmering in garlic and olive oil.

And I suppose at this point there are no shortage of Baltimoreans who, at this point, are looking for a playoff game against Indianapolis.

One thing I still don't get about the Billick era was expressed by Mike Preston of the Baltimore Sun

It's also ironic that Lewis and Colts coach Tony Dungy made names for themselves with defense, and their teams can't play a lick of it. Meanwhile, Brian Billick had the reputation of being offensive-minded, and his offenses have struggled since he came to Baltimore. Go figure.

When the Ravens won the Superbowl six years ago, they did with defense and special teams. Since then the offense still hasn't carried the team. And yet Billick was hired because of his record of success running the Vikings' offense. Like he said, go figure.

Crossposted at OTB Sports and Soccer Dad.

Blogdigger tags: Baltimore Ravens, Brian Billick.

Of blogging and carnivals

I'd like to thank Dr. Sanity for including me in the latest Carnival of the Insanities and for the Carnival of the Baseball blogs Episode 2 for linking to a post of mine too.

Then there's the Kosher Cooking Carnival celebrating its first anniversary with Edition #13. Me-Ander is also the hostess of the upcoming Haveil Havalim.

Finally I'd like to bring your attentions to this year's Carnival of Lights, an ongoing - until Friday - Carnival about Channukah at Planck's Constant. Guidelines are here.

Blogdigger tags: Blog Carnivals, Judaism, Kosher Cooking Carnival, Carnival of the Insanities, Carnival of the Baseball Blogs,

What moynihan and kirkpatrick saw

A number of remarkable men and women have served as the United States Ambassador to the UN. These include Arthur Goldberg, who previously had served as an associate Justice; Adlai Stevenson, a two time candidate for President; George H. W. Bush, who served as President; Daniel Patrick Moynihan, later a United States Senator; the recently deceased Jeane Kirkpatrick; and the recently retired John Bolton.

Two of them - Moynihan and Kirkpatrick - wrote important articles about the shenanigans of the institution.

In March 1981, Commentary published "Joining the Jackals - The United States at the UN 1977-1980" by Senator Moynihan. Moynihan wrote, not of his own time at Turtle Bay but of the Carter administration's approach to the UN, which had followed his own tenure. (Though a Democrat, Moynihan had served during the Ford administration.)

Using the President Carter's loss to the Senatory Ted Kennedy as a starting point, Moynihan explains how the Carter administration viewed the UN; and how it tried to act within that institution.

In March 1980, the Security Council passed resolution 465 that was extremely anti-Israel. The American ambassador to the UN, Donald McHenry voted in favor of the resolution. The administration, realizing how damaging it was to have voted for the resolution underwent contortions to downplay the significance of the vote. But the damage had been done and the Carter administration's support of the resolution played a role in chasing away Jewish voters during the New York Primary, giving Senator Kennedy a much needed victory.

Thus Moynihad describes the Carter administration's view of its efforts in the UN like this:

What is important, however, is that the administration had looked upon its United Nations record as a huge success. Other policies had failed, and that proved costly. But this had succeeded and proved costly. . . . I do not conceal my judgment that so long as the ideas underlying the Carter administration's UN policy are dominant within the Democratic party, we Democrats will be out of power.

Coming into power the Carter administration felt that the United States had been, in the past, too confrontational and that it must be more concilliatory to other nations whose views may not coincide with its own. Moynihan observed:

There was a fateful avoidance of reality in the new administration's view: a denial that there is genuine hostility twoard the United States in the world and true conflicts of interest between this nation and others - an illusion that a surface reasonableness and civility are the the same as true cooperation.

In general this new concilliation brought the United States nothing. Moynihan observed that votes in the UN didn't reflect new cooperation, unless the United States adopted the views of its adversaries. Nowhere was the conflict between the United States and the majority of the UN more clear than regarding the Middle East. And the United States didn't always stand up for its ally in votes.

I state as a matter of plain and universally understood fact that for the United States to abstain on a Security Council resolution concerning Israel is the equivalent of acquiescing.

Moynihan, though, describes how the malignant influence of the Soviet Union increased after the signing of the Camp David Accords. One would have assumed that Israel's diplomatic position would have been more secure once it made peace with its biggest Arab neighbor. One would be wrong.

The Soviet Union, upset that it had been shut out of the Middle East, conspired with the Arab rejectionists to condemn Israel in ever stronger terms in order to upset the nascent peace process. It wasn't simply a matter of criticizing Israel, but of declaring Israel illegitimate, as Moynihan explained.

...On March 1, 1980 a resolution (465) was submitted to the Council that was as viciously anti-Israel - and as destructive of the Camp David accords - as any that has ever been encountered or could readily be devised. Iserael was found to be in "flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention": the first nation in history to be found guilty of behaving as the government of Nazi Germany had behaved ...In a word according to resolution 465, Israel is an outlaw state, guilty of war crimes. (Not the Vietnamese invaders of Cambodia, or the Soviets in Afghanistan. Israel!) Its alleged capital is not its capital at all - "Jerusalem or any part thereof" - and it is in illegal occupation of territory now for the first time designated "Palestinian." Here, then, was the triumph of everything the Soviets and the "Rejectionists had stood for: the repudiation of everything Sadat, and for that matter Begin and Carter, had sought. Yet the United States had voted in favor of this resolution.

So the Carter administration in its zeal to please everyone, voted for an effort designed to undermined its greatest achievement, the Camp David Accords. In the end Moynihan hoped that the lessons of the past had been learned.

Still with the experience of these four years, we should at least have learned that foreign policy cannot be conducted under the pretense that we have no enemies in the world - or at any rate none whose enmity we have not merited by our own conduct.

Unfortunately, as Jeane Kirkpatrick, in July 1989, wrote "How the PLO was legitimized" showed that the lessons were not learned. (It was originally published in Commentary, the site of her more famous "Dictatorships and Double Standards" in 1979.) Moynihan's focus was on the delegitimization of Israel. In contrast, Kirkpatrick focused on the the legitmization of the PLO.

The PLO also understood the propaganda value of the violent deed. Hijacking planes; murdering a Jordanian prime minister, Israeli athletes, and countless Israeli and other civilians; killing would-be Palestinian rivals and Arab critics - all this captured worldwide attention and made the PLO's reputation as a terrorist organization. That reputation is today in doubt, not because the PLO has denounce terorism but because, with patient work and diplomatic skill, the PLO and its allies have nearly persuaded the world to adopt a new definition of terrorism, one which retroactively legitimizes the PLO's aggressive violence and delegitimizes Israel's efforts at self-defense. ... The issue Arafat knows, is not whether the PLO has used violence against unarmed civilians. It is not over whether the PLO will use violence again. The issue is whether that violence was and is justified.

She starts at the beginning giving naming the documents that started inverting the morality of international law to serve terrorist aims. (More on resolution 2708 and similar resolutions here.)

Where the Charter permitted force by member states only to defend themselves against attack, GA Resolution 2708 XX (1970) created a new category of "legitimate" force which could be used against member states. This new right was confirmed in subsequent resolutions approving the struggle of "liberation" groups again "colonialism" by "all necessary means at their disposal."

This was followed by the The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples which stated

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

As Dr. Kirkpatrick observed this had a real legal effect.

The General Assembly thus subordinated the principle of the "sovereign inviobility" of states to the struggle of "peoples" against "colonialism" and put important new restrictions on the right of states to self-defense.

(If you recall the kidnapping and killing of the Israeli soldiers across the international border in October, 2000, you might recall that the UN protected Hezbollah. It would appear that the UN's unconcsionable behavior, protecting a terrorist organization in conflict with a member state was in line with the parody that international has become, as opposed to an aberration.)

Dr. Kirkpatrick then goes on to show how the PLO's Covenant meshes with the new definitions inherent in the UN Charter so that

With its Covenant, the PLO thus claimed all the rights of a people under the redefined UN Charter and denied the state of Israelany rights whatsoever. That claim became more serious as the UN General Assembly began to adopt the PLO Covenant as its own, importing kits key elements into resolutions and citations of resolutions.

(That's Arafat and his spokesmen were so keen to cite 242 and 338 and all relevant resolutions. Those relevant resolutions invariably denied Israel's right to exist or defend itself. Those statements were not statements of concilliation, but of confrontation, but confrontation as ratified by the hopelessly corrupt UN.)

In recounting this shameful history, Kirkpatrick concluded

Thanks in large part to this relentless campaign, much of the world is now confused about who is the aggressor and who is the victim, wo is the terrorist and who is the victim of terrorism. Such confusion is manifest in the response to the various "concessions" of Yasir Arafat, which are themselves the most recent move in his ongoing effort to legitimize the PLO. The U.S. response in particular is evidence of a growing willingness to give Arafat the benefit of the doubt.

The rest of the essay is devoted to the supposed PLO recognition of Israel in 1988 and the contortions the world community went through to see some sort of breakthrough in Arafat's weaselly words.

In particular Kirkpatrick observed

Obviously, then, when Arafat "renounced" terrorism he did not define it as the U.S. State Department defines it: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine state agents, normally intended to influence an audience." Obviously, if violence against unarmed and unprotected civilians is not to be called terrorism, if specialists in that kind of violence like Abu Jihad are not to be called terrorists but victims of terrorism, then we are in the world of doublethink and doublespeak.

The consequences of living in such a world she warned in conclusion would be

The long march through the UN has produced many benfits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one. That will take more than resolutions and more than an "international peace conference." But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to legitimize itself and to delegitimize Israel, the PLO might yet also succeed in bringing that campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.

Both Moynihan and Kirkpatrick saw through the noble sounding rhetoric and exposed it for the hatred that it masked. Outgoing Ambassador John Bolton similarly challenged the farce that passed for international law at the UN but not enough Americans saw the importance in allowing him to continue his work.

The UN is not a well meaning organization. It is an organization whose depraved morality is dictated by the votes of a majority of dictators, tyrants and their sympathizers who deny votes to their own constituents but parade their bogus majority as morality.

Kofi Annan who apparently isn't being sufficiently rewarded for his obsequiousness and incompetence isn't simply misguided, as he has been fully complicit in allowing evil - genocide in Rwanda, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat - to flourish during his tenure.

One can only hope that more people and governments will challenge the status quo at the UN as Moynihan and Kirkpatrick did. That is the only way that this institution that was founded with the best of intentions can be saved from its self made path to Hell.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

UPDATE: This was the basis for my Feb 2007 article in Where, What and When.

Blogdigger tags: Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, United Nations, John Bolton, Kofi Annan, PLO, Israel.

Rosenblum: Impostors In Hassidic Garb

Impostors In Hassidic Garb

by Jonathan Rosenblum
Jerusalem Post
December 18, 2006

One need not attribute the decision to splash a large photo of a Jew in hassidic garb kissing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the conference of Holocaust denial in Teheran last week to a desire to cast Torah Jews in a repugnant light. What photo editor could resist such an eye-catching shot?

But I will confess to a certain resentment at feeling forced to disavow a handful of clowns who cannot claim the support of one Torah authority for their actions and who have been spit out by the entire Torah world. The Satmar leadership in Brooklyn put it succinctly: "[Those who went to Iran] trampled on the memory of their ancestors and people. They embraced the disciples and followers of their murderers."

As reported by Matthew Wagner in last Thursday's Jerusalem Post, Ha'eda, the official organ of the fiercely anti-Zionist Eda Haharedit, characterized those attending the Teheran conference as a "tiny group of insane people, who are liable to incite hatred against hareidi Jews." The paper's editor, Rabbi Shmuel Pappenheim, lambasted them for having ignored the "opinion of the Torah Sages" in pursuit of their distorted anti-Zionist zealotry.

Ahron Cohen of Manchester, England, one of the attendees at the Teheran conference, has been sent a letter informing him of his expulsion from the hevra kadisha (burial society) to which he belonged, and requesting that he not show his face in the vicinity of Machizkei Hadas, the largest haredi shul in Manchester. He has also been told that he is persona non grata in the Satmar beis medrash (study hall) of Manchester. Rav Elchonon (Huna) Halperin, the senior figure in the haredi community of Golders Green in London, has issued similar instructions for his beis medrash.

NOR WAS this stance anything new. More than a quarter-century ago, Rabbi Chaim Shmuelevitz, the rosh yeshiva of the Mirrer Yeshiva in Jerusalem, ordered Moshe Hirsch, the self-proclaimed "foreign minister" of a tiny splinter sect of Naturei Karta, out of the Mirrer beit medrash. And a joint statement by Satmar and other American hassidic groups last week noted that these "evil associates of our enemies" were "ejected from our shuls and communities decades ago."

RABBI ELAZAR SHACH said many times that just as one who denies one mitzva of the Torah is classified as an apikorus or heretic, so is one who elevates any mitzva (or supposed mitzva) of the Torah above all others. At a 2002 Hamas rally in Washington D.C., a speaker dressed as a hassid justified using a microphone on the grounds that destroying Israel supersedes the prohibitions of Shabbat.

But even were this tiny group that turns up at every anti-Israel rally where there are likely to be cameras scrupulous in their observance of Shabbat, their behavior would mark them as imposters posing as religious Jews.

"The seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is truth," say our sages. Yet those who traveled to Teheran last week willingly and knowingly gave credence to the greatest lie of modern times.

Only a Jew driven mad by hatred of Zionism and the state of Israel could ever join hands with the greatest butchers and would-be butchers of Jews in modern times. Documents captured in Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 show Hirsch to have been on the payroll of Yasser Arafat, whom he publicly embraced on many occasions.

Decades ago, Hirsch was chosen to be "rav" of the Purim shpiel in his American yeshiva, and he has been playing the part ever since, long after the joke turned sour. Once aroused, the love of attention, even negative attention, is hard to curb.

THE LEADING theological opponents of Zionism never mistook the enemy of their enemy for their friend. Mayor John Lindsay once paid a campaign visit to the late Satmar Rebbe, Grand Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, the fiercest ideological opponent of Zionism. After the meeting, the Satmar Rebbe explained why he had not said a word against Israel: "When a gentile hates Israel, he hates Jews."

Nor did a theological opposition to Zionism ever detract from a concern with the physical well-being and security of the Jews of Israel. Agudath Israel from its inception was anti-Zionist. Yet Rabbi Moshe Sherer, the long-time president of Agudath Israel of America, often said that he took a second-seat to no one when it came to the security of Israel.

He repeatedly placed his web of congressional contacts at the service of Israel's leaders. At a June 17,1970 meeting in the Israeli Embassy in Washington, for instance, Rabbi Sherer offered ambassador Yitzhak Rabin "our help in whatever way we could be used."

Even Agudath Israel's general policy against making common cause with non-Orthodox groups gave way when it came to Israel's security. Thus Agudath Israel found a way to participate in a general protest demonstration in front of the UN against the grant of permanent observer status to the PLO.

In this regard, Rabbi Sherer always quoted the words of his mentor, Rabbi Aharon Kotler, during the Holocaust. When some questioned Rabbi Kotler's readiness to join forces with Reform leader Stephen Wise for rescue, Reb Aharon replied, "I would work with the pope if it would save even the fingernail of one Jewish child."

Passionate concern with every Jewish life has characterized every Torah leader throughout the generations. Those who provided aid and comfort last week to a madman who has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel and its five million Jewish citizens off the map demonstrated thereby that they have no place in the camp of Torah.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Neturei Karta and Holocaust Conference and Ahmadinejad.

Channukah 5767

3rd night

4th night

Channukah, Oil Menorah

The todd van poppel of football?

I guess it's too early to call Eli Manning the Todd Van Poppel of football, but watching the San Diego-Kansas City game yesterday, I couldn't help getting that feeling.

In the 1990 amateur baseball draft, high school pitcher, Todd Van Poppel was considered the crown jewel. Van Poppel though made it clear that he wouldn't play for Atlanta and that his asking price would be high. The Braves, suffering through a terrible run, had the number 1 pick that year. But they decided the risk of not signing him was too great so they held off signing him.

Van Poppel, though, was offered enough by Oakland, then one of the best teams in the big leagues to sign with them. There's little doubt that part of Van Poppel's choice was that he wanted to go with a winner not a loser.

But success on the field can be a fleeting thing. The Athletics were coming off of their third consecutive trip to the World Series, though they were swept by Cincinatti. The returned to the playoffs in 1992, but haven't returned to the Series since.

The Braves in 1990 were completing their fifth year of rebuilding under then GM, the underappreciated, Bobby Cox. The next year he would step down to manage the team and John Schuerholz would take over the reins as GM and the Braves started a string of 14 consecutive trips to the playoffs (except for 1994 when a strike cancelled the end of the season).

Todd van Poppel? He ended up with an ERA in the high 5's and never attained the success his fastball was thought to portend. Who did the Braves draft as their consolation prize? Chipper Jones - a big part of those successful seasons in Atlanta.

Looking at the success San Diego is having, I wonder if Eli Manning made the same mistake that Van Poppel made. Did he look at San Diego and assume that there was no way the Chargers would be competitive in the near future? With the Giants struggling does Manning regret forcing the trade? I don't think that the Chargers are.

(Forcing a bad team not to draft you or not to keep you, doesn't always work out badly. John Elway managed a very nice career in Denver, after refusing to play for the Baltimore Colts.)

Crossposted at Soccer Dad and OTB Sports.

Blogdigger Tags: Baseball, Football, Todd Van Poppel, Eli Manning.

The noblest and manliest

A few weeks ago, Biur Chametz wrote Finding Pshat in which he wondered how one would understand the plain meaning of what's written in the Torah, specifically the matter of the Berachos (blessings) given to Yaakov instead of Eisav, and the competition between the two.

Take, for example, the birthright. Is it possible to sell one's birthright? Presumably, you could sell the property after you inherited it, but can you sell the right to it ahead of time? If so, was this even a valid sale? Yaakov exploited Esav's hunger to force him to sell; is that not a sale under duress? And surely the price (apparently, the food he served) was far from sufficient. Clearly, Esav would have strong grounds to contest this sale when the time came to inherit his father - why doesn't he?

It turned out that these aren't idle suppositions. This past Shabbos, I opened my father-in-law's edition of the Innocent Abroad by Mark Twain. Twain, unschooled in Midrash finds one of the most noble characters in the Bible to be Joseph. But Joseph, to Twain, pales before Esaiv/Esau.

From Chapter 47, The Innocents Abroad, by Mark Twain.

Joseph became rich, distinguished, powerful -- as the Bible expresses it, "lord over all the land of Egypt." Joseph was the real king, the strength, the brain of the monarchy, though Pharaoh held the title. Joseph is one of the truly great men of the Old Testament. And he was the noblest and the manliest, save Esau. Why shall we not say a good word for the princely Bedouin? The only crime that can be brought against him is that he was unfortunate. Why must every body praise Joseph's great-hearted generosity to his cruel brethren, without stint of fervent language, and fling only a reluctant bone of praise to Esau for his still sublimer generosity to the brother who had wronged him? Jacob took advantage of Esau's consuming hunger to rob him of his birthright and the great honor and consideration that belonged to the position; by treachery and falsehood he robbed him of his father's blessing; he made of him a stranger in his home, and a wanderer. Yet after twenty years had passed away and Jacob met Esau and fell at his feet quaking with fear and begging piteously to be spared the punishment he knew he deserved, what did that magnificent savage do? He fell upon his neck and embraced him!

There are points to the story of the birthright that could be emphasized that would put Eisav in a less flattering light. I looked up the translation to the Hertz Chumash, which, I believe is the King James Version.

In Hebrew the word "haleeaini" is translated "let me sip." Twain, would have had no knowledge of the Hebrew word, But "let me sip" is a benign request. The problem, knowing the Hebrew, is that the word suggests an animalistic hunger to be sated by pouring the food down one's throat. (The Hebrew term is not commonly used and appears nowhere else in the Torah, though a variant appears in the Mishnah.)

Further the King James translation of "hinei anochi holech lamus" is (approximately) "I am at the point of death." Here that translation is not necessarily wrong, though I hadn't understood it to be an expression of immediate mortality but eventual mortality. Still the King James translation certainly seems a credible interpretation.

It took this illustration to show me the degree to which my understanding of the Torah is shaped, not by the actual text, by external sources. Just as Halacha (Jewish Law) can't be understood without the Talmud - the Oral Law or Tradition, so to the stories cannot be understood without the Medrash. Or as Biur Chametz put it

Generally, the mepharshim focus on the micro level: Explaining an unfamiliar term or grammatical construction, or citing a midrashic approach to explain an odd turn of phrase. But rarely do they seem to ask or answer the story-level questions that any thoughtful reader might pose.

(Mepharshim = Commentaries).

Blogdigger tags: Torah, Midrash, Biblical Exegesis.

Respecting democracy

Civil War? According to Instapundit, only in Iraq.

Remember how Bush's crtiics responded to his boycott of the Hamas government by claiming that democracy means accepting and respecting the results of democratic elections (without saying "even if those elections bring a terrorist group to power")?

Now the Holocaust denying President of the PA has called for new elections and Hamas objects.

“I have decided to call for early presidential and parliamentary elections,” Mr. Abbas said. “Let’s return to the people to have their say, and let them be the judge.”

Hamas leaders immediately called Mr. Abbas’s declaration illegal and tantamount to a coup, saying that he had no power to call early elections and that the Palestinian people had given them a majority in free and fair elections only 11 months ago.

So isn't Hamas rejecting a parliamentary maneuver? Doesn't that retroactively show that the organization doesn't believe in democracy?

More at memeorandum.

Haveil Havalim #98 is UP!

No arrowheads here, but go to Jerusalem Board Games for the extremely entertaining and creative Haveil Havalim #98 live from the caves of the Maccabees.

Next week's hostess is Me-Ander. Use the Blog Carnival form or e-mail her at shilohmuse at yahoo dot com.

I'd like to thank the wonderful folks at BlogCarnival for this wonderful Blog Carnival Widget that gives information on upcoming hosts and past editions.

As you can see there are volunteer hosts and hostess leading up to the 100th edition of Haveil Havalim in four weeks! Thanks for participating, reading and keeping Haveil Havalim going!

In addition to e-mail you may submit entries to Haveil Havalim using the submission form over at BlogCarnival. Or feel free to e-mail me at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com.

Also if you'd like to host an upcoming edition e-mail me at the above address.

Remember, that while the hosts and hostesses of Haveil Havalim do a wonderful job of editing and searching for interesting posts, they can't see everything. If you want a better chance of being included in Haveil Havalim please submit one or two posts for inclusion.

Listed at the Truth Laid Bear Ubercarnival.

Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism.

Most recent editions of Haveil Havalim at Blog Carnival
#22 Mystical Paths
#21 Rabbinical Authority Consortium of HACKers
#20 Shiloh Musings
#19 Devarim
#18 Soccer Dad
#17 Mystical Paths
#16 Critical Mastiff
#15 Soccer Dad
#14 Multiple Mentality
#13 IsraPundit
#12 DovBear
#11 Kesher Talk
#10 Biur Chametz
#9 Soccer Dad
#8 It's Almost Supernatural
#7 Bloghead
#6 Willow Tree.
#5 Crossing the Rubicon2
#4 Dov Bear
#3 Biur Chametz

Council speak 12/15/06

The Council has Spoken. The winning submission this week among the council posts is Andrew olmsted's "The Peace Myth." Andrew olmsted take the pessimistic view (and I'm not disagreeing with hm, but his view is pessimistic) that peace is not the natural condition of humankind. Expecting otherwise is folly.

The runner-up was (I'm honored) my Baker's Bad Recipe in which I do something I've been doing a lot of lately: criticizing the Iraq Study Group's report.

Next on the list was a more analytical (and less polemical) approach to the ISG report, The Glittering Eye's The Sticky Parts of the ISG Report Recommendations and JoshuaPundit's excellent history of the Real Holocaust Deniers.

Among non-Council posts the winner was The Clash of Convictions and the Remaking of the World of Wars at Winds of Change. The runners up was Rummy's Farewell by Mr. Smash goes to Washington and Democrats' New Intelligence Chairman Needs a Crash Course on al Qaeda at CQ.com. I like Rumsfeld so the former was a very nice piece to read and the latter continues a reporters quest for ignorance in the government.

A seat has opened up on the Watcher's Council. If you think you have the right stuff (i.e. if you're better than me, how hard is that?) submit your blog for consideration.

If you'd like to participate in the current vote but don't want to join, you can do that too.

Blogdigger tag: Watcher's Council.

Attempt on haniyeh

After receiving the go ahead from the Israeli Supreme Court, gunmen affiliated with the Fatah political party attempted an extra-judicial killing of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, of the political arm of Hamas.

A masked spokesman for Fatah told our reporter, "We saw that there was no other way to get at the corrupt thief. We determined all who were around him were not civilians. It's possible we made a mistake."

The United Nations quickly condemned the assassination attempt, a statement from the office of the outgoing Secretary General, Kofi Annan read, "We condemn this blatant violation of international law. No one deserves the protection of international more than terrorist leaders.
We especially condemn Israel for creating the conditions under which such a crime could occur. We order Israel to release the funds that Mr. Haniyeh was transporting into Gaza to purchase more weapons for self-defense."

Blogdigger tags: Ismail Haniyeh, Assassination Attempt, Israel, Hamas, Palestinian Authority.

For those of you who have oil menorahs

A simple Jew has a good memory. And better advice.

Blogdigger tags: Channukah, Oil Menorah.

More criticism of the ISG

A number of prominent Iraqis are not happy with the Iraq Study Group's report, including the President Jalal Talabani

Consider Jalal Talabani. A secular-minded Kurd who has probably done more than any other leader to reach out across the country's sectarian divides, Iraq's President is no doubt sympathetic to the report's calls for "national reconciliation." But he reacted strongly to the ISG's suggestion that American support for his democratically elected government be conditioned on its meeting U.S.-determined "milestones" toward that goal. That, he said, was an "insult to the people of Iraq."

Mr. Talabani was also critical of the ISG's specific ideas for achieving reconciliation. Having helped bring such Sunni leaders as Adnan Dulaimi into the political process, he clearly understands the importance of giving the Sunnis a fair deal. But he bristled at the report's idea that reconciliation should be achieved through concessions to members of Saddam's Baath Party and other Sunni rejectionists. Fellow Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani echoed that criticism, saying the ISG wanted to reward "those who are against the political process and have conducted acts of violence."

One of the most common criticisms of the Bush administration's Iraq policy is that of the de-Baathification. The criticism goes that the Baathists are the people with governing experience and therefore certain of their numbers should have been included in the government.

Charles Krauthammer in "In Baker's Blunder, A chance for Bush" ( here too )points out that there's been a bit of bipartisan criticism for the results of the bipartisan commission.

The study group has not just been attacked by left and right, Democrat and Republican. It has invited ridicule. Seventy-nine recommendations. Interdependent, insists Baker. They should be taken as a whole. "I hope we don't treat this like a fruit salad and say, 'I like this but I don't like that.' " On the basis of what grand unifying vision? On the authority of what superior wisdom? A 10-person commission including such Middle East experts as Sandra Day O'Connor, Alan Simpson and Vernon Jordan?

Krauthammer criticizes the ISG's proposals for being obvious or unworkable. So what does Krauthammer recommend?

He must do two things. First, as I've been agitating, establish a new governing coalition in Baghdad that excludes Moqtada al-Sadr, a cancer that undermines the Maliki government's ability to work with us. It is encouraging that the president has already begun such a maneuver by meeting with rival Shiite and Sunni parliamentary leaders. If we help produce a cross-sectarian government that would be an ally rather than a paralyzed semi-adversary of coalition forces, we should then undertake part two: "double down'' our military effort. This means a surge in American troops with a specific mission: to secure Baghdad and (together with the support of the Baghdad government -- a sine qua non) suppress Sadr's Mahdi Army.

The question seems to be whether Maliki is weak because of al-Sadr or whether he is just plain weak. If the former, this might work. If not, Maliki needs to be replaced. By whom?

Daniel Pipes has been arguing for awhile that the new boss ought to be the old boss: Ayad Allawi.

UPDATE: More at BuzzTracker.

Blogdigger tags: Iraq Study Group, Iraq, Allawi, Maliki, Charles Krauthammer, Daniel Pipes.

I recently received a new e-mail scam

Dear Sir.
Your contact information was referred to me by one of my trusted contacts, whose name I am not at liberty to compromize. I would like to approach you with reguards to a profitable Business Proposal, reguarding the transfer of TEN MILLION ($10000000) U.S. Dollars into your Bank Account. For reasons I am sure you will appreciate, I ask that you keep this commucation confidential, and avoid it falling into the hands of any agents of the Ghanian Special Services Branch that may be operating in Your area.

My name is Kojo Annan and I am the Son of his Excellency Mr. Kofi Annan, the soon to be Retiring Secretary General of the United Nations. If you have been following the events in the United Nations over the last few years, you will remember the big scandal that took place when Mr. Annan was forced into retirement and denied an appropriate pension.

In retirement, my father will no longer be able to parlay his position into international prizes.

You see, my Father had a lot of enemies in the diplomatic circles, who will envy his great fortune. It was they who removed him in the hope to gain access to the money that he collected from honoraria and kickbacks (practices that is quite common in the UN). Fortunately, there was too much scandal and media coverage in the aftermath of Mr. Anna's retirement for them to move openly to claim his money. This gave me and a few trusted people who were still loyal to my Father, an opportunity to move the money into a secret account at the Second Central Bank of Ghana.

Unfortunately $100,000 a year does not buy as much as it once did. $250,000 is more in keeping with the lifestyle to which my father has become accustomed. And how can you deny the trappings of luxury to my father? After all he has been responsible for so many successes at the UN!

He has used his good offices in several delicate political situations. These included an attempt in 1998 to gain Iraq's compliance with Security Council resolutions; a mission in 1998 to help promote the transition to civilian rule in Nigeria; an agreement in 1999 to resolve a stalemate between Libya and the Security Council over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing; diplomacy in 1999 to forge an international response to violence in East Timor; the certification of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in September 2000, and further efforts, since the renewed outbreak of violence in September 2000, to encourage Israelis and Palestinians to resolve their differences through peaceful negotiations based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of "land for peace".

Mr. Annan has also sought to improve the status of women in the Secretariat and to build closer partnerships with civil society, the private sector and other non-State actors whose strengths complement those of the United Nations; in
particular, he has called for a "Global Compact" involving leaders of the world business community as well as labour and civil society organizations, aimed at enabling all the world's people to share the benefits of globalization and embedding the global market in values and practices that are fundamental to meeting socio-economic needs.

How can anyone deny such a record of accomplishment?

While we managed to do this without the Ghanian Special Services Branch becoming aware of our activities, the money cannot remain in this account, because at the end of the tax year, all deposits and interest will be reported to the Taxation Bureau of Ghana, where our enemies have informants in their pay. The only option available to us, is transfering the money to a trusted partner who is a foreign national and cannot be linked to Mr. Kofi Annan in any way.

As your name was brought to my attention by a very trusted contact in the Ghanian Foreign Office, I have been authorized by my partners to contact you with this Proposal. All that would be required of you is the use of your bank account to perform a transfer of TEN MILLION ($10000000) U.S. Dollars. Once the money has been deposited, one of Mr. Bello's other Sons will contact you, at which point you will release SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($7500000) of the amount into his custody.

I am authorized by my Father's estate in Ghanian to offer you the remaining TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2500000) as a compensation for your services. Because the money would only need to be in your bank account for a few days, and your danger of being discovered by The Ghanian Special Services Branch is minimal, we believe the commission of TWENTY FIVE PERCENT (25 %) to be more than generous.

Once I have received Your consent and Bank Account number, I will be able to make a claim under Your name with The Board of Citizen Welfare of Ghana for the above sum. We have a friend on the Board Of Oversight in that organization who has assured me that the claim will be processed without raising any red flags, and the money will be released into Your Bank Account no later than within SEVEN (7) days from the time I receive your response.

I am at your disposal to answer any questions you may have about this Transaction, so don't hesitate to contact me via telephone, at +1-555-555-6366 (Just ask for K.). I eagerly await your reply, though I must ask you to treat this matter with great secrecy, lest you betray me and my partners to the agents of the Ghanian Special Services Branch.

Respectfully Yours,

Kojo Annan

(The bulk of this letter was generated with the help of a Nigerian Scam Letter generator.)

UPDATE: More at memeorandum.

UPDATE II: Apparently such fundraising efforts run in the family.

Blogdigger tags: Kofi Annan, Kojo Annan, UN, Corruption.

"Jimmy Carter Was the Best Friend the Jews Ever Had"

"Jimmy Carter was the best friend the Jews ever had as president of the United States."

Yeah, I couldn't believe it either, but that is what Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun claims in his defense of Jimmy Carter. Actually, it's not so much a defense of Jimmy Carter as an attack on the right wing fanatics who don't appreciate the importance of being told when you are wrong. Lerner writes:

He is the only president to have actually delivered for the Jewish people an agreement (the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt) that has stood the test of time. Since the treaty, there have been bad vibes between Israel and Egypt, but never a return to war, once Israel fully withdrew from the territories it conquered in Egypt during the 1967 war.

To get that agreement, Carter had to twist the arms of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat. Sometimes that is what real friends do—they push you into a path that is really in your best interest at times when there is an emergency and you are acting self-destructively.

...We know that critique is often an essential part of love and caring.

That is precisely what Jimmy Carter is trying to do for Israel and the Jewish people in his new book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

...Jimmy Carter is speaking the truth as he knows it, and doing a great service to the Jews.

It’s time to create a new openness to criticism and a new debate. Jimmy Carter has shown courage in trying to open that kind of space with his new book, and he deserves our warm thanks and support.

But while Lerner engages in the sort of bend-over-backwards mental gymnastics that would put a Yoga master to shame, he does introduce a new tactic:

Unfortunately, this peace is impeded by the powerful voices of AIPAC and the mainstream of the organized Jewish community, who manage to terrify even the most liberal elected officials into blind support of whatever policy the current government of Israel advocates. Ironically, this blind support has had the consequence of pushing many morally sensitive Christians and Jews to distance themselves from the Jewish world, which makes blind support for Israeli policies the litmus test of anti-Semitism. Younger Jews cannot safely express criticisms of Israeli policy without being told that they are disloyal or “self-hating,” and elected officials tell me privately that they agree with Tikkun’s more balanced “progressive Middle Path” which is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine.

Apparently, Lerner has decided to use the same technique as his good friend Jimmy Carter. Lerner resorts to the increasingly popular tactic of blaming the Jewish Lobby--in this case consisting not only of AIPAC but the mainstream organized Jewish community as well--for railroading the politicians and alienating "morally sensitive" Jews from the Jewish world. For good measure, Lerner also takes the Democrat's claim that the Republicans accused them of being unpatriotic and repackages it as the claim that liberal Jews are being accused of being disloyal. All this while decrying the "blind support of whatever policy the current government of Israel advocates"--this being the Olmert government which approved of the Disengagement, proposed the Convergence Plan, and is toying with releasing terrorists.

To hear Lerner talk you'd think that he was talking about Menachem Begin.

If Lerner is really interested in discussion and debate, employing the demagoguery of Israel's critics is not the way to do it.

by Daled Amos

UPDATE: More at Discarded Lies (with comments.)

Technorati Tag: Rabbi Michael Lerner and Jimmy Carter and Israel.

Gruenwald station

The other day PM Olmert made a speech at the Gruenwald railway station in Germany. He connects the deportation Jews with the integration of Jews into German society 200 years earlier.

Exactly 200 years separated the entry of a 14 year old Jewish boy into the Rosenthal Gate at the Berlin wall (the gate intended for Jews and animals) and the transport to the death of the Jews of Berlin by the Nazi oppressor. The entry of Moshe Mendelssohn in the fall of 1743 marked the dawn of a Jewish-German cultural alliance and a magnificent and tremendous creative contribution by Jews to the spiritual life, the philosophy, literature, poetry, music, arts, science and medicine in Germany – a contribution which was unproportionate to the number of Jews in the population. Exactly two hundred years, sealed for eternity, here, at dock number 17, at the Grünwald Train Station.

Later, Prime Minister Olmert, in a paragraph, gives the reason that there's a state of Israel.

This is the legacy of our six million dead: to do everything in our power to make certain that the Jewish State will be the complete and furthermost opposite of the Nazi evil; to base our nation on the eternal values of the Torah and the prophets of Israel, the freedom and dignity of man, social justice, human morality, the sanctity of life and the dedicated pursuit of peace.

In the course of the speech he quotes poetry. It doesn't look like a bad speech. But, somehow, it pales in comparison to a speech given by his predecessor, PM Sharon, on a similar occasion, six years ago ...

Here at Gruenewald railway station, on these platforms, on 39.11.42, three children of the Bobkar family - Maly, Hala and Abraham - stood here by themselves.

Perhaps the two older sisters held their seven-year-old brother by the hand.

They stood here without mother or father and the train came. The transport number was #23, the destination was Auschwitz, they were among the first. The Wansee Conference had taken place not long before, on the other side of the forest.

From that bleak beginning, he connected himself (by way of contrast) to the Holocaust.

I come here today from the Land of Israel where I was born, in which I live and for which I have fought all my life. Maly, Hala and Abraham Bobkar were from my age group when they set out from here on their last journey. The same historical process which scattered my people across the entire globe and founded the Zionist movement is what led to the fact that they, and not I, were on transport #23.

The way that PM Sharon was able to personalize the Holocaust, and Jewish history generally, made the speech incredibly effective. Ever since I first read the speech, I have not been able to get the image of the three children out of my mind.

Blogdigger tags: Gruenwald Station, Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, Holocaust Israel.

The presence of the cheapest gas

Presence wonders where the cheapest gas was in NW Baltimore.

I had thought that the best place was the Crown station on the corner of Fallstaff, which usually was comparable with his favorite at Fords Lane. (More on Crown later.)

But lately the cash price at the Carroll Independent station on the corner of Reisterstown and Patterson has been the cheapest.

The funny thing is that when there's a big fluctuation, all presumptions get knocked out of whack. Usually the gas stations near work had been more expensive. But in the summer of 2005, before Katrina, the four stations on Cherry Hill Road (Adelphi) started carrying even cheaper prices than Baltimore. Since then, though, the Cherry Hill stations have been more expensive - until this week.

More surprising is that yesterday I noticed, that the gas stations on New Hampshire Avenue were lower than Cherry Hill Road or Baltimore. Were in a state of flux now so most assumptions about the best price probably won't stand.

(In the past two years I'd have to make occasional trips to Westminster Maryland where there was a Jiffy Mart that always had prices 5 - 10 cents less per gallon than in Northwest Baltimore. And my favorite place to get gas on my trips to NJ/NY is the Pilot station at Carney's Point, NJ. The last time we travelled though, the Pilot Station no longer was cheaper than Baltimore. I wonder if it will be cheaper on our next trip.)

Anyway, Presence mentioned that he didn't know what station was before it became Chevron. It was a Crown station. Around Baltimore, Crown was the gas station associated with the Orioles (back when they were good.) Brooks Robinson used to be the spokesman. But those days are gone.

Crown still exists. Though I didn't find information on the station changes in any news source, the Crown website explains that in 2004 they sold a number of their stations.

By mid-2004, Crown Central had sold the bulk of its gas stations and convenience stores to dozens of small to mid-size independent retailers. Many of the buyers of those locations entered into an agreement to continue to operate under the Crown brands. Some operators in parts of Maryland and Virginia have recently chosen to enter into new arrangements with other companies to change the brand of their stations. By the end of 2006, Crown stations will be fewer in number in those areas.

The 4 Crown stations I'm familiar with have become Texaco or Chevron stations.

One more part of my childhood - gone. Sniff.

UPDATE: Laz-A-Fare asks, "How much are you really saving by finding the cheapest gas?"

Blogdigger tags: Gasoline Prices, Crown Central.

The music biz

Instapundit writing about a musical career - in a discussion about his brother.

It's a hard life, and the source of lots of jokes -- "What's the difference between a musician and a large pepperoni pizza? The pizza can feed a family of four." -- but what's amazing is how many people give it a go anyway. Most don't get as close to making it big as my brother has, and yet even those who get signed by big record labels usually don't make all that much money, really. A few get pretty rich, but most, even among those with record contracts, don't make enough money to justify all the time and effort they put into it.

If I understand an article from last year in the Washington Post, there are now greater opportunities for musicians than touring and records. The article "Indie Bands jumping on the Brand Wagon tells of how popular music acts are more and more selling their songs for marketing purposes.

Bob Mould is best known for his 1980s punk band Husker Du. Now 45, the guitarist and vocalist sells his new music primarily by touring and through his Web site. But it's a grind.

So Mould was thrilled when he was contacted recently by the music supervisor for the hit Fox show "The OC," who wanted to use a recording from Mould's most recent album in an upcoming episode.

The producers paid "in the low five figures," Mould said, to play his song "Circles" on the show multiple times, making it exactly the kind of deal that Mould, and artists like him, are looking for now.

And it's not just TV shows, but commercials too.

The result is that corporate music buyers are changing the economics of being an independent musician. The once-standard dream of a record deal and radio play is giving way to the reality of restaurants, retailers and automakers scouring the industry for little-known music that can lend mood and edge to marketing campaigns.

In fact my wife has a cousin who's a music broker. If a TV show is looking for a theme song, a broker might find an appropriate song and then arrange the sale of rights to the show.

These new opportunities might not make more of the super rich. But it should give more of the non-superstars a chance to make a comfortable living.

(And this is one more way that capitalism is good for music.)

Blogdigger tags: Popular Music, Marketing.

Norman Finkelstein For The Defense

Here is a trial that has been surfacing now and then in the news:

Salah, 53, of Bridgeview, has been on trial in Chicago for two months on charges that he served as a high-ranking operative of the militant Palestinian group Hamas, which the U.S. government considers a terrorist organization. Defense attorneys contend that the Salah prosecution is a politically motivated appeasement of the Israeli lobby.

The defense strategy seems to be two-pronged:

Back in September the New York Sun reported that a judge found that Hamas is a political party.

On Friday, a federal judge in Chicago ruled that defense attorneys for two men accused of handling Hamas's financial affairs here, Abdelhaleem Ashqar and Muhammad Salah, may tell jurors about the vote in January that gave the group a majority in the Palestinian Arab parliament.

Judge Amy St. Eve said she agreed with lawyers for Mr. Ashqar that the electoral victory "is relevant because it demonstrates that Hamas engages in legitimate political and social measures." The judge also said Hamas's role in the Palestinian Arab government could support Mr. Ashqar's contention "that the money he donated went to the legitimate purpose of consensus building and campaigning, rather than terrorist activities."

Earlier, in August, it was reported by the New York Sun:

In a motion filed yesterday, attorneys for Muhammad Salah asked to call witnesses and present other evidence to prove that the criminal case is the product of "the joint venture, cooperation, and partnership" between the American and Israeli governments. The defense lawyers said Israel should be compelled to turn over evidence favorable to Mr. Salah because the Israeli and American governments have acted in lockstep in the case.

...A defense lawyer, Michael Deutsch, described a "longstanding and profound political military and law enforcement relationship" between Israel and America. One authority he cited is an academic paper published in March, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." The hotly disputed treatise by a political science professor at the University of Chicago, John Mearsheimer, and the academic dean at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Stephen Walt, argues that pro-Israel elements have effective control over American strategy in the Middle East.

Mr. Deutsch also asked to present evidence about the role of the Anti-Defamation League as a "conduit and facilitator" between Israeli and American authorities.

In order to strengthen the second point, the defense team is calling in the academic version of the Neturei Karta to discredit the prosecution's case:

Norman Finkelstein, a Jew whose parents survived the Holocaust, is an outspoken critic of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the influence of Israeli interest groups in the United States. In court Tuesday, the scholar of Israeli affairs called prominent pro-Israel law professor Alan Dershowitz a "complete fraudster."

Defense attorneys want Finkelstein to testify as an expert on the theory that the Israeli government has influenced American media to help shape favorable U.S. policy.

Before actually testifying in front of the jury, the judge has had Finkelstein explain what he is going to testify about. Finkelstein's response:

Finkelstein said it's impossible to study events in the Middle East over the past four decades without also analyzing the relationship between Israel and the United States. He described a powerful and complex "system" of U.S.-based Israeli interests working to influence American foreign policy.

"I'm not prepared to simplify matters by trying to conjure a conspiracy theory," Finkelstein said of the Israelis. "They have a lobby, and it's very effective, and it's been working very well since 1967."

When pushed for proof that Israeli interests greatly influence American policy, he pointed to past instances in United Nations debates when Israel and the United States have been lone allies on controversial issues.

"The record is: The whole world on one side, and the U.S. and Israel on the other side," Finkelstein said. "How do you explain that?"

Supposedly, Finkelstein has more to offer the defense to prove this point than the fact that the two are allies. After all, this could also be used to prove that US interests greatly influence American policy--something that is clearly demonstrable from the the agreements that Israel has been cajoled into by the US, as well as the arm deals that Israel has backed out of at US insistence. The more likely description--that the US and Israel share a somewhat symbiotic political relationship where both have followed policies that benefit the other--appears not to have occurred to Finkelstein.

Finkelstein said he personally has been an "object" of powerful pro-Israeli forces, citing verbal attacks on him for his views that some Jews exploit memories of the Holocaust for financial gain and political capital.

He also alluded to pro-Israeli machinations that he suspects recently led to the cancellations of his book-promoting appearances on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" and WTTW-TV's "Chicago Tonight."

"It's very sinister, and it's not happening to Jimmy Carter," Finkelstein said.

The former U.S. president has been making the rounds of news programs, touting the recent release of his book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Finkelstein has a long-running feud with Dershowitz, a Harvard University law professor, and he devoted much of a recent book to trashing a Dershowitz best-seller, "The Case for Israel."

In court Tuesday, Finkelstein attributed to Israeli influence the fact that Dershowitz's book received glowing reviews from leading U.S. newspapers.

"How do you account for that?" he said. "How do you account for the fact the senior-most professor of law at Harvard is a complete fraudster?"

As is well known, Dershowitz is not fond of Finkelstein either, having written of him:

Finkelstein is a transient academic who describes himself as "in exile" at De Paul University because he has been—by his own account—"thrown out of every school in New York."[6] He has been fired by Brooklyn College, N.Y.U., and several other schools for "incompetence," "mental instability," and "abuse" of students with politics different from his own, according to a high-ranking official at one of the schools. Finkelstein has admitted, "Never has one of my articles been published in a scientific magazine."[7] And deservedly so, as Peter Novick, whose book The Holocaust in American Life Finkelstein has characterized as "the initial stimulus for [his] book,"[8] wrote: "As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein concerning reparations and restitution, and on other matters as well, the appropriate response is not (exhilarating) ‘debate’ but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. […] No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to! be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites."[9]

Finkelstein has said that he "can’t imagine why Israel’s apologists would be offended by a comparison with the Gestapo"[10] and asserted that Israel’s human rights record is "interchangeable with Iraq’s" when it was ruled by Saddam Hussein.[11] He has said that most alleged Holocaust survivors—including Elie Wiesel—have fabricated their past, are "bogus," and that those seeking reparations are "cheats" and "greedy." Because of my support of Israel, he has compared me to "Adolf Eichman [sic],"[12] and accused me of expressing "Nazi moral judgments."[13]

This is a trial whose verdict is going to have real repercussions should Salah be found innocent on the basis of the claim of Israeli influence. Considering his history, it is not surprising to find Norman Finkelstein there.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Norman Finkelstein and Mohammed Salah and Hamas.

An unserious country

Jack Kelly laments that, as a nation, we are Failing to know our enemy, and ourselves. Kelly laments the lack of knowledge our leaders have of the world and the lack of responsibility they assume. The public has its failing too.

... there is our preference for celebrity over authority. Though the panel contained two former secretaries of state (James Baker and Lawrence Eagleburger) and a former secretary of defense (William Perry), it was comprised chiefly of people who know next to nothing about either the Middle East or the military.

We listen to famous people because they are famous, not because they have any insight into the topic at hand. (The news media paid little attention to the opinions of retired generals Jack Keane, Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey, who met with the President Monday, though they have forgotten more about Iraq than the members of the ISG ever learned.)

A recent Gallup poll confirms that. (via memeorandum.)

Part of the problem is, of course, what we are told and how we are told it.

...the glee with which many in the Washington establishment -- particularly in journalism -- greeted the (glaringly obvious) finding that things are not going well in Iraq suggests an elite so insulated and out of touch that it sees no ill consequences flowing to themselves from a defeat being inflicted upon their country. The appropriate response of serious people would have been concern, perhaps anger. But an elite that sees a big setback in the war against Islamofascism chiefly in terms of its impact on domestic politics is not comprised of serious people.

As a whole, he is right, we suffer from a lack of seriousness. And that could have terrible consequences.

We are not winning in Iraq. But we are not losing, either, though we surely shall if we do not soon know our enemy, and know ourselves. Our education should have begun on Sept. 11, 2001. But it's not too late -- yet -- for it to start.

It makes the loss of Jeane Kirkpatrick and what she represents all the more acute. Jack Kemp remembers

Jeane saw the old Soviet Union not just as an evil empire but as an inhumane experiment in totalitarianism that would – given Western economic, military and moral strength – wither away and die out. Indeed, she helped inspire President Reagan to say at Notre Dame in 1981 that “the West would not contain communism, but transcend it. We would not denounce it but dismiss it as a sad and bizarre chapter of history whose last pages are now being written.” How very true!

Blogdigger tags: Iraq Study Group, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Jack Kelly, Media, Politics.

America declines?

In "The end of Pax Americana" Robert Samuelson observes that the American era may be nearing its end but

By objective measures, Pax Americana's legacy is enormous. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no nuclear device has been used in anger. In World War II, an estimated 60 million people died. Only three subsequent conflicts have had more than a million deaths (Vietnam, 1.9 million; Korea, 1.3 million; and China's civil war, 1.2 million). Under the U.S. military umbrella, democracy flourished in Western Europe and Japan. It later spread to South Korea, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Prosperity has been unprecedented. Historian Angus Maddison tells us that from 1950 to 1998 the world economy expanded by a factor of six. Global trade increased 20 times. These growth rates were well beyond historic experience. Living standards exploded. Since 1950, average incomes have multiplied about 16 times in South Korea, 11 times in Japan and six times in Spain, reports Maddison. From higher bases, the increases were nearly five times in Germany and three in the United States.

Seeking reasons for the end of Pax Americana, Samuelson writes

The trouble is that strength -- measurable and impressive -- does not translate directly into power. Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. Here, America is weaker.

The question is why America may be less persuasive.

Iraq has reminded us that religious and ethnic loyalties dim the appeal of democracy and freedom. Militarily, "asymmetrical threats'' often neutralize conventional advantages, as Boot notes. Iraq has confirmed that, too. If Iran and North Korea become permanent nuclear powers, the U.S. military edge will decline further. Any action against either country would be tempered by the possibility of a nuclear exchange. Worse, other regional powers (Japan, South Korea, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) may decide to go nuclear to have deterrence. A black market in atomic technology would almost inevitably follow -- increasing the odds of terrorists' acquiring a bomb.

Another part of it may be the nature of America itself. The liberal impulse in American (and Western) thought doesn't just lead many to consider other points of view but to question (and oppose) the one's own assumptions. If one doesn't believe in himself, he will not assert himself.

(I don't use liberal here in the narrow political sense, but in the sense of being "open." It is, after all, this political, economic and philosophical openness that's led to America's greatness. Ironically, it may also hold the seeds of American's decline.)

Even America's critics, as Samuelson notes, may realize that America's decline isn't a good thing - for anyone.

Given the rampant anti-Americanism abroad today, the fading of Pax Americana may inspire much glee. The United States is widely regarded as an arrogant source of instability, blamed for many global woes -- from greenhouse gases to Islamic militancy to unpopular globalization. No one can know what will replace Pax Americana, but with time, the people who now celebrate its decline may conclude that its failures were mainly those of good intentions and that its successes were unwisely taken for granted.

UPDATE: More via memeorandum.
Economist's view

We have the strength to make you say "uncle" if we want you to. But power comes with having people or countries believe and trust in your leadership so that they follow willingly, and that's where I think we have lost ground.

The Corner.Mona Charen

There is no question though that the outcome in Iraq will determine how America feels about these matters. The temptation to pull in our horns is huge — the consequences equally so.

UPDATE II: More at the Glittering Eye.

I’m not saying that we should be complacent—far from it. I’m saying that we should devote more of our efforts to spreading prosperity and, as people realize that liberal democratic societies are a more effective means for realizing that prosperity, they’ll long for that and want to adopt those means themselves.

Blogdigger tags: Robert Samuelson, Pax Americana.

Baker's bad recipe

Lisa Beyer (wife of Ze'ev Chafets) and Time Bureau Chief in Jerusalem criticizes James Baker's assertion that solving the Israeli/Arab conflict is essential to solving the problems of the Middle East, in The Big Lie about the Middle East. (More on her column here.)

To promote the canard that the troubles of the Arab world are rooted in the Palestinians' misfortune does great harm. It encourages the Arabs to continue to avoid addressing their colossal societal and political ills by hiding behind their Great Excuse: it's all Israel's fault. Certainly, Israel has at times been an obnoxious neighbor, but God help the Arab leaders, propagandists and apologists if a day ever comes when the Arab-Israeli mess is unraveled. One wonders how they would then explain why in Egypt 4 of every 10 people are illiterate; Saudi Arabian Shi'ites (not to mention women) are second-class citizens; 11% of Syrians live below subsistence level; and Jordan's King can unilaterally dissolve Parliament, as he did in 2001. Or why no Middle Eastern government but Israel's and to some extent Lebanon's tolerates freedom of assembly or speech, or democratic institutions like a robust press or civic organizations with independence and clout--let alone unfettered competitive elections.

Exactly. We'd have peace now if the Arab world wanted peace. If the presumptions of those engaged in Baker-think were correct, 2000 would have been the year that peace reined in the Middle East. The dying Hafez Assad refused nearly all of the Golan when offered by Clinton in Geneva. Hezbollah remained under arms even after Israel withdrew from Lebanon. And Yasser Arafat rejected over 90% of the West Bank and Gaza at Camp David preferring instead to start a war against Israel two months later.

James Baker, famously told an AIPAC audience back in 1989 that it should abandon the idea of "Greater Israel." Of course, he's never been big on telling the Arab world that it should reject the idea of "Greater Palestine" or perhaps "No Israel."

Mere Rhetoric observes that Baker is not willing to sacrifice Lebanon once again to Syria. But by Baker's logic that leaves only one point for leverage with Syria. That would be Israel.

One hopes that President Bush realizes what's up with his father's Secretary of State and remains skeptical of his recommendations.

UPDATE: More at BuzzTracker.

A platform for syria

You read something like this

That’s how Lahoud’s term was extended, by threatening even pro-Syrian ministers who hated Lahoud (including Suleiman Franjieh). And that’s how the Syrian security regime worked in Lebanon—a regime that Nasrallah found no shame praising during his infamous speech that followed the threat to Berri. In that speech, Nasrallah challenged his opponents to find him one incident where a protestor was killed on his way back from a protest during the Syrian reign. Aounists must have found this funny, or let it go over their heads like the many sick jokes and embarrassing insults their Napoleonic leader utters every day. They, of all people, should know how many of them were taken to Syrian jails, how many were tortured, killed, and threatened because they dared protest when protests weren’t even allowed. And why bring up the deep past when the recent past bears testimony to the murders committed by the Assad regime—a regime Nasrallah considers better than the Siniora government. So good that he thanked the Syrian army for its sacrifices in Lebanon less than a month after Hariri was killed.

and you wonder who would make excuses for the Syrian regime that seeks to silence all but the most compliant vassals?

If I told you the answer was the Washington Post you couldn't be surprised. After all this past summer when Hamas (and Hezbollah) were fighting Israel, the Post had no compunctions about giving Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh op-ed space.

Today, the Post further debases its claims to championing freedom as it gives theSyrian ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, the space to say that Syria asks of nothing from America.

What motivates Syria to engage on Iraq? Let us be clear: Syria is not looking for a "deal" with the U.S. administration on any issue. The situation in Iraq is a matter of paramount concern to Syria, particularly the unprecedented levels of death and destruction and the possibility of Iraq's disintegrating, which would have terrible repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Moustapha goes on to recount the nature of Syrian-American cooperation.

Contrary to what many in Washington believe, past Syrian-American collaboration has yielded many beneficial outcomes, a fact that several former U.S. officials could confirm. These include, among other things, Syrian cooperation on the Middle East peace process, on al-Qaeda and, yes, on Iraq.

The first assertion is laughable as one thing the Assad family has been consistent about is refusing to compromise with Israel. Any agreement that has called upon Syria to normalize relations with Israel has been rejected out of hand.

Yes Syria has apparently cooperated a bit against al-Qaeda, but, allows its border with Iraq to be porous for foreign fighters eager to engage the United States.

I suspect that there a number of "former U.S. officials" who look kindly upon Syria and would exaggerate the good that country does, but citing them is hardly proof that effective cooperation exists.

(Though not an official of the U.S. government, Henry Siegman, in a ludicrous article 6 years ago asserted that Hafiz Assad was interested in peace. The self-contradictory summary provided tells you all you need to know:

Unleashing Hezbollah, stalling talks, and having the state-run media spew anti-Israel vitriol hardly seem pacific, but Syria's dictator has a consistent if chilly peace strategy.

If Siegman had been correct, Hafiz Assad would have used the last few months of his life ensuring that Syria made peace with Israel. He, of course, went to his grave with no such agreement.)

A newspaper that is a bastion of press freedom debases itself by giving a forum to the representative of a government that would deny its own people the same. It's just as perverse as allowing tyrannies that deny their citizens the franchise to attach significance and legitimacy to their votes in the UN.

Giving tyrants and their governments a legitimacy they didn't earn doesn't help the cause of freedom; confronting them might. Yet the Post's ombudsman argued (in reference to Haniyeh)

Good editorial pages and commentators enlighten and provoke readers to broaden their thinking. Cohen's and Haniyeh's pieces indeed were provocative. But there were plenty of pro-Israel op-ed pieces, including one by Charles Krauthammer, who urged Israel to invade Lebanon and expel Hezbollah. And Post columnist David Ignatius is a must-read on the Middle East. The Post's editorials have expressed concern that Hamas and Hezbollah not be given legitimacy; that Israel not overplay its military hand; that Syria and Iran's influence be curtailed; and that the United States, its allies and the United Nations should be involved to find a way toward peace.

Giving Syria or Iran or their allies an unfiltered voice aids them. It allows them to spout reasonable sounding arguments that usually do not stand up to scrutiny. "Enlighten(ing)" and "provok(ing)"are best left to those engaged in debate, not those suppressing it.

The Post shows no signs that it will cease aiding tyrants by allowing them the tools of freedom.

Blogdigger tags: Syria, Washington Post, Freedom, Tyranny.

Video of Ehud Olmert's Brother at UC Irvine

From May 31, 2006: Yossi Olmert (brother of Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert) speaks at UC Irvine. (10 minutes) The Speech took place during the Muslim Student Union's radical week-long event titled "Holocaust in the Holy Land."

Background: Dr. Yossi Olmert is a well-known expert on the modern Middle East, Islamic militants, terrorism and the Palestinian issue. He received his Ph.D. from the prestigious London School of Economics and graduated from The Hebrew University Magna Cum Laude. Dr.Olmert taught in many well-known universities both in Israel and abroad, including Tel Aviv University, the Hebrew University, Cornell University, City College New York and York University in Toronto. He also lectures extensively on Middle-Eastern issues in hundreds of American colleges. Dr. Olmert held several senior positions in the Israelis government including, Director of Communication for Prime Minister Shamir and Policy adviser to Defense Minister Arens. Dr. Olmert was sent on numerous diplomatic missions, participated in the Madrid peace conference and was a member of the Israeli delegation for peace talks in Syria. Dr. Olmert published extensively on Middle-Eastern and Israeli political subjects, authored three books and numerous articles. He was also a frequent participant on Israeli and international TV programs. Dr. Olmert is currently based in New York City where he works as an adviser to various organizations such as, The Israel Project and The Middle East Forum.

by Daled Amos

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Yossi Olmert.

Haveil Havalim #97 is UP!

Weblog Award finalist for 2006, Jack's Shack has Haveil Havalim #97, A Sunday Special, Haveil Havalim up. One more blog that has been appearing lately on Haveil Havalim, Town Crier, is also a finalist. (Jack has details on the other regulars who are represented.)

I'd like to thank the wonderful folks at BlogCarnival for this wonderful Blog Carnival Widget that gives information on upcoming hosts and past editions.

As you can see there are volunteer hosts and hostess leading up to the 100th edition of Haveil Havalim in four weeks! Thanks for participating, reading and keeping Haveil Havalim going!

In addition to e-mail you may submit entries to Haveil Havalim using the submission form over at BlogCarnival. Or feel free to e-mail me at dhgerstman at hotmail dot com.

Also if you'd like to host an upcoming edition e-mail me at the above address.

Remember, that while the hosts and hostesses of Haveil Havalim do a wonderful job of editing and searching for interesting posts, they can't see everything. If you want a better chance of being included in Haveil Havalim please submit one or two posts for inclusion.

Listed at the Truth Laid Bear Ubercarnival.

Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism.

Most recent editions of Haveil Havalim at Blog Carnival
#22 Mystical Paths
#21 Rabbinical Authority Consortium of HACKers
#20 Shiloh Musings
#19 Devarim
#18 Soccer Dad
#17 Mystical Paths
#16 Critical Mastiff
#15 Soccer Dad
#14 Multiple Mentality
#13 IsraPundit
#12 DovBear
#11 Kesher Talk
#10 Biur Chametz
#9 Soccer Dad
#8 It's Almost Supernatural
#7 Bloghead
#6 Willow Tree.
#5 Crossing the Rubicon2
#4 Dov Bear
#3 Biur Chametz

Others remember Jeane Kirkpatrick

OpinionJournal

No one ever doubted Jeane Kirkpatrick's will or courage. Among those who most appreciated her determination to speak truth to totalitarian power was the celebrated Russian dissident Andrei Sakharov. Exiled by the Soviet government to Gorky, Sakharov said later how important it was to have a person of Jeane Kirkpatrick's stature publicly identify jailed Soviet dissidents by name. For the past 10 years she served on the board of the Center for a Free Cuba, which she helped found.

Norman Podhoretz

Jeane Kirkpatrick, then, was a veteran of World War III (or what is more generally known as the Cold War), and I would say of her what the English used to say of those veterans of World War II who had done important and interesting work and had come through unscathed--that she, like they, had had "a good war." And like them, too, she never really found anything afterward that engaged her intellectual energies and her political passions as fully as her own "good war" had done. Back in "civil ian" life after the war had been won, she resumed her academic career, she served on many boards, and as a famous and esteemed public figure, she continued to write and to speak out whenever the spirit moved her (as, for example, in a prescient piece, also written for Commentary, describing "How the PLO Was Legitimized").

Gates of Vienna

Notice a number of important things about her speech:

Jimmy Carter is still awful - “It wasn’t malaise we suffered from; it was Jimmy Carter…”

Jeane Kirkpatrick gave us “Blame America First”

Jeane Kirkpatrick was the first to name the “San Francisco Democrats,” and to pinpoint their squishy incompetence and total inattention to foreign policy.

That’s because foreign policy is for thinkers, not for referees who want everything to be fair. And for this reason, Ms. Kirkpatrick joined the Republican Party. When she served in the UN - the first woman to do so - there was no one her equal until John Bolton came along.

Publius Pundit

My email is down, but soon as it’s back up, I will post an email I got from Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Norman Podhoretz speculates that she withdrew completely from public life after disillusionment with the current direction but that is not true. She fought the good fight up to the very end. The email I got was a letter she wrote, pleading with her rightwing friends to please quit splitting the opposition in Nicaragua and all unite behind one candidate like Montealegre, about a day before the Nicaraguan elections. The most important thing, she said, was keeping the odious Daniel Ortega out. It was a heartfelt note and I am glad I got it. As usual, the great Jeanne Kirkpatrick was right.

UPDATE: Interesting. In a thoroughly disrespectful 'tribute' Firedoglake wrote:

In archetypal, dramatic form, that's the only way (so far) Americans can tolerate women in national leadership roles: unsexed, vexed by and opposed to feminists, upholding the masculine virtues of wreck, havoc and war, scornful of minorities, the poor and working people. In the UK, Margaret Thatcher fit the mold as well, and what's more, all of this goes a long way toward explaining the choices of Hillary Clinton and the media coverage of Nancy Pelosi.

However at the Washington Post William Branigan wrote:

"Many people think a woman shouldn't be in high office," she told Time. "Kissinger is described as 'professorial.' I am described as 'schoolmarmish.' Brzezinski is called 'Doctor.' I am called "Mrs.' I am depicted as a witch or a scold in editorial cartoons -- and the speed with which these stereotypes have been used shows how close these feelings are to the surface. It is much worse than I ever dreamed it would be. My feelings are hurt."

Firedoglake associates feminism with adopting a leftist (or "progessive") political agenda. Kirkpatrick though bristled at being labelled a woman for she succeeded on any terms.

more at memeorandum and here.

Blogdigger tags: Jeane Kirkpatrick.

"copied materials not cited"

Now it's started to hit the fan.

Prof. Kenneth Stein in his e-mail about Jimmy Carter's "Peace not Apartheid" accused Carter of using "copied materials not cited." I noted at the time that that was a charge of plagiarism.

Now that charge is starting to play out.

Dennis Ross (of whom I'm no great fan) claims that Carter used maps that were in his book without attribution.

Among the bloggers pointing this out are Gateway Pundit and Media Blog.

More at memeorandum.

UPDATE: Jewish Current Issues has an in depth explanation of the charges against Carter regarding his use of the maps from Dennis Ross's book.

Jimmy Carter, Israel, Plagiarism

Remembering jeane kirkpatrick

A few years ago my synagogue was looking for a speaker to honor. The Rabbi called Jeane Kirkpatrick's office and was surprised that the ambassador answered her own phone. She readily agreed to speak and accepted no fee for her services.

Later in a conversation with our Rabbi she told him that she spoke for free to Jewish organizations so she could tell them the level of antisemitism that she saw when she represented the United States there.

(Unfortunately due to a family obligation I was unable to attend her talk.)

An excellent account of her experiences at the UN is How the PLO was legitimized. It is absolutely essential reading and describes how the PLO, and the Arab world generally, used the niceties of diplomacy and law to legitimize terrorism and delegitimize Israel. (This is one of the articles I recommend and link to most frequently.)

More recently as I looked through her various articles at AEI, I noticed that she had supported two time candidate for governor of Maryland, Ellen Sauerbrey who was mercilessly derided by the MSM when she was appointed by President Bush to a position at the UN.

Dr. Kirkpatrick described herself as a Humphrey Democrat. But she left the party because Democrats stopped fighting for what was right. Ironically this week one of her successors - who possessed the same noble spirit - gave up his fight to continue in his position largely because of Democratic resistance.

It shines for all remembers Dr. Kirkpatrick. So does IRIS. More at memeorandum.

Blogdigger tags: Jeane Kirkpatrick, United Nations, Antisemitism, Israel, PLO.

Iraq muddle group

It's hard to get a good read on the Iraq Study Group's final report; but, in a sense, it's something of a Rorschach test: people see in it what they want to see.

For example David Ignatius (or here) who loves bipartisanship and an old style approach to the world loves it. And what part does he love the most?

I like this "New Diplomatic Offensive'' precisely because it is so ambitious. It would put the United States back in the business of trying to solve the Arab-Israeli problem that has been driving the Middle East crazy for nearly 40 years. As for Iran and Syria, the great advantage of asking them to join a global effort to stabilize Iraq is that if they say no, it's blood on their hands. As the report notes, "An Iranian refusal to do so would demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world Iran's rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation.''

Now it's hard to see exactly what the Arab-Israeli conflict has to with Iraq. As Michael Freund writes:

Does he (Baker) honestly think that what goes on in Gaza or in Ramallah is what is driving the former Baathists and Saddam loyalists, and Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, to kidnap and murder Iraqi government employees?

The only reason to tie the Arab/Israeli conflict because of Iraq is because one assumes that the United States will get involved specifically by putting pressure on Israel and that that pressure will induce the grateful Arab world to get on board with Washington's program in Iraq.

On the other hand skeptic, Jonah Goldberg, sees little ambitious about the report.

The commissioners are latter-day Laodiceans, whom the Book of Revelation describes as “neither cold nor hot … [but] lukewarm.” As a result, most of the report hits stratospheric heights of banality. For example, the commission put aside partisan differences to reach the startling conclusion that “Syria can establish hotlines to exchange information with the Iraqis.” If it requires consensus to deliver such Solomonic wisdom, then I say “feh” on consensus.

Somewhere in the middle (and I mean this impressively) is Robert Kaplan writing the Atlantic on the Iraq Study Group breaks the document down into its military

The military piece envisions moving combat forces out of the fray, while we ramp up the number of trainers embedded with Iraqi units, who, themselves, will be augmented by quick reaction forces, search and rescue forces, and, in particular, special operations forces to hunt down al-Qaeda and add to the force protection of our trainers. The problem here, which the Group alludes to but does not address, is just how many special units are going to be needed—and how close to the action they will have to be—in order to adequately protect our embeds. When you subtract the combat brigades, but add in all the extra trainers and the force protection element, you may still end up with tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq. I had predicted (in The Wall Street Journal, September 6, 2006) that by early 2008 we would have about 40,000 left in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group, again, rather than cut and run, appears to suggest a somewhat higher number.

and diplomatic

The Group’s envisioned diplomatic effort is, in fact, grand. It starts with the brutal realization that if the U.S. and Iraqi governments could stabilize the situation by themselves they should have done so by now. And so there is no choice but to now engage Iraq’s neighbors. The strategy it lays out certainly sounds nifty: if Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki reconciles with the Sunnis, the Saudis will help him eliminate al-Qaida in Iraq. As for all the things we can offer the Syrians and Iranians that do not include the conquest of Lebanon and the building of a nuclear bomb, the report mentions accession to the World Trade Organization, full legitimacy and relations with the United States, weakening the Sunni Taliban on Iran’s borders, return of the Golan Heights, and so on.

components.

Viewed like that, it would appear that the military component makes some sense but the diplomatic component is, well, lacking. Though Kaplan calls the diplomatic vision "grand" he immediately points out the problem underlying it.

Here the members of the Study Group fall into the trap of confusing what they would want if they ran Syria and Iran rather than what the people who actually run these regimes want.

Specifically when referring to an Israeli return of the Golan to Syria he writes

An Israeli-Syrian accord that would return the Golan Heights to Syria’s control could be a long-range benefit to Israel rather than a betrayal of it. Syria’s increased militancy toward the Golan may indicate it is positioning itself for such a deal, brokered by the United States. But it could also be a deadly feint: getting back the Golan may be the last thing the Damascus regime really wants, as it would have to involve some level of Syrian diplomatic recognition of Israel and agreed limits as to the extent of Syrian involvement in southern Lebanon.

That's hardly a surprise. Bashar Assad's father who was thought to be keen on getting the Golan, turned down an offer with months to live rather than agreeing to any sort of normalization with Israel.

Another worthwhile read on the topic is Outside the Beltway.David Schuler's The Sticky Parts of the ISG reports Recommendations, where he looks specifically out those points that are likely to generate the most controversy, such as advocating a Palestinian right of return.

In the end the problem is largely due to a failure of the administration choosing achievable goals and communicating them. I admit, that I thought democratization would be easier than it has been. Clearly I was naive. But that doesn't change my belief that it was necessary to depose Saddam Hussein who posed a threat not only to his own people but to the region if not the world. Nothing that has happened subsequently has changed my mind about that. What remains is how to best proceed from here.

Blogdigger tags: Iraq Study Group.

Council speak 12/08/06

The Council has Spoken. This week's winning post is On Negotiating with Iran and Syria -- Part II by American Future, an excellent analysis and roundup of the ongoing opinions regarding what American needs to do in Iraq. Second place goes to the Glittering Eye for How to lose support for a war, which explains the steps the administration has taken have alienated different groups that may have supported the war.

The winning non-council post was "COME FOR THE EGALITARIANISM, STAY FOR THE BESTIALITY AND TYRANNY" a fascinating look at how progressive politics could be described as looking backwards by Dr. Sanity - she who is the hostess of the Carnival of Insanities. (next edition - Sunday). The Watcher of Weasels cast the deciding vote to lift her entry over that of The Adventures of Chester's History's End, History's Beginning.

Blogdigger tags: Watcher's Council.

Forget Islamophobia--What About Kafirophobia!

I've never really understood why Moslems would take the term Islamophobia for their own. I mean--I can understand the use of the phrase Anti-Semitism: there are people who are against, and hate, Jews.

But Islamophobia isn't about hating Islam or Moslems--is it? It is about fearing them.

This might have something to do with 9/11.
Or the 6800+ who have been killed or injured by Islamists since then.
Or the Moslem riots when they are accused of being violent.

But you know something?

If you want to talk phobia, I'll give you a phobia.
If you want to talk fear, I'll tell you about fear.

The real problem is not Islamophobia--it's Kafirophobia!

I think Kafirophobia can be defined this way:

Kafirophobia is the phenomenon of a prejudice against or demonization of non-Muslims which manifests itself in general negative attitudes, violence, harassment, discrimination, and stereotyping (and particularly being vilified in the media)

Actually, I borrowed this from Wikipedia's definition for Islamophobia, but at least now the definition makes sense.

Let's see:

Negative Attitudes?

Check!

Violence?

Moslem riots in France

Check!

Harassment?

Check!

Discrimination?

Check!

Stereotyping (particularly being vilified in the media)?

Check!

The Moslems think they have it bad.

Hey, with all the prejudice, demonization, negative attitudes, violence, harassment, discrimination, and stereotyping that we Kafirs suffer from at the hands of Islamists--who's going to look out for us?

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Islamophobia and Kafirophobia.

Awards

I'd like to acknowledge a number of blogs that have been recognized in the 2006 Weblog awards.

In the category of the best 2501-3500 regular reads Colossus of Rhodey and Jack's Shack (Random Thoughts) are represented.

In the Best Middle East or Africa blog I'd recommend Elder of Ziyon or Treppenwitz.

Dry Bones is up for best Comic Strip.

I appreciate that Jblog Central has gone to the trouble of hosting the JIBs this year. I haven't decided if I'll participate or not; it's seemingly necessary to join a forum to participate. I find forums a nuisance to join and usually stay away. Besides I don't do very well in these competitions anyway.

But then again when someone gives an idea of mine praise like this:

One of the reasons for the formation of the JIBs was to help promote the Jewish/Israeli blogosphere. It remains an excellent idea. But for my money I prefer Haveil Havalim.

Thanks, and please get your nominations to this week's edition into him. OK?

Blogdigger tags: JIB's, Blog Awards.

Rumsfeld re-thought

(via Instapundit) Jed Babbin's qualified praise of the much maligned outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld contains this:

After 9-11, the president wanted to hit the Taliban hard, fast and decisively. But Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki insisted that almost the entire army had to be deployed to do it, and that would take several months. Rumsfeld and the other military leaders crafted a plan to take us to war - and to victory -- in weeks. America attacked the Taliban in early October 2001 and the Shinseki army - except for Army Special Forces and helo forces -- stayed home. By December the regime was toppled. Then began the media's contrivance of stories - possibly in collusion with congressional Democrats - about Rumsfeld's supposed failures that have led to everything from Usama bin Laden's escape to the mess in Mesopotamia.

Does anyone remember that a few weeks into the invasion of Afghanistan we'd already heard the word "quagmire" bandied about? So did the administration have the wrong approach. Here's an excerpt from "Bush At War" that was reprinted in the Washington Post.

"You know what? We need to be patient," Bush said. "We've got a good plan."

"Look, we're entering a difficult phase. The press will seek to find divisions among us. They will try and force on us a strategy that is not consistent with victory."

In the secrecy of the room, the president had voiced one of his conclusions -- the news media, or at least some elements, did not want victory or at least acted as if they did not.

"We've been at this only 19 days. Be steady. Don't let the press panic us." The press would say they needed a new strategy, that the current strategy was a failed one. He disagreed. "Resist the second-guessing. Be confident but patient. We are going to continue this thing through Ramadan," the Muslim holy month. "We've got to be cool and steady. It's all going to work."

Hadley thought the tension suddenly drained from the room. The president was saying he had confidence and they should have confidence. In their souls, Hadley believed, some of them had to wonder whether the president might be losing confidence in them. Presidential confidence, once bestowed, was vital for all of them to function. Any hint of less than full confidence would be devastating. They served at his pleasure. They could be gone or sidelined in an instant. Not only had Bush declared confidence in their strategy, but more important, Hadley believed, he had declared confidence in them.

There's an assumption in the media and the political classes that there needs to be a quick resolution for something to be succcessful. (At least if there's a Republican in charge; does anyone remember how many extra weeks of bombing civilian targets in Serbia were required than were originally expected?) The incident recounted here, reminds us that those making decisions can't just change the course because someone's questioning them.

Babbin's point was that Rumsfeld made changes that changed military strategy. It went right in Afghanistan. Is it poorly suited for Iraq? Maybe. But Babbin, regardless, thinks that the remade Pentagon is better suited for the types of conflicts we are facing in the future.

Blogdigger tags: Donald Rumsfed, Army, Afghanistan.

Birthday trivia

What do you wish someone whose birthday is Pearl Harbor Day?

Happy Birthday!

Do you know what other significant events happened on December 7th?

Well Noam Chomsky was born!

In better news, so was Johnny Bench.

And Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution on Dec 7, 1787.

(Did you guys know that?)

And here's my trivia question: Name the cook aboard the USS West Virginia who was commanded to the deck and took over one of the machine guns until he ran out of ammunition. He survived the attack on Pearl Harbor (though, unfortunately not WWII) and won the Navy Cross for his heroics.

UPDATE: In another case it was the last day of freedom for another blogger's parents. Happy Birthday tomorrow. Elie's Expositions' own take.

Blogdigger tags: Happy Birthday, Pearl Harbor Day.

Mora a good thing

In somewhat positive news from the Orioles, third baseman Melvin Mora wants to promote baseball in his native Venezuela.

Orioles third baseman Melvin Mora recently bought a 370-acre tract of land in his native Venezuela with the intention of improving baseball opportunities for his homeland.
...
So Mora, with the assistance of Ripken, is attempting to embark on an ambitious project near Valencia, Venezuela, that would include a 20,000-to-25,000-seat stadium, several little league fields and two or more Major League Baseball academies.

Mora said the plan would be to own the complex and then rent out the academies to select clubs, including the Orioles. There is no timetable for construction or completion at this time.

I don't know if this currently qualifies as out and out good news.

There are obstacles in building a presence in Venezuela, Stockstill said, adding that it can be more expensive to develop and sign players from there than from the Dominican Republic, the only foreign country in which the Orioles have a formal facility.

Mora said clubs also are concerned about the political and economic strife in the South American country.

It's interesting that more sports figures don't get into ownership and promotion of the sports they were involved with. Christian Laettner and Brian Davis recently made a bid to purchase the Memphis Grizzlies. Reggie Jackson has been mentioned as a potential member of groups buying Major League teams. And Cal who built and runs a minor league operation has been mentioned as being interested in perhaps having a hand in buying the Orioles.

Given the amount of money stars make over the course of their careers and the fact that they actually know (at least part of) the business it makes sense that more and more they'd have interests in owning teams, not just serving them on the field or the front office.

Blogdigger tags: Baseball, Melvin Mora, Balitmore Orioles.

Olmert's Ceasefire: Politics Instead of Leadership

According to Jonathan Rosenblum, writing about More Olmert Spin, Olmert's recent rhetoric--though empty--is still dangerous. And Olmert's decisions are as dangerous they were during the war with Hezbollah.

Rosenblum writes that

in the end, last week’s speech was all about public opinion. Olmert’s governing Kadima Party is a cobbled together, ad hoc group of politicians from across the political spectrum joined together only by their common ambition. The party ran on the platform of Olmert’s so-called "convergence plan," involving further unilateral withdrawals from a large swath of Judea and Samaria. The war in Lebanon, from which Israel withdrew in 2000, and the perceived failure of the Gaza withdrawal, have dampened the public’s enthusiasm for further unilateral steps. As a consequence, Olmert’s convergence plan was recognized as a dead letter, and his government left without any credible raison d’etre.

The Sde Boker speech was just one of a series of newly announced initiatives designed to cover up the government’s lack of purpose and distract attention from the ever growing number of scandals involving senior ministers, from the prime minister on down. Such "spinology," in Baruch Leshem’s phrase, is fast substituting for actual governance in Israel. As was said during Ariel Sharon’s premiership, "The deeper the investigations [of the prime minister] during the week, the bigger the headlines in the Friday newspapers [announcing this week’s new initiative]."

The lack of substance to Prime Minister Olmert's extended hand to the Palestinians does not, however, make it a harmless gesture, any more than the last 48 hours of fighting in Lebanon were harmless. Olmert’s signal to the Palestinians of his willingness to be very generous was coupled with Israel’s agreement to withdraw all its forces from the Gaza Strip and to accept a ceasefire. That ceasefire was just as promptly broken by the Palestinians. Though Kassam strikes on Sderot and the Western Negev are down from the 8-10 per day in the period leading up to the ceasefire, at least 15 Kassams fell in the first week of the supposed ceasefire. Prime Minister Olmert, however, ordered the IDF not to respond. The IDF was told to neither fire upon Kassam rocket crews on the way to launch missiles nor after such launches. In addition, Olmert extended the ceasefire to the West Bank, at least partially where the presence of IDF troops on the ground has dramatically reduced the number of successful terrorist operations since Operation Defensive Shield in 2002.

Though the Prime Minister was quoted as telling the cabinet that he expects the ceasefire to fall of its own accord due to competition between various Palestinian terrorist groups, he apparently feels that Israel will reap a diplomatic benefit from its passivity – the same calculation that led to the Gaza withdrawal.

One can argue that Olmert's ceasefire agreement with Hezbollah is what has enabled Hezbollah to significantly ratchet up their pressure on the Lebanese government and make a play for more power. The ceasefire with the PA has the potential for bad consequences of its own--

Rather than accepting a ceasefire, [Likud MK Professor Yuval] Steinitz argues, Israel should have treated the non-stop barrage of Kassams from Gaza as an act of war, and undertaken a massive land operation in Gaza aimed at extirpating the terrorist infrastructure, along the lines of Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank in 2002. Instead Israel opted for a repeat of the failed strategy of Lebanon: pinpoint aerial strikes, aimless ground actions near the border; followed by a ceasefire.

Olmert’s peace gesture was mistimed for another reason as well. It plays into the notion that the road to an improved situation in Iraq runs through Israel. The recommendations of the Commission headed by James Baker, who once famously said, "Stick it to the Jews. They don’t vote for us anyway," (a somewhat sanitized version of his actual remark), are widely expected to echo the recent speech of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in which he argued that no improvement can be expected in Iraq without movement on the Palestinian issue, i.e., further Israeli concessions. Baker will call for seeking the assistance of Syria and Iran to quell the violence in Iraq, and the currency to be offered is Israeli concessions.

Adoption of such a strategy - rather than sending American troops into Syria and Iran to attack the training bases of the Iraqi insurgents that both countries host – would be to reveal America as harmless to its enemies and treacherous to its friends. By suggesting that the time might be ripe for movement on the Palestinian front, Olmert unwittingly adds to the momentum building for greater American pressure on Israel.

Even the best interpretation of Olmert's motives leaves his actions wanting--because whatever it is that Israelis most need right now, the one thing that Olmert is not giving them is the truth.

The most charitable interpretation of Olmert’s speech is that he wishes to provide hope to a nation where hope is in short supply. That impulse has been at the root of every Israeli peace initiative from Oslo to the Gaza withdrawal.

Hillel Halkin, in a piece entitled "An Israel without Hope," in the New York Sun, captured the public mood: "Meanwhile the rockets keep falling from Gaza; every Israeli military action there further harms its standing in the world; Hamas slowly gains in its fight for international acceptance; radical Islam grows stronger nearly everywhere; the potential gains of last summers war in Lebanon have been squandered; Iran goes on building the bomb; and Israelis, for the first time in their history, see no conceivable light, not even an imaginary will-o’-the-wisp at the end of the tunnel." And the situation today, with Hizbullah on the verge of toppling the anti-Syrian government in Lebanon, is even graver than when Halkin wrote those words three weeks ago.

But we are long past the point where hope can come from gestures that all Israelis recognize as hollow from the get-go, and which we all know are driven more by political expediency than any serious intent. The only course for Israeli leaders at this point in time is to honestly provide the people with a true appraisal of their situation, and then convince them, as Churchill did in his time, that they will prevail over the forces arrayed against them if they but believe in the justice of their cause and have the will to see it through.

Olmert is being a politician when what Israel really needs is a leader.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert.

Roberts rule of disorder

The Atlanta Braves were apparently interested in a deal with the Orioles.

According to several industry sources, the Orioles have had serious discussions about a deal that would send second baseman Brian Roberts and pitching prospect Hayden Penn to the Atlanta Braves for power-hitting first baseman Adam LaRoche and second baseman Marcus Giles.

However the Orioles - or more specifically Peter Angelos - nixed the deal. Peter Schmuck sees Angelos's meddling as typical of the Orioles' (mis)management over the past decade and gives another (astonishing) example of this problem.

The Orioles are back at odds with the Maryland Stadium Authority over the installation of a new video scoreboard at Oriole Park, and the team might go to arbitration to prevent the authority from purchasing the Mitsubishi DiamondVision screen without club approval.

That might seem reasonable enough, considering the Orioles' stadium lease calls for the team to be consulted on such matters, except that there were three Orioles officials on the committee that unanimously approved the selection.

Don't laugh, because this isn't funny anymore. This is the way Angelos has been doing business for most of the past decade, and he is probably the only person inside or outside his organization who doesn't realize how much his disjointed management style has hurt the team, the fans and every merchant who is trying to make a living in the area around the stadium.

On the surface the deal actually looks like a good one for the Orioles. Penn could come back to haunt them. (Of course, this deal more sense than Maine for Benson. You keep the young talent to see if it develops or to trade for a talent upgrade; not for a league average guy.) But once again Angelos gets involved. Ever since he vetoed Pat Gillick's proposed trades in 1996 and the Orioles made it to the playoffs he's become convinced that he knows what he's doing.

Previously I had quoted Sun Columnist Dan Connolly about dealing with the O's

Each winter we hear it from agents and other teams: "The Orioles were interested, but they didn't get back to us." Or, "They just weren't as aggressive as the others." Or the real killer, "They are very difficult to deal with." As an outstanding attorney, Angelos has made a career of being cautious and deliberate. No one ever forces his hand. It's not a bad business strategy, either. But there comes a time when you should move swiftly so you don't alienate others.

A great example of what not to do sat in the opposing dugout last night.

Ryan set a negotiating deadline for the end of spring training last year, the sides exchanged initial figures that were less than $5 million apart and then the Orioles never countered again. Instead of paying $15 million in March, he left for $47 million in November.

Baseball Musings rightly asks

Since he pays the bills, he has the right to make the decision. But why hire people to do a job if you're not going to listen to them?

There's a reason that the Orioles are once again positioned to end up in fourth place by some 20 games. And he's at the top of the organization. Fans (and the media) have been patient for much too long. The Orioles play in a stadium built with the taxpayers' money. He is failing in his obligation to the public to provide a competitive team.

UPDATE: Included in this week's Carnival of the Insanities.

Blogdigger tags: Baltimore Orioles, Peter Angelos, Baseball.

Jimmy Carter: Mission Statement Impossible

Just to add a point to what Soccer Dad wrote about Prof. Stein's sharp rebuff to Jimmy Carter and his book--

If you take a look at the "Mission Statement" on Carter Center website, you can see how clearly Carter has parted from the philosophy that supposedly guides his actions:

Our Mission
The Carter Center, in partnership with Emory University, is guided by a fundamental commitment to human rights and the alleviation of human suffering; it seeks to prevent and resolve conflicts, enhance freedom and democracy, and improve health. While the program agenda may change, The Carter Center is guided by five principles:

• The Center emphasizes action and results. Based on careful research and analysis, it is prepared to take timely action on important and pressing issues.

• The Center does not duplicate the effective efforts of others.

• The Center addresses difficult problems and recognizes the possibility of failure as an acceptable risk.

• The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral in dispute resolution activities.

• The Center believes that people can improve their lives when provided with the necessary skills, knowledge, and access to resources.

The Carter Center collaborates with other organizations, public or private, in carrying out its mission.

Based on Carter's book and his actions over the past number of years, one could assume that Carter's Mission statement actual is:

• The Center emphasizes action and results--but not so much the consequences.
  
  
• The Center does not duplicate the effective efforts of others--as long as they have the effect he wants.
  
  
• The Center addresses difficult problems and recognizes the possibility of failure as an acceptable risk--after all, he doesn't have to live there.
  
  
• The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral in dispute resolution activities--on behalf of the side he chooses.
  
  
• The Center believes that people can improve their lives when provided with the necessary skills, knowledge, and access to resources--and when he gets around to it, Carter may himself actually provide himself with those skills, knowledge, and access to resources.
  

Regardless of what you think of Carter the President, since leaving office Carter not only continues to be a caricature of incompetence, but has clearly been consumed by his flaming bias as well.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Jimmy Carter.

and Israel and The Carter Center.

.

Prof stein takes a stand

(h/t Postwatch)

One of the frustrating aspects of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper is that there was little interest in the MSM that two respected scholars had crossed a line in their paper about the "Israel Lobby." When the paper was covered and mention was made that some people objected to it, the objecters were treated as eccentrics who were way too sensitive. Walt and Mearsheimer crossed a line and they never paid a price for it. Those who will shun them will be looked at as being too close to Israel.

Prof Kenneth Stein has taken a step to see that ex-President Carter doesn't get a similar free ride. He has terminated his (diminishing) connection to the Carter Center as per an e-mail circulating and picked up by Powerline. Of particular interest, Prof Stein wrote:

President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook.

It's not just the bias in the book that Stein objects to, but to Carter's dishonesty in writing it. "Copied materials not cited" is a charge of plagiarism.

Seeing the deference shown Carter by Tim Russert the other day, it's encouraging to see that someone has taken a stand. I have no idea if the MSM will report this or if they will continue showing the ex-President respect he does not deserve.

Others commenting of Prof Stein's stand include Jewish Current Issues, Boker Tov Boulder and Abu Wabu (who cites John Podhoretz).

UPDATE: more at memeorandum.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Blogdigger tags: Jimmy Carter, Kenneth Stein, Israel.

Executioners' summary

(via Instapundit) American Digest chops up a TV interview of Saudi Arabia's chief executioner into stills and makes the experience super surreal.

(American Digest credits LGF. The transcript is here.)

Actually we've met Mr. Al Bishi (or Al Beshi) before. He was profiled in Arab News - Kingdom's Leading executioner says - 'I lead a normal life.' He's not the executioner who's been profiled in ArabNews so has Ahmad Rezkallah in A Day in the Life of an Executioner.

In American Digest one of the commenters wrote:

I don't mind beheadings nearly as much as I mind this guy's pride in his work.

It's not that I'm against capital punishment - though clearly beheading seems cruel from a Western persective - but these men seemingly do their jobs with a detachment that is scary. (I also have doubts about the rigor of legal protections that are employed to ensure mistakes are avoided.)

Still there is a way out of execution. In the case of murder, if the family of the victim is appeased - often by the payment of 'blood money' the condemned may be spared even moments before execution.

(The most disturbing account of executions in Saudi Arabia that I read was "Execution day in Riyadh" by Clifford Hallam in Commentary, February 1986.)

It's also interesting that Instapundit pointed to an article about the summary execution of a number of Kurds in 1979 by an Iranian tribunal and the story behind the picture that was taken of the killings.

Blogdigger tags: Executioners, Saudi Arabia.

When Jewish Leaders Could Stand Up To The US

The New York Sun's Blog, It Shines For All, has a post on Biden and Israel. Biden was the keynote speaker at the Israel Policy Forum, and opposed what the Iraq Study Group is allegedly suggesting should be done to re-energize the Arab-Israeli peace process:

I'm concerned by reports suggesting that the Iraq Study Group will link a renewed effort to advance the Arab-Israeli peace process with a solution in Iraq. I am not opposed to a rigorous peace process ... But the notion that an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement would end a civil war in Iraq defies common sense.

Israeli-Palestinian peace should be pursued aggressively on its own merits, period. Not as some sort of diplomatic price to make the Arab states feel good so they will help us in Iraq.

But Biden is a politician, and while he may make a show of his support of Israel now, Daniel Freedman recalls an encounter between Joe Biden and Prime Minister Menachem Begin, when Biden was somewhat less vocal in his support of Israel.

When hearing the name Biden, we always think of the famous exchange between Biden and Prime Minister Begin. As Moshe Zak recounted in a March 13, 1992, piece in the Jerusalem Post:

In a conversation with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, after a sharp confrontation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the subject of the settlements, Begin defined himself as "a proud Jew who does not tremble with fear" when speaking with foreign statesmen.

During that committee hearing, at the height of the Lebanon War, Sen. John [sic] Biden (Delaware) had attacked Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria and threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel.

When the senator raised his voice and banged twice on the table with his fist, Begin commented to him: "This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don't threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us."

After the meeting, Sen. Moynihan approached Begin and praised him for his cutting reply. To which Begin answered with thanks, defining his stand against threats.

Those days are long gone.

Olmert may fool himself into thinking that he is walking in the footsteps of Sharon, Rabin, and Begin, but regardless of whether history will judge them right or wrong, those were men whose willingness to negotiate and compromise followed from a position of strength that earned them the respect of Israelis as well as the Arabs.

Something that cannot be said of Olmert.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Menacham Begin and Joe Biden

For my health

There was a brilliant Hershey's ad in the paper. The copy was something like this:

Hershey's Special Dark has more antioxidants than red wine.
Eat your chocolate.
Drink you wine.
Life is good.

All over the Hershey's website there's information about the anti-oxidant properties of chocolate; especially the bittersweet varieties.

I figured this is too good to be true. Chocolate good for me?

Well naturally there are naysayers. You know the folks at the Center of Science in the Public Interest. They have a section of "expolding myths about chocolate." It contains such useful information as

“The industry would have us believe that chocolate candy is right up there with fruits and vegetables,” said Liebman. “But chocolate is not a health food. If people are eating chocolate candy for their health rather than for pleasure, they’re fooling themselves. Considering that candy consumption has grown 50 percent since 1980, chocolate is certainly contributing to obesity.

”

Please, the chocolate industry does nothing of the sort. It promotes chocolate because it tastes good. (Are there any reference to antioxidants in the Kit Kat song?)

That's what I love about CSPI: their people who tell us things that are blindingly obvious and present them as if their some sort great revelation and that they are protecting us from corporate monsters. Then the 11 o'clock news takes the press release and treats it like breaking news.

However it appears that there are studies that chocolate is richer in anti-oxidants than other foods.

"Although we know that antioxidants are important for good health, nobody knows the exact daily amount required per person," says Chang Yong Lee, Ph.D., head of the study and a professor of food chemistry in Cornell's Department of Food Science and Technology, located in Geneva, N.Y. "Nevertheless, a cup or two of hot cocoa every once in a while can provide a delicious, warm and healthy way to obtain more antioxidants."

Even the Hershey's website has a section devoted to nutrition and the claims of the health benefits of chocolate are not as dramatic as the ones at the CPSI website.

However if you see a middle aged drunk man with brown stains on his shirt staggering along the street. That would be imbibing in wine and chocolate to boost my antioxidents.

Blogdigger tags: Hershey's, Chocolate, Center of Science in the Public Interest, anti-oxidants.

Democrats fail bipartisanship test

Though he worked in the Augean Stables that is the United Nations, Ambassador John Bolton accomplished quite a bit in his time there. (via Mediacrity) Anne Bayefsky at NRO lists his accomplishments including that he...

had the foresight to refuse to lend credibility to the U.N. Human Rights Council, which as he predicted, has become a mockery of reform undeserving of American support;

raised the profile of the genocide in Darfur and insisted on Security Council action;

led the campaign against corruption at the U.N. secretariat, including the reduction of the gift ceiling for United Nations officials from $10,000 to $200;

defended a free and democratic government of Israel from the relentless onslaught of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attacks launched across the U.N. system.

The last has been one of the hallmarks of the Bush administration. Its ambassadors have consistently refused to vote for the unbalanced resolutions emanating from the Security Council. From Bolton's remarks explaining the veto of the condemnation of Israel after the accidentaly killing of civilians in Beit Hanoun:

First, we are disturbed at language in the resolution that is, in many places, biased against Israel and politically motivated. Such language does not further the cause of peace, and its unacceptability to the United States in previous resolutions well-known. Secondly, it remains an unbalanced text. Among many such examples are the following: the preambular text equates Israeli military operations, which are legal, with firing of rockets into Israel, which are acts of terrorism. Moreover, its characterization of Israeli military actions as “excessive and disproportionate” constitutes a legal judgment that the Security Council would be ill-advised to make. Third, the proposed resolution calls for the establishment of a fact-finding mission which is, at this point, unnecessary and will do nothing to improve the situation on the ground. The resolution further promises to consider the establishment of an “international mechanism for protection of the (Palestinian) civilian population” – a promise which is unwise and unnecessary and, at any rate, raises false hopes.

At the same time, we are disturbed that there is not a single reference to terrorism in the proposed resolution, nor any condemnation of the Hamas leadership's statement that Palestinians should resume terror attacks on a broad scale, or calls by the military wing of Hamas to Muslims worldwide to strike American targets and interests. More terror, whether directed at Israel or the United States or the European Union Office in Gaza City is not the solution, nor will it enable the Palestinian people to achieve their aspirations.

This has been consistent with what Evelyn Gordon has referred to as "The Frequent Abstainers Club."

The shameful treatment of Bolton by the Democrats (and John Chafee) has now been validated. Unable to defeat Bolton in a full floor vote, the Democrats with two Republican defectors held up his nomination in committee. Bolton has decided that it wasn't worth fighting anymore and submitted his resignation. (My incoming Senator Ben Cardin showed that he is more interested in party loyalty than in doing the right thing. I asked him to speak up for Bolton. He responded a few weeks later to the effect of "I'll look into it." i.e. I won't do a thing.)

Other commentary:
It shines for all has a link filled retrospective.

Israel Matzav -

United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton submitted his resignation this morning, and it was accepted by President Bush. It's a pity, because Bolton was a true friend of Israel, one who didn't hesitate to tell the UN and its anti-Israel institutions where to get off.

Q and O - Suffice it to say, I'm disappointed because I think John Bolton was able, in the short time he was there, to tweak the UN in ways it needs to be tweaked. Sometimes the best way to combat the absurdity of an institution is to just stand up and point it out for what it is. Bolton did that very effectively, and it's a pity he'll be gone from there during a critical time in our and the UN's history.

Right Wing Nuthouse -

Bolton’s “style” was confrontational. He discomfited the comfortable. In an age when business as usual at the UN could get a lot of Americans killed, he said the things that needed to be said, that needed to be heard by those who see anti-Americanism as some kind of gigantic game where tweaking the tail of the lion is considered great sport – a sport that wins support back home amongst the ignorant, the paranoid, the easily misled masses seething under the jackboot of dictatorship and authoritarianism. Blaming America for one’s troubles is so much easier than assigning fault for the poverty, oppression, and murderous, thuggish, brutish government most people in the world live under.

Joshuapundit offers his thoughts but also how another employee at the UN is leaving via a golden platinum parachute

Kofi Annan will also be leaving the UN in December of this year, after negotiating a stunning retirement package for himself behind closed doors - largely funded by US taxpayers.

For a start, the U.N.'s Kofi Annan will cash in with two pensions, tax free. He will not only collect a life-time pension in excess of $12,000 a month, tax-free, but was also allowed to cash in a second pension valued at more than $1 million — also tax-free — when he became secretary-general in 1996.

This, of course is in addition to Annan's tax free salary, his $12,000 per month
UN paid `rent' on billionaire George Soros' estate, free medical and UN paid chauffer and limosine.

I thought that Democrats believed in speaking truth to power, especially this kind of corrupt power.

A blog for all notes Annan's great successes that warranted this extravagance

Thankfully, Kofi's term will end soon enough. His last public appearance at the helm is set for December 19. It can't come a moment too soon. The world needs a serious break from Kofi's brand of human rights and peacekeeping. So do the millions of victims of the violence - including widespread confirmed cases of sexual harassment, rape, and prostitution that are all in violation of UN protocols. It also doesn't address the UNSCAM/Oil for Food scandal that siphoned billions of dollars from humanitarian aid that was meant for the Iraqis and instead ended up lining the pockets of some of those closest to Kofi including his son Kojo

.

Outside the Beltway critiques Atlas Shrugs -

"The tyranny of the minority strikes again.” I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Republicans were defeated in some election or another and are about to assume minority status. Of course, those who voted–let alone know who John Bolton is–are technically a minority.

Actually it was a minority who held it up to this point. If President Bush had nominated Bolton originally when he had a minority in the Senate I'd agree with OTB. But Bush nominated him when he had a majority (including some Democrats) in the Senate. Knowing that they didn't enough for a fillibuster, the Democrats in the foreign relations committee wouldn't let the nomination to the floor where it would have won easily (though not overwhelmingly.) It was the six Democrats and two Republicans (though Voinovich changed his mind) - 8 senators - who didn't allow the vote.

Kevin Dayhoff looks at this as one more way the Democrats have failed bi-partisanship.

As much as the resignation caught many of us by surprise - - it was to be expected. Much of the conversation by the Democrats about bi-partisanship is just that – cheap and empty talk; so that they may get the sycophant mainstream media writing cheery, sugarcoated stories about how wonderful and magnanimous they are going to be after the last election.

The incomparable James Taranto suggests that President Bush nominate Rudy Giuliani - to increase his chances of becoming president

Giuliani is running for president (or at least he's formed one of those "exploratory committees"), so why would he want to get stuck at Turtle Bay? Well, here's one reason. There have been 29 U.S. ambassadors to the U.N., and one of them, George H.W. Bush, later made it to the White House. New York City has gone through 108 mayors, and here is a complete list of the ones who became president: .

Democrats would probably be reluctant to confirm Giuliani if they thought it would help his Presidential prospects. But then again he now has gravitas now that he's been part of the of the Iraq Study Group.

Lots more at Memeorandum.

Jewish Current Issues tells us of John Bolton's proudest moment at the UN

John Bolton -- who once said that a “highlight of my professional career was the 1991 successful effort to repeal the General Assembly's 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism, thus removing the greatest stain on the UN's reputation" -- resigned as U.N. Ambassador yesterday.

Does that sound like someone who doesn't believe the UN should exist, or someone who believes that the UN shouldn't betray its founding principles? Naturally, of course, the New York Times gets it wrong.

This page opposed Mr. Bolton’s nomination in the first place, arguing that at the very minimum, an ambassador to the United Nations should be someone who believed the organization deserved to exist. Mr. Bolton has always been hostile to the U.N., and to the whole spirit of consensus-seeking diplomacy it embodies. When Democrats and moderate Republicans kept the nomination tied up in the Senate, Mr. Bush characteristically insisted on having his own way by giving Mr. Bolton an interim appointment while Congress was out of session.

Funny but "this page" of the NY Times doesn't believe that Hamas is incapable of making peace with Israel since it doesn't believe that Israel should exist. And what Bolton has been hostile is the deep seated corruption that permeates the organizaiton. As his statements above showed, the consensus building needed to be just and correct and not mindlessly accepted simply because it was a consensus.

Clearly the Times isn't much bothered by the travesty of dictators claiming moral superiority because they were able to form a majority while denying that right to their citizens at home or the corruption that if practiced by a business would have the editors crying for more legislative oversight.

Nope. The Times was all too willing to be complicit in the corruption and antisemitism. John Bolton stood against those. No wonder the Times didn't like him. He has a moral compass.

UPDATE: Mentioned at Buzztracker.

Technorati tags: John Bolton, United Nations, Kofi Annan, New York Times.

Yahoo! captions again

Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International, stands in front of a Hezbollah flag during her visit to hear from survivors of the summer war between Hezbollah and Israel, in the southern village of Qana, Lebanon, Sunday Dec. 3, 2006. Khan leads a mission to Lebanon, Israel and Palestinian territories to discuss human rights issues with members of the government and civil society. (AP Photo/ Mohammed Zaatari) (Warning: I don't know how long the links will be good.)

Two things worth noting:
1) A leader of a human rights organization has no problem posing in front of a poster depicting a hand holding a rifle.
2) That the organizaitn whose poster that is can be described as civil society.

The two together speak volumes about Amnesty Internation and the AP. In neither case does the picture paint the organization in a positive light.

This time it's Reuters:
Supporters of Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun and Hezbollah allies demonstrate to demand the resignation of the U.S.-backed government in Beirut December 3, 2006. Lebanon's political crisis showed no sign of easing on Sunday, with the pro-Syrian opposition pressing on with its protest campaign to topple the Western-backed government. Orange is the colour of Aoun's movement, and the writing on the flag is the name of Aoun's party. REUTERS/Eric Gaillard (LEBANON)

Aoun is an "opposition leader" who is allied with Hezbollah. They are "pro-Syrian". The democratically elected (if flawed) government is "U.S. backed." The Syrian support for the oppositions is a lot more tangible - and deadly - than the support given the government by the United States.

Blogdigger tags: Lebanon, Amnesty International, Media Bias, Middle East.

Three months

Yesterday the nearly 8 year old comes to me and says, "Between a movie and my baby sister, do you know what's more important?"
"My baby sister," he replied proudly.
"What about between your baby sister and the Ravens game," I asked.
He had to think about that one.
He got it right, I think.
"The same," he said brightly. At least the game didn't outrank his sister.

Well about 4 hours ago she hit 13 weeks.

So far I'd have to say from month 2 to month 3 has shown me the greatest change. I suppose that really the greatest changes are from 0 to 1 month, but those are not necessarily visible to the eye. But in her behavior, what I notice, she really has come a long way this past month.

First of all she now reacts. For several weeks I've been able to get her to smile by opening my mouth. I don't know why but baby seems to enjoy that. I guess they're imitating the behavior they see.

About 2 weeks ago she started grabbing the toys hanging above her in the "gym." Now she regularly plays with them. When we first started putting her on the mat, she seemed so small, now she seems like the right size.

Her ability to grab has led to a new game. I let her take a finger and slowly pull away. She keeps holding on with a pretty firm grip.

And this morning when I was giving her a bottle she actually held it in place for a few seconds as she drank.

She has, for the past 6 weeks or so, been making efforts to turn over. It used to be that she'd lift her legs in the air and then twist her body. She never quite made it over. Apparently she's been trying a bit more recently.

My guess is that she's at a disadvantage. Our other children spent most time on their stomachs, they had hands to help them turn over. She doesn't have that advantage and must do the twisting with no manual assistance. In fact she doesn't much like being on her stomach.

Oh and she found her thumb. She still prefers pacifies but she sometimes finds her little thumb and comforts herself that way.

Finally, she usually wakes up in the morning in good moods. It's nice to take a baby out of bed and be greeted with a smile.

Previous baby posts: one month, two months.

Blogdigger tag: baby.

Carter slanders, russert defers

I was in the gym yesterday re-acquainting myself with the treadmill. When I saw that ex Pres Jimmy Carter was on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, I decided to see what he was saying. Literally. I really wasn't much interested in hearing Carter's voice - I was listening to a CD - so I watched the closed captioning scroll to catch his remarks.

Of course the topic that occasioned his visit to Meet the Press was his recent book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid."

Mr. Carter happily wrapped himself in the cloak of being provocative.

Well, well, maybe it’s provocative. That’s—I prefer that. I don’t look on provocative as a negative word. If it, if it provokes debate and assessment and disputes and arguments and maybe some action in the Middle East to get the peace process—which is now completely absent or dormant—rejuvenated, then—and brings peace, ultimately to Israel, that’s what I want.

Russert asked him mildly challenging questions, but unfortunately pulled his punches.

First he asked him about his use of the term apartheid and allowed Carter to claim that he was only talking about the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza not elsewhere. This, of course, is problematic because Israel physically offloaded Gaza in 2005 and allowed the Palestinians self government since 1996 elsewhere. Carter himself (dishonestly) certified the elections of Arafat in 1996 and Hamas in 2005 as clean and legitimate. (He also certified the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela demonstrating that he is fully complicit in legitimizing tyrants.)

But then the highlight of the show was when Russert showed a 30 year old clip of Governor Carter talking about the Middle East on Meet the Press.

I would not recognize the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO, nor their leaders under any circumstances, diplomatically, until they recognize the right of Israel to exist in peace in their present location in the Far East—in the Middle East. I think that ultimately Israel might have to withdraw to—from some of the boundaries, toward their 1967 boundaries. There’s some that I would not cede if I were the premier of Israel. One would be control of the Syrians—by the Syrians of the Golan Heights and I would not relinquish control of the, of the Jewish and Christian worship places in Jerusalem, but I think the recognition of the Palestinians as an entity and as a nation will be an integral part of the future of Middle Eastern settlement.

Carter congratulated himself on his perceptiveness and then has the gall to claim that his views are the same as they were 30 years ago. Russert though didn't follow up with the most obvious way that Carter's views had changed. Later Carter would say

FMR. PRES. CARTER: OK. First of all, I think that the United States should stop their horrible abuse of the Palestinian people in a generic sense. I mean, all Palestinian people. Because they voted for Hamas candidates last January, we have cut off all aid to, to the Palestinian people, humanitarian aid and otherwise. We don’t let contributions from other nations go to the Palestinian people. They don’t have enough money to pay their, their teachers, their nurses, their policemen, their firemen, anybody on their public payroll, just because the Palestinian people voted for Hamas candidates. So I would stop that and let humanitarian aid go into Gaza and to the West Bank.

Earth to Jimmy, Hamas has never accepted Israel's right to exist. If a condition for talking to the PLO in 1976 was acceptance of Israel's right to exist why isn't that a condition for dealing with Hamas now? I don't believe for a moment that Hamas and the PA don't have money for salaries, they just don't want to spend their own money, they want foreign aid for the salaries. There's no reason to enable them further giving them that aid.

And as bad as Carter was when he talked of Israel, he compounded his sins by brining up the Jewish lobby. Here Russert didn't even make a pretense of challenging Carter.

FMR. PRES. CARTER: That’s part. The Jewish lobby may be part of it. I didn’t say that in the book, but I think that’s part of it. But even—you know, I don’t think that The Washington Post or The New York Times or NBC or others are intimidated by, by the Jewish lobby. But I think there’s a reticence, even in public fora, to describe both sides of the issues in the West Bank.

Reticence? A reticence to publish Peace Now's dubious charges that Jewish lands are largely taken from private Palesitnians? If that's the result of intimidation, it's not very intimidating. Both sides do get discussed plenty. The fact that Carter could make this claim and not have Russert follow up is a disgrace.

In the last part of the interview Russert plays nice and allows Jimmy Carter to play ex-President. He lets him say how important he is because the President Bush consults him. And finally he gives Jimmy Carter the softball he no doubt was waiting for, he asks him his thoughts on the Iraq war. Carter gets the chance to respond that it was a mistake etc. etc. etc.

Russert must have been great for Carter's ego allowing him to strut his dubious stuff while barely laying a glove on him. I don't usually watch Russert but I've heard that he's often on the ball. Yesterday, he was much too deferential.

Conservative Politics looks at Carter's comments about supporting Hamas. Red Wave Musings takes an extended swipe at Carter. On the other hand the Boc Blah Blog considers Carter a "centrist."

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Blogdigger tags: Jimmy Carter, Israel, Meet the Press, Tim Russert, Apartheid.

Olmert Is At It Again--With Some Encouragement

Olmert, his reputation damaged by this summer’s war in Lebanon, is looking for a dramatic initiative to restore his image at home.
Sunday Times

And if you are Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, how do you restore your image at home?
Just by being Ehud Olmert:

According to senior Israeli sources, Ehud Olmert, Israel’s prime minister, will soon meet high-ranking Saudi officials to explore the formation of a group of moderate Arab countries to negotiate with Tel Aviv over the future of the Middle East.

...Olmert is believed to be considering a Saudi initiative, endorsed by the Arab League four years ago, as the basis for a peace settlement.

This would include the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and could lead to a formal peace deal between Israel and seven Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the Emirates, Morocco and Tunisia.

So Olmert is at it again--but do you remember what the Saudi initiative entails?

According to Wikipedia the initiative would require:

• Full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967

• Implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

• The establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital

• A just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem, to be agreed upon in accordance with section 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

• The normalization of relations in the context of a comprehensive peace

According to that same Wikipedia article, there are a few things that are left out of the Saudi initiative as well:

• The nature of the envisioned Palestinian state

• The nature of the "just solution" to the refugee problem

• The level of militarization of the Palestinian state

• The use of water resources

• Access to Jerusalem and its holy sites

• Access to other holy sites within the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine

• Access between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

• The dismantling of non-governmental armed groups within the West Bank and Gaza Strip

• Border controls between Israel and the Palestinian state

• The fate of Palestinian prisoners

Are we supposed to assume that it will be any easier to resolve these issues--especially the return of 'Palestinian Refugees'--after Olmert commits Israel to the agreement?

Is anyone else frightened by the prospect of having Olmert and his government in charge of negotiating these remaining points?

Are we supposed to assume that the Kassam rockets will stop once Israel signs on the dotted line?

Meanwhile, another of the more troubling aspects of Olmert's agreement to go along with this is that the idea may not have been his.

Olmert promised the Palestinians their own state last week in a conciliatory speech that he was said to have written himself.

Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, praised the speech and her officials welcomed it as a promising sign that “a regional peace dialogue may be resumed”.

However, an Israeli insider said: “The truth is that it was not Olmert’s own initiative but a dictate given to him last month when he met George W Bush and Condoleezza Rice in Washington.”

This would go hand in hand with reports that Israel's decision to pull out of Gaza and not react to the continued Kassam rocket attacks that followed the 'cease fire'.

It is not clear that Bush is willing to follow Baker's advice to speak with Syria and Iran, but Bush apparently has no qualms letting Saudi Arabia into the picture and pressuring Israel to again make concessions.

At this rate 2008 cannot come soon enough.
And Olmert cannot go soon enough.

by Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and US and President Bush.

s

Posted by daledamos at 1:38 AM

Pay No Attention To That Ayatollah Behind The Curtain

"How can I help being a humbug," he said, "when all these people make me do things that everyone knows can't be done?"
The Wizard in The Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum

Another author has a price on his head after allegedly ridiculing Islam--claiming that Christianity is superior to Islam and that Europe is superior to the Middle East.

One of Iran's most senior clergymen has issued a fatwa on an Azeri writer said to have insulted the Prophet Muhammad.

The call on Muslims to murder Rafiq Tagi, who writes for Azerbaijan's Senet newspaper, echoes the Iranian fatwa against Indian writer Salman Rushdie.

It was issued by the conservative Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Fazel Lankarani.

With a little bit of hindsight, it probably would not be all that difficult to have predicted the response of someone like Lankarani. The real question is whether Lankarani is actually following Islamic law in calling for Tagi's death.

According to Bernard Lewis--he is not.

In The Crisis of Islam, Lewis writes about the brand of Islamic extremism preached by Al Qaida, Saudi Arabia--and Iran.

All of these are, in a sense, Islamic in origin, but some of them have deviated very far from their origins.

All these different extremist groups sanctify their action through pious references to Islamic texts, notably the Qur'an and the traditions of the Prophet, and all three claim to represent a truer, purer, and more authentic Islam than that currently practiced by the vast majority of Muslims and endorsed by most though not all of the religious leadership. They are, however, highly selective in their choice and interpretation of sacred texts. (p. 138) [emphasis added]

To illustrate his point, Lewis examines Islamic law as it pertains to the treatment of someone like Salman Rushdie. Recall that at the time, the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, offering a bounty for the one who killed the author of the Satanic Verses--just as Lankarani has done.

On this issue, Bernard Lewis points out that contrary to the impression given by men like Khomeini and Lankarani, a fatwa is not the Islamic equivalent of 'putting out a contract'. Instead:

Fatwa is a technical term in Islamic jurisprudence for a legal opinion or ruling on a point of law...The Islamic jurisconsult who is authorized to issue a fatwa is called a mufti, an active participle from the same root. In using a fatwa to pronounce a death sentence and recruit an assassin, the ayatollah was deviating very considerably from standard Islamic practice. (p. 140) [emphasis added]

For Grand Ayatollah Lankarani to issue a fatwa calling for the death of Tagi--and of the person responsible for publishing his articles--or for another Iranian cleric to offer his house as a reward to anyone who killed the writer, is not normative practice.

'Insulting the Prophet' was the general charge brought against Rushdie--but that is punishable by flogging and imprisonment. This is not the impression you got from the signs at the riots which called for his death, beheading, and extermination. Flogging and imprisonment is also a far cry from what Lankarani and other clerics are sanctioning and encouraging.

In Rushdie's case, as a Moslem his supposed crime would be apostasy--which according to Islamic law requires a trial by judge. Lewis admits that a minority opinion states that when the crime is so great that a formal trial is not needed, but nevertheless some sort of procedure or authorization is required. Without such a procedure, the execution is itself considered murder--and punishable as such. There is another opinion according to which the immediate execution of the apostate is obligatory and one who does not carry out the sentence is himself committing an offense--but Lewis points out:

Even the most rigorous and extreme of the classical jurists only require a Muslim to kill anyone who insults the Prophet in his hearing and in his presence. They say nothing about a hired killing for a reported insult in a distant country. [emphasis added]

In Tagi's case, he was in fact tried in an Azerbaijani court. However the sentence he and his publisher received was two months in jail for an article which was illustrated by the same cartoons of the Muhammad which were originally published in Denmark.

There are those who would claim that Islam is undergoing a renaissance, a reawakening as it reclaims its place in the world.

Maybe not.

In an editorial about the case of the 6 Imams who were removed from a plane after acting suspiciously, the Investor's Business Daily notes the activities of other Imams:

Omar Abdul-Rahman, a blind sheikh, is serving a life term for plotting to blow up several New York landmarks. Imam Ali al-Timimi, a native Washingtonian, is also behind bars for soliciting local Muslims to kill fellow Americans. Imams in New York were recently busted for buying shoulder-fired missiles. Another in Lodi, Calif., planned an al-Qaida terror camp there.

MEMRI has videos of Islamic holy men who include in their sermons various derogatory comments about Israel and Jews in general.

There is something very wrong when Islamic holy men turn to murder--however they themselves may choose to label it--or feel they must inspire their flock by comparing Jews to apes. It is past time for the media to stop turning a blind eye to what is being ignored under the guise of free speech and what is being covered up under the guise of Moslem-bashing.

Whatever you call it, Islamist extremism is a danger that must be clearly and consistently called by its name if moderate Moslems are truly going to get the respect they are entitled to.

Update: Thanks to Memeorandum for the link.
Also check out Eteraz.org about emailing the Ayatollah who issued the fatwa.

by Daled Amos

UPDATE: more at Buzztracker.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Bernard Lewis and Salman Rushdie and Rafiq Tagi and Islamism

You give realism a bad name

Given the apparent failure of President Bush's attempt to democratize the Middle East, the foreign policy flavor of the day, month and year is realism.

Realists are supposed to look at foreign policy rationally, without any emotional attachment and make cold assessments of American interests without sentimentality.

Professor's Walt and Mearsheimer who wrote the Israel Lobby have been called realists. Their critique that supporting Israel has hurt American interests has been discussed for some months now. Given that their paper was riddled with all sorts of innacuracies its hard to say what was realistic about the paper.

Martin Kramer recently, took a different tack in rejecting the Walt Mearsheimer argument in The American Interest. In short Kramer argues

My answer, to anticipate my conclusion, is this: U.S. support for Israel is not primarily the result of Holocaust guilt or shared democratic values; nor is it produced by the machinations of the "Israel Lobby." American support for Israel--indeed, the illusion of its unconditionality--underpins the Pax Americana in the eastern Mediterranean. It has compelled Israel's key Arab neighbors to reach peace with Israel and to enter the American orbit. The fact that there has not been a general Arab-Israeli war since 1973 is proof that this Pax Americana, based on the U.S.-Israel alliance, has been a success. From a realist point of view, supporting Israel has been a low-cost way of keeping order in part of the Middle East, managed by the United States from offshore and without the commitment of any force. It is, simply, the ideal realist alliance.

Another proponent of realism is incoming shadow Secretary of State, James Baker whose Iraq study group is expected to recommend that the United States withdraw its troops from Iraq and that the United States engage Syria and Iran in covering for it as it withdraws. But Charles Krauthammer in "Is this Realism?" ( or here) takes exception to the view that it's necessary to engage those two countries whose interests are diametrically opposed to America's.

Perhaps in some long-term future they will want a stable Iraq as a tame client state of the Syria-Iran axis. For now they want chaos. What in God's name will a negotiation with them yield?

At best they might give us a few months to withdraw. But why do we need their help to do that? We can do our withdrawing very well without them. And in return for non-help in a non-solution that is essentially a surrender, Syria would demand to be given a free hand once again in Lebanon -- just as, when the United States needed help in Iraq before the Persian Gulf War, then-Secretary of State James Baker gave Lebanon over to Syria as a quid pro quo.

And Iran will demand a free hand with its nuclear weapons project, which will turn it into the regional superpower dominating the Gulf Arabs and their oil.

If that would save Iraq for us, there might at least be an argument for such a swap. But just to cover an American retreat? This is sacrificing one interest without even securing another. It's enough to give realism a bad name.

Earlier on he makes the important point that - WMD or not - there was a solid "realist" reason for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam.

If we really had been in the grip of "idealism," we'd be deep in Chad and Burma and Darfur. We are not. We are instead trying to sustain fragile democracies in three strategically important countries -- Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon -- that form the geographic parentheses around the principal threat to Western interests in the region, the Syria-Iran axis.

We are trying to bring democracy to Iraq in particular because a pro-Western government enjoying legitimacy and popular support would have been the most enduring means of securing our interests there. Deposing Saddam & Sons was essential because they posed a permanent strategic threat to the region and to U.S. interests. But their successor -- the popularly elected Maliki government -- has failed.

Between Kramer and Krauthammer there's enough reason to quesiton whether what is commonly called "realism" is really in America's best interest.

Blogdigger Tags: Foreign Policy, Realism, Walt and Mearsheimer, Charles Krauthammer, Martin Kramer.

Council speak 12/01/06

The results of the latest Council Vote have been tallied and this week's Council winner is JoshuaPundit's Genocide? What Genocide? the world's indifference to the death and destruction being visited upon Darfur.

Second place was Right Wing Nuthouse's The Art and Artifice of War Reporting in which he takes the press to task for its unapologetic dedication to letting us know only part of the story rather than keeping us informed.

Among non-council posts the top two finishers were in depth examinations of the issues discussed by Right Wing Nuthouse. The winner was Getting news from our enemies by Flopping Aces in which he does a little of digging - something the AP's editors didn't do - and discovered that the main source for reports here wasn't who he said he was.

The runner up was Is the L.A. Times Repeating enemy propaganda? by Patterico's pontifications in which he looks for evidence of an American air attack tha killed civilians and can't corroborate it.

Enjoy the stuff here? Want to participate?

Well if you do you could participate with a non-council post by following he directions here and submitting a post this week. Or, for this week only we have a sale. Well not a sale, but an opening. My friend AbbaGav has retired prematurely from the council due to personal obligations. If you'd like to have a chance in reading some really great posts and voting on them see here and try to convince the Watcher that you belong.

Tag: Watcher's Council.

Going up .. up .. up .. up?

When I first read about the concept of a space elevator, I'll admit to being a bit skeptical. Fortunately, when I first blogged about it, Brian Dunbar a system administrator for Liftport, a company devoted to fielding a working space elevator in the coming decades, left a comment.

I followed up by asking him some questions. He graciously e-mailed me back and allowed me to quote from his e-mail. Mostly I was curious as to how Liftport would be financially viable until its main product was ready. I also wanted to know how something as long as the space elevator's "ribbon" could be secured against the elements or sabotage. Here's his response:

We've known from the start (2002) that for a private venture the space elevator could not pay the way. We hope to use the technology we need to build the SE (nano, robotics, media) as revenue and a measure of seriousness on our part.

Which does make it seem as if we're not focused on the final goal. We are - we just have to take a pragmatic approach to getting there.

Weather is a worry as is effects from radiation, vacuum and etc. All I can say is that it's a problem we're put into the 'study this' list. Part of the reason for the long deployment time is to lift a series of experiments into orbit with the ribbon material to study the effects of space on it.

Sabotage is a worry as well. This is mitigated because the anchor head is going to be way the heck out in the middle of the ocean (400 miles west of South America) making it difficult to get to. The ribbon itself will be a meter wide and CM thin in the atmosphere, making it really difficult to target. Granted if someone wants to start tossing bombs around the anchor is a target but .. this is true of many currently existing infrastructure.

We know it's a problem, we'll simply have to deal with it.

Liftport isn't the only concern attempting to develop and build a space elevator. A dozen teams competed in the "Elevator Games" events at the XPrize Cup Event in October. Among the technologies that were being tested were the materials for the tethers that could be used as the connection between an earthbound anchor and a platform in space as well as a method of power transmission that could move an elevator car up and down the tether.

In the end none of the teams competing won the cash prize this year, but they did show technological innovation of the type that this competition is hoping to encourage.

Given that the purpose of the XPrize is to encourage commercial innovation, the XPrize Cup had a number of other competitions geared towards making space flight accessible and affordable. Though there were no winners this year in any of the competitions, the organizers were quite happy with the results as well as the interest by the many people who came to the New Mexico desert to watch.

The events at the XPrize cup competition were done in cooperation with NASA's centennial challenges.

Blogdigger Tags: XPrize Cup, Space Elevator

A tale of two cities' name changes

What do the the towns of Hot Springs, New Mexico and the merger of Mauch Chunk and East Mauch Chunk, Pennsylvania have in common?

56 years ago the town Hot Springs took a television show up on offer; it changed its name in exchange for having the show, "Truth or Consequences" broadcast from the town.

Truth or Consequences, New Mexico is back in the news. The town is near what is called SpacePort America, the location where commercial ventures will take paying customers into space.

Similarly the merged towns of Mauch Chunk and East Mauch Chunk took on a new name. It wasn't the of a TV show but the name of Jim Thorpe in honor of the great American Indian athlete who is buried there.

Thorpe died in 1953, and his widow discovered to her sorrow that his native state of Oklahoma would not assist in developing a suitable memorial to him. About the same time, Mrs. Thorpe learned how the communities of Mauch Chunk and East Mauch Chunk were also struggling for economic survival.
Spearheaded by Joe Boyle, editor and co-publisher of the Mauch Chunk Times News, local citizens were contributing a nickel a week to an economic development fund. Buoyed by this community spirit, she visited the town and asked for assistance. A group of local citizens thought that this would be an opportunity to end decades of sectional rivalries by merging the towns, naming them in honor of Jim Thorpe, and hoping that the change would give added impetus to positive thinking in the community. In two referenda, the town voted in favor of accepting Jim Thorpe.

(According to the article Mauch Chunk means "Bear Mountain.")

Tags: Jim Thorpe Pennsylvania, Truth or Consequences New Mexico