The realities of social strata hit Houston

Danny Carlton blogged From Newsweek...

...as devastating as Katrina has been for the administration, its impact has been far more visceral in those communities that received tens of thousands of evacuees overnight. In cities stretching from Atlanta to San Antonio, good will has often given way to the crude reality of absorbing a traumatized and sometimes destitute population. In Baton Rouge, which added 100,000 people to a pre-Katrina population of 225,000, residents bemoan the loss of the city's small-town feel and worry that trailer-park settlements will become permanent fixtures of blight. In Dallas, the city housing authority began offering rent vouchers to some of its 20,000 evacuees, only to become quickly overwhelmed and fail to pay landlords, prompting a number of eviction notices. But perhaps no city has been as convulsed as Houston, which took in the greatest number of survivors. As some see it, the city is suffering from "compassion fatigue." Public services are overwhelmed, city finances are strained and violent crime is on the rise.

Is that surprising? New Orleans was known for its crime problem relative to its size, and when criminals move to a new area they don't become good citizens.

When city leaders in New Orleans made comments two weeks ago suggesting that they wanted only hardworking evacuees to return,

The mayor certainly wants hard working blacks to return, because the "Chocolate" nature of New Orleans has become a lot whiter than it used to be, and he fears he will not be reeleted. If he is defeated, will that be because he is black, or because he did such a bad job as mayor.

some Houston city-council members erupted in protest—fearing that politicians in the Big Easy were trying to stick Houston with their undesirables.

It was not just Houston; they wanted to stick any other city with its undesirables. I have a good friend who did a lot to help the Katrina Evacuees that came to Tulsa, and she told me that of the 100 she has helped find housing , clothes, and furniture, only one has even looked for a job. The rest are content to mooch on food stamps and welfare. And I don't even know what color the 100 are. I know my friend, who is working so hard to help them, is black, but there were poor whites as well as poor blacks that left New Orleans after Katrina.

As unpleasant as the thought may be to many people, the truth remains that there will always be a segment of the population that drag on the rest. They'll demand much more than they'll ever be willing to give to society, and the rest of us will have to carry them. Unfortunately, politics being the nasty animal that it is, race has played a major role in our denial of that fact since the "victim mentality" the Civil Right Industry has perpetuated on Blacks in American has caused so many more of them to assume the world owes them a good time. While worshipping Martin Luther King, jr almost as a deity,

But ignoring what he said.

the Civil Rights Industry and their followers ignore his admonition that people should be judged by the content of the character, not the color of their skin. So when any group designated as socially undesirable contains a higher than desired number of Black people, it's assumed that the designation of the group is racist, in spite of the fact that it is the very content of character that creates the designation, not the color of skin.

Precisely. The black woman that I spoke of, who is helping 100 Katrina families, knows how much she is being taken advantage of, yet she continues to do everything she can to help them: taking them to doctor's appointments, etc. I judge her not by the color of her skin, but by her character, and in my opinion she is an Earth Angel; a human whose heart is so filled with God's love, that he can send them to do a job that he would otherwise have to send a Celestial Angel to do.

What's not being voice overly loud is the fact that those Black Americans who exemplify the best of America, have already risen above the tragedy of Katrina by their own ingenuity and hard work. They get little attention, and most have already returned to New Orleans.

And those that have found a better opportunity in another city and who have decided to stay there, will be an asset to that city.

It's sad that they should get so little attention because they not only are a credit to their race (oh, how I hate using that phrase, because it sounds so belittling) but they are a credit to all races, and America in general. Instead our attention is focused on those that remain under the care of other cities, stubbornly sitting and waiting until someone else comes along and does for them what they are more than capable of doing for themselves.

It's sad that what used to exist to help Black people has become the very thing that hurts them the most. It used to be that you could address the problem of those that demanded more from society than they were wiling to give, and eventually convince some to join the rest of us, making their lives better. But anymore to do so puts one at risk of being called a racist. The key to unlock the chains has been melted down and made into more chains.

The lazy poor are not limited to blacks; there are many lazy whites as well. But the lazy blacks can call you names when you point out they are lazy.

Read More...

Summary only...

Kabuki Congress

NYT Imagine being stopped for speeding and having the local legislature raise the limit so you won't have to pay the fine. It sounds absurd, but it's just what is happening to the 28-year-old law that prohibits the president from spying on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

Or at least that is what the traitors at the NYT, that exposed the secret program would hope you are stupid enough to believe. I hope that the reporters and editors are prosecuted for what they did.

It's a familiar pattern. President Bush ignores the Constitution and the laws of the land, and the cowardly, rigidly partisan majority in Congress helps him out by rewriting the laws he's broken.

In 2004, to take one particularly disturbing example, Congress learned that American troops were abusing, torturing and killing prisoners, and that the administration was illegally detaining hundreds of people at camps around the world. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner, huffed and puffed about the abuse, but did nothing. And when the courts said the detention camps do fall under the laws of the land, compliant lawmakers simply changed them.

Are you referring to the McCain bill that not only forbid torturing, but also embarrasing or ofending their prisoners?

Now the response of Congress to Mr. Bush's domestic wiretapping scheme is following the same pattern, only worse.

At first, lawmakers expressed outrage at the warrantless domestic spying, and some Democrats and a few Republicans still want a full investigation. But the Republican leadership has already reverted to form. Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has held one investigative hearing, notable primarily for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's refusal to answer questions.

The AG testified to that committee. Some of his testamony may have been in closed session, which ticks the NYT off, because it can't use that testamony to expose any more of America's secrets.

Mr. Specter then loyally produced a bill that actually grants legal cover, retroactively, to the one spying program Mr. Bush has acknowledged. It also covers any other illegal wiretapping we don't know about — including, it appears, entire "programs" that could cover hundreds, thousands or millions of unknowing people.

Mr. Specter's bill at least offers the veneer of judicial oversight from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Actually Specter's bill is the noxious one, because it would require everything to go through court, and the AG has already testified they cannot get the necessary paperwork, with the details required by the FISA court, prepared in 72 hours.

A far more noxious proposal being floated by Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, would entirely remove intelligence gathering related to terrorism from the law on spying, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

That is what is needed, or if they want to keep the FISA court in the loop, they need to reduce the amount of proof that needs to be provided in the 72 our period.

Let's call this what it is: a shell game. The question is whether the Bush administration broke the law by allowing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans and others in the United States without obtaining the required warrant. The White House wants Americans to believe that the spying is restricted only to conversations between agents of Al Qaeda and people in the United States. But even if that were true, which it evidently is not, the administration has not offered the slightest evidence that it could not have efficiently monitored those Qaeda-related phone calls and e-mail messages while following the existing rules.

The NYT is not telling the truth.

In other words, there is not a shred of proof that the illegal program produced information that could not have been obtained legally, had the administration wanted to bother to stay within the law.

No there has been testamony as to why they could not follow the FISA requirements, but the NYT refuses to consider it.

Read More...

Summary only...

For Democrats, Many Verses, but No Chorus

NYT From Arizona to Pennsylvania, from Colorado to Connecticut, Democratic candidates for Congress are reading from a stack of different scripts these days.

They know the National party does not have any new ideas, other than hatred for Bush, so the grass roots hope they can grow something in 2006 that might give them a chance in 2008

Read More...

Summary only...

AOL hanging up on dial-up customers?

CNET News AOL recently informed customers that beginning next month, AOL will charge dial-up subscribers $25.90 per month. The price won't be that much of a shock, since it's $2 more than those dial-up customers are paying now.

And anyone stupid enough to pay AoL $23.95 is probably stupid enough to pay them $25.95, even though AoL is using it as a cash cow to enable it to offer Dial Up for $10 through it's Netscape brand name.

More important, it's equal to what high-speed DSL (digital subscriber line) or cable subscribers pay to get AOL services such as e-mail and customer support along with high-speed Internet access.

It is certainly what AoL DSL customers pay for the faster than dialup, but clearly slower than real cable service gets.

The price jump shows just how important it is to the Internet giant to get more of its customers onto broadband. It has led to an obvious question for longtime AOL customers: Who wouldn't move to broadband when it costs the same price? "Given their overall strategy in the Web portal business, (AOL) wants fewer, if any, dial-up customers," said Allen Weiner, an analyst at Gartner. "I think it is part of a strategy to basically shake out of its base the people who are likely high-speed subscribers." AOL makes no bones about the fact that it is trying to encourage people to upgrade to faster service so they can better view the bandwidth-intensive content on the AOL site. "The hope is that we'll be encouraging users to upgrade to broadband because a majority of them will be able to get high-speed connections," said AOL spokeswoman Anne Bentley. But the move could anger some price-sensitive, casual Internet users who will resent paying more for a slower service, Weiner said. "Disincentives are a tragically bad way to go about things," he added. Of course, that may not be a serious concern to the planners at AOL. It has been losing dial-up subscribers for several years as prices for high-speed access have dropped, from 26 million U.S. subscribers in 2002 to 19.5 million in 2005. DSL is priced between $15 and $40 or higher per month, compared with dial-up prices of $4 to $10 a month. About 5 million people in the U.S. pay $15 per month for an AOL subscription and then pay a different Internet service provider for high-speed Internet access under AOL's Bring Your Own Access plan, Bentley said.

People that pay $15 a month for AoL without a connection are really fools. Most AoL services are available to anyone with their own connetion for free, and for those that are restricted (like email), their broadband provider probably has a better service as a part of its connection.

By bundling high-speed access and AOL service for $25.90 a month, AOL is offering a package alternative to members who are now paying for their AOL service and high-speed access separately.

Read More...

Summary only...

White House Trains Efforts on Media Leaks

WaPo reports The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources.

It's about time

The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.

I hope that some are. Also they should see about going after congressional staffers or even legislators that leak secret information.

In recent weeks, dozens of employees at the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies have been interviewed by agents from the FBI's Washington field office, who are investigating possible leaks that led to reports about secret CIA prisons and the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance program, according to law enforcement and intelligence officials familiar with the two cases.

The Jawa Report blogged Crackdown On Leakers Has MSM Panties All Bunched Up

Of coures. they are lazy, and would prefer people to leak them infiromation so they dont have to work for it.

Excellent news! It's past time for such a crackdown, as recent leaks of classified material to the New York Times amply demonstrate. And no doubt we can count on the Patriots of the Press to fully engage and help the government root out the traitors who disclose secret tactics and strategies to our enemies. Well, perhaps in an alternate universe

Perhaps if a few editors and reporters were in jail, they might change their tune

The unauthorized release of classified materials to the press is treason. And treason has never been an American value, except that is, among certain elements of the mainstream press, who value circulation and book sales over the security of their countrymen.

Kevin Drum blogged This is why I think we need a federal shield law for reporters. Unfortunately, it's also why we're not likely to get one.

One wonders whether Kevin would be equally in favor of a federal shield law if the Democrats held the White House and both houses of Congress.

Let me say this flatly: Leaks are good. They are the way we hold paranoid and secretive governments accountable.

And the way that "Hate America" Democrats can endanger American Security.

Historically, leaks have virtually never harmed national security in even a minor way, despite plenty of shrill commentary to the contrary. Reporters should be allowed to print them without fear of being tossed in jail.

I don't know about historically, but the NYT leak about the NSA listening in on interenational calls involving Al Qaeda certainly did hurt our security.

If the Bush administration succeeds in changing this tradition — and tradition is all it is at the moment — we will all have lost a very great deal.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Muslim Manifesto

Mustafa Akyol Zeyno Baran wrote on National Review Online "Who are the moderate Muslims, and why do they not speak up?" After being asked this question over and over again since 9/11, particularly after the Danish cartoon crisis, we decided to propose the following Muslim Manifesto:

Recently, the disrespectful cartoons about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) published in Jyllands-Posten resulted in an extreme reaction among many Muslims worldwide. While we understand the feelings of our co-religionists, we strongly urge them to refrain from rage and violence.

I agree. I am outraged by the frequent examples the secular press in this country seems to take pleasure in running that cast Christianity in a bad light, and I do not like the Muslim press running daily cartoons against Jews, but none of it justifies violence.

A zeal for Allah is rightful only when it is expressed in an enlightened manner, since Allah himself has ordained a restrained response. When the early Muslims were mocked by their pagan contemporaries, the Koran ordered not a violent backlash, but rather a civilized disapproval: "When you hear Allah's verses being rejected and mocked at by people, you must not sit with them till they start talking of other things." (Koran 4:140) The Koran also describes Muslims as "those who control their rage and pardon other people, [because] Allah loves the good-doers." (3:134) Therefore all demonstrations against the mockery of Islam should be peaceful.

And if Muslims want to be a part of 21st century civilization, they will find they will be unwelcome unless they do act peacefully.

All critiques of Islam should be countered not by threats and violence, but by rational counter-argument. We also believe that terrorist acts can never be justified or excused. None of the challenges Muslims face, such as oppression or military occupation, can justify attacks against non-combatants. In the Holy Koran, Allah orders Muslims to "never let hatred of anyone lead you into the sin of deviating from justice." (5:8) The true Islamic sense of justice is well-established in the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh); even in time of war — let alone peace — Muslim soldiers should never "kill the old, the infant, the child, or the woman." Those who do so are not martyrs, but cold-blooded murderers.

And there is a special place in Hell waiting for them. Surat an-Nisa,093 (Quran 4.93) says "If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him."

Supported by the Koran's affirmation that "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256), we cherish religious liberty. Every human has the right to believe or not to believe in Islam or in any other religion. All Muslims furthermore have the right to reject and change their religion if desired. No state, community or individual has a right to impose Islam on others. People should accept and practice Islam not because they are forced to do so, but because they believe in its teachings.

Amen.

We support and cherish democracy — not because we reject the sovereignty of the Almighty over people, but because we believe that this sovereignty is manifested in the general will of people in a democratic and pluralistic society. We do not accept theocratic rule-not because we do not wish to obey Allah, but because theocratic rule inevitably becomes rule by fallible (and sometimes corrupt and misguided) humans in the name of the infallible God.

And who thinks that Allah (God) wants people to be forced to worship Him. Which does He listen to, the silent prayers of someone on the torturer's table, or the loud screams that are tortured out of him.

We accept the legitimacy of the secular state and the secular law. Islamic law, or sharia, was developed at a time when Muslims were living in homogenous communities. In the modern world, virtually all societies are pluralistic, consisting of different faiths and of different perceptions of each faith, including Islam. In this pluralistic setting, a legal system based on a particular version of a single religion cannot be imposed on all citizens. Thus, a single secular law, open to all religions but based on none, is strongly needed.

I completely agree.

We believe that women have the same inalienable rights as men. We strongly denounce laws and attitudes in some Islamic societies that exclude women from society by denying them the rights of education, political participation and the individual pursuit of happiness. Like men, women should have the right to decide how they will live, dress, travel, marry and divorce; if they do not enjoy these rights, they are clearly second-class citizens.

We believe that there is no contradiction between religious and national identities. Any Muslim should be able to embrace the citizenship of any modern secular state while maintaining feelings of spiritual solidarity with the umma, the global Muslim community. We regard Christianity and Judaism as sister faiths in the common family of Abrahamic monotheism.

We are all "People of the Book" (or ahl al Kitâb) Surat Al 'Imran, 64 (Qur'an 3:64) says "O People of the Book! Let us rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God."

We strongly denounce anti-Semitism, which has been alien to Islam for many centuries but which unfortunately has gained popularity among some Muslims in recent decades. We accept Israel's right to exist, as well as the justified aspiration of the Palestinian people for a sovereign state and hope that a just two-state solution in Israel/Palestine will bring peace to the Holy Land.

As do I.

In short, we strongly disagree with and condemn those who promote or practice tyranny and violence in the name of Islam. We hope that their misguided deeds will not blacken our noble religion — which is indeed a path to God and a call for peace. We encourage Muslim political, social, community and business leaders to contact us at info@muslimmanifesto.org to sign onto the Manifesto so that the authentic peaceful and civilized message of Islam will be heard.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Manifesto Against Islamism

Michelle Malkin blogged Danish reader P.H.N. sends an important document published today in the Jyllands-Posten from 12 brave intellectuals:

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism. We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all. The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats. Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people. We reject cultural relativism, which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers. We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas. We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

I pray that these 12 brave souls are not immediately killed by radical Islamists, but they are right.

Agora blogged This just in, stay tuned as the story develops. I think we’ll be seeing people die in the coming days. You know, from "reactions"….

Read More...

Summary only...

Avenging Angels

Jim Robbins blogged on The Corner on National Review Online Mudville Gazette has a great rundown on a good news story from Iraq that the MSM has chosen to spike. Seems that Najim Abdullah Abid al-Jibouri, the Mayor of the city of Tall Afar, wrote a lengthy thank you letter to the troops of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment for saving his town from the scourge of the terrorists. He writes that the soldiers "are not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism."

I bet that phrase is curling the hair of some MSM editors.

Tall Afar used to be a ghost town run by bad guys; now it is peaceful and prosperous. This letter has been getting wide circulation on military email lists. The Washington Post had the letter but refused to print it. Imagine that!

The Secular Left does not like references to God or anything that praises our soldiers, so I am not surprised that they declined to print the letter.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dubai ports firm enforces Israel boycott

Jerusalem Post The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

I would be shocked if they did not participate in the Arab boycott when they are running ports in Arab countries. But if the Jerusalem Post is trying to imply that they would enforce an Arab boycott in US ports they are totally wrong.

The firm, Dubai Ports World, is seeking control over six major US ports, including those in New York, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore. It is entirely owned by the Government of Dubai via a holding company called the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCZC), which consists of the Dubai Port Authority, the Dubai Customs Department and the Jebel Ali Free Zone Area.

Another misleading fact. Just because the parent company includes Customs in Dubai, that does not mean they would control customs in the US. The US customs people would still be in charge, and American agencies would continue to be providing the security at the American ports

"Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced," Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department's Office for the Boycott of Israel, told the Post in a telephone interview.

"If a product contained even some components that were made in Israel, and you wanted to import it to Dubai, it would be a problem," he said.

Danny Carlton blogged I, again, suspect that Bush may be engineering a tempest in a teapot in order to distract the childish interests of the MSM. It seems so similar to the Harriet Myers thing. He proposes something many find objectionable, but is only marginally so, just as the MSM's attention is focused on areas that slow things down. While they scamper to paint Bush with their "bad guy" brush, he withdraws his proposal, and quietly slips in what he wanted all along.

Michelle Malkin blogged And from the capital of the UAE via the Khaleej Times

Close on the heels of the cartoon controversy raging across the Muslim world, it is the turn of an upscale American school in Abu Dhabi to ruffle Muslim sentiments by teaching lessons that allegedly ''smell of racism.''

It is not terribly smart to use a text book that disparages the culture of the country you are a guest in.

Over 100 copies of the social studies text book, 'World Cultures' taught to the sixth grade children were confiscated by the Ministry of Education yesterday, for allegedly presenting Islam and the Muslim countries including Gulf states in a negative light while glorifying Israel on the other hand, Khaleej Times has learnt.

Forbes magazine notes:

Dubai, in the final analysis, is still very much a part of the Middle East and Islamic world, where it finds itself geographically, politically and culturally.

What did you expect: Hollywood on the Gulf?

Its remarkable success--steering a delicate middle course between currents of Islamic extremism that are found as near as its much larger, though scarcely as prosperous, neighbor, Saudi Arabia, and the tolerant moderation valued so deeply by the West--has insulated it from terrorism and lets the sheikh's palace sit with its gates all but unguarded deep into the night.

Yet Dubai, the single most prosperous of the seven emirates, is still very much a part of the Arab world.

Go ahead. Yell "Islamophobia!"

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush, Speaking Up Against Bigotry

Richard Cohen editorialized in WaPo There are times when George Bush sorely disappoints.

Disappoints the rabid left. I am proud of him.

Just when you might expect him to issue a malapropian explanation, pander to his base or simply not have a clue about what he is talking about,

The rabid left believes that everything he does is some combination of those three.

he does something so right, so honest and, yes, so commendable, that -- as Arthur Miller put it in "Death of a Salesman" -- "attention must be paid." Pay attention to how he has refused to indulge anti-Arab sentiment over the Dubai ports deal.

Would that anyone could say the same about many of the deal's critics. Whatever their concerns may be, whatever their fears, they would not have had them, expressed them or seen them in print had the middle name of the United Arab Emirates been something else. After all, no one goes nuts over Germany, the country where some of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists lived and attended school. To overlook the xenophobic element in this controversy is to overlook the obvious. It is what propelled the squabble and what sustains it. Bush put his finger on it right away. "What I find interesting is that it's okay for a British company to manage some ports, but not okay for a company from a country that is a valuable ally in the war on terror," he said last week.

And what about China running most of our ports on the West Coast. After 9/11, the UAE has been a MUCH better ally than China ever could be.

"The UAE has been a valuable partner in fighting the war on terror." It is a long way from a terrorist haven.

Somewhere in the White House, a political operative -- maybe the storied Karl Rove -- must have slapped his head in consternation as Bush made that remark. The politic thing for a president with a dismal approval rating (about 40 percent)

A Democratic President, like Clinton, might have looked at the polls, and said what he thought was the "politic" thing to say; Bush is honest, and he tells the truth, regardless of what the polls say.

would have been to join with the critics, get ahead of the anti-Arab wave

That is the way Democrats "lead". They see what public opinion is, and then they run around to be at the front of the group, and say "Lets go this way", once they understand the way the people are going anyway.

and announce that he, too, was concerned about the deal, which was the fault, now that he thought about it, of pointy-headed bureaucrats, Democrats and the occasional atheist. Instead, the White House stuck to its guns, ordering a symbolic retreat -- more study -- but continuing to back the deal.

That Bush has done this should come as no surprise. As a bigot he leaves a lot to be desired. He has refused to pander to anti-immigration forces, and shortly after Sept. 11, if you will remember, he visited Washington's Islamic Center. He reassured American Muslims and the worldwide Islamic community that neither America nor its government were waging war on an entire people.

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam," Bush said back then -- and he has since repeated this message over and over again. That very year -- in November 2001 -- Bush invited 52 Muslim diplomats to a traditional Iftar dinner,

I think it is good that he invites truly moderate Muslims. I question some of the people that he has invited, like the people from CAIR.

breaking the daily Ramadan fast, and he has occasionally cited purported racism as the reason some people doubt the Muslim world will, as Bush so fervently wishes, make progress toward democracy. They think people whose skin is "a different color than white" are incapable of self-government, he has said.

That is absolutely true, and in fact he has done a lot to help Blacks that want to achieve, do so, yet organizations like the NAACP can't see the good he has done.

Read More...

Summary only...

Canadian Health Care

NYT reported The Cambie Surgery Center, Canada's most prominent private hospital, may be considered a rogue enterprise. Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years in discomfort before receiving treatment.

Anyone that thinks we should have government provided health care (like Hillary) should take note. It is not working in Canada, and it would not work here either.

But no one is about to arrest Dr. Brian Day, who is president and medical director of the center, or any of the 120 doctors who work there. Public hospitals are sending him growing numbers of patients they are too busy to treat, and his center is advertising that patients do not have to wait to replace their aching knees. The country's publicly financed health insurance system — frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity — is gradually breaking down.

It is not just gradual. Canadian health care is a massive failure. Canadians used to come to the US to get treatment they did not want to wait for in Canada, and now there are so many they are actually setting up private clinics in Canada to help them.

Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.

Read More...

Summary only...

Red Cross Spent $500,000 in 3 Years To Boost Its Profile

WaPo
The American Red Cross paid consultants more than $500,000 in the past three years

why did it take more than three years to discover this. Charities should disclose several times a year how they are spending money they receive in donations

to pitch its name in Hollywood, recruit stars for its "Celebrity Cabinet" and brand its chief executive as the face of the Red Cross

If stars want to voluntarilly be associated with a charity that is fine, but if they must be recruited, then thanks but no thanks.

just a year before ousting her,

Maybe that was why they ousted her.

according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. In a $127,000 contract, a Houston corporate image company agreed to create a plan to make Red Cross chief executive Marsha J. Evans the face of the organization as part of a "senior leadership branding project" that ran from October 2003 to November 2004. At the same time, Evans was laying off workers at the Red Cross's blood-services operations

She must have figured her image was more important than blood.

and at its Washington headquarters, as well as eliminating merit pay and limiting travel in a bid to cut millions from the national headquarters' budget.

Read More...

Summary only...

Specter Proposes NSA Surveillance Rules

WaPo reported The federal government would have to obtain permission from a secret court to continue a controversial form of surveillance, which the National Security Agency now conducts without warrants, under a bill being proposed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

It is becoming more and more obvious that Bush screwed up when he helped Specter fight off a primary challenge by a real conservative.

Specter's proposal would bring the four-year-old NSA program under the authority of the court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The act created a mechanism for obtaining warrants to wiretap domestic suspects. But President Bush, shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on communications without such warrants. The program was revealed in news reports two months ago. Specter's plan could put him at odds with the administration, which has praised a rival proposal that would exempt the NSA program from the surveillance law.

Which is the plan that should pass.

Specter's proposal would also require the administration to give a handful of lawmakers more information about the program than they now receive, such as the number of communications intercepted and a summary of the results.

That might not be a bad idea, but the other part is terrible.

The draft version of Specter's bill, which is circulating in intelligence and legal circles, would require the attorney general to seek the FISA court's approval for each planned NSA intercept under the program.

Bush and Gonzoles have both said it takes a long time to prepare a case to go before FISA, and that is why it is not feasible to use.

Bush has said the agency monitors phone calls and e-mails between people in the United States and people abroad when any of them is thought to have possible terrorist ties.

Specter's bill would require the attorney general to give the secret court "a statement of the facts and circumstances" causing the Justice Department to believe "that at least one of the participants in the communications to be intercepted . . . will be the foreign power or agent of a foreign power specified in [the law], or a person who has had communication with the foreign power or agent." The attorney general would have to provide "a detailed description of the nature of the information sought" and "an estimate of the number of communications to be intercepted . . . during the requested authorization period." The draft says the surveillance program's goal is "to gather foreign intelligence information or to protect against international terrorism."

Read More...

Summary only...

Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat

BBC reported A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.

At least it wasn't a pig. I don't know what the Muslims would have done.

The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders. They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi. "We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said. Mr Alifi, Hai Malakal in Upper Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr Tombe with his goat. "When I asked him: 'What are you doing there?', he fell off the back of the goat, so I captured and tied him up". Mr Alifi then called elders to decide how to deal with the case. "They said I should not take him to the police, but rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife," Mr Alifi told the newspaper.

Read More...

Summary only...

NYT Discovers Truth, Does Nothing

Captain's Quarters The New York Times's editorial board has finally recognized what its readers have known for at least two weeks -- that the violent protests, riots, arsons and murders committed in response to the publication of editorial cartoons criticizing Islam and Mohammed are meant to intimidate dhimmis into silence:

With every new riot over the Danish cartoons, it becomes clearer that the protests are no longer about the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, but about the demagoguery of Islamic extremists. The demonstrators are undeniably outraged by what they perceive as blasphemy. But radical Islamists are trying to harness that indignation to their political goals and their theocratic ends by fomenting hatred for the West and for moderate regimes in the Muslim world. These are dangerous games, and they require the most resolute response.

It is not the West that is most threatened in this crisis. The voices of moderation in the Muslim world are the ones that are being intimidated and silenced.

They are seeking to intimidate both the West AND the moderate muslims. They want to intimidate anyone that does not give them anything they want. They are like spoiled two year old children.

Those few journalists and leaders who have spoken out against the rioting have been vilified and assailed, and even jailed. According to a report by Michael Slackman and Hassan M. Fattah in The New York Times, 11 journalists in five Islamic countries face prosecution for printing some of the Danish cartoons, even when their purpose was to condemn them.

Note to Pinch and the folks at the Gray Lady: these protests were never about the caricatures themselves. These examples of lunacy have always been about silencing any criticism of Islam and Muslim societies, and have a direct philosophical relationship to other crimes, such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh and the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie. These men have been martyred (Van Gogh literally so) for expressing opinions and criticisms of Muslims and Islam. From the time of the first arson and the point when the first signs appeared demanding violence -- in other words, since day 1 of the protests -- the point has always been to intimidate non-Muslims into silence.

Both the NYT AND CQ are right. They want to intidate moderate muslims into not standing up and saying what they are doing is wrong, and they want to intimidate weak willed Europenans into backing off and giving them special rights in Europe, so they can establish a beachhead to eventially take over Europe.

The Times cannot bring itself to admit this. Why? It would force the Times to recognize its role in the shameful surrender shown by the American media in not just refusing to publish the cartoons themselves, but also in their haughty rationalizations that they must remain sensitive to the icons of Islamic faith. They routinely fail to show this sensitivity to icons of other faiths, such as their reprint of the Ofili Madonna, covered in elephant dung and pictures of female genitalia. Nor did they scold the gallery that exhibited the artwork, and they staunchly defended the federal funding the exhibition received when then-mayor Rudy Giuliani wanted it pulled. They only care about sensitivity when the offended carry bombs, guns, and torches.

They care about sensitivity when the offended vote Democratic. Would they be willing to praise a Pro Life Art Exhibition?

Even today, with its far-too-late recognition of the real issues involved in the Cartoon Wars, the Times has yet to publish the cartoons themselves so their readers can understand the context of the controversy. The Gray Lady then scolds Yemen and Jordan for charging Muslim journalists who did publish the cartoons for "giv[ing] extremists a dollop of legitimacy". They hypocrisy drips from this statement, seeing as how the almost the entire American media establishment did exactly the same thing with their fear-based refusal to publish the cartoons themselves.

Don't be fooled by this editorial. It signifies something worse than the pusillanimity shown earlier -- the Times admits they understand the stakes involved, and yet refuse to stand up to the Islamists anyway.

Read More...

Summary only...

Sheehan to protest at U.S. posts in Germany in March

Stars & Stripes reported Cindy Sheehan.... is scheduled to bring her anti-war message to U.S. military installations in Germany next month. “[We’ve already heard] that Cindy Sheehan is like Hanoi Jane [Fonda] coming here,” said Elsa Rassbach, an event organizer with American Voices Abroad, which is supporting Sheehan’s trip.

This nut job will go anywhere if someone pays her way. But if she wants to protest the war in Iraq, why does she not go to Iraq?

.... according to an event flier. “Germany has the power to stop the further use of U.S. bases in Germany for illegal wars and criminal methods of warfare — the power and the right to just say no!”

I actually think we have WAY too many bases in Germany. It might be useful to have one or two, to stage equipment at, and also one or two in various other countries, just in case some government decides to do what Cindy is asking them, and seeks to block our access to our equipment, but we should have most of our Armed Forces back in this country, protecting our borders, particularly the southern one, although I think we could use some help in the the northern one as well

Sweetness & Light blogged Mother Sheehan has scored another all expenses paid European vacation, this time to France and Germany.... Of course if Mother Sheehan had been around 65 years ago she would have to be giving her rants in German.

Hopefully she will address all those soldiers in Germany, who Cindy claimed last April are taken there to die to lower the Iraq casualty list:

People tell you 1,524 American soldiers [have died]. But that is only the soldiers who die in country. If they get one foot on the helicopter, or they die at Walter Reed, or Wiesbaden, Germany–they’re not counted. The low estimate for our own losses is 4,000.

Ace of Spades blogged Call me old-fashioned, but I'm not sure if the right to free speech embraces inciting foreign nations against us. I thought free speech was supposed to enable Americans to persuade other Americans of the soundness of their position, not to encourage foreign powers to act against our democratically-decided policies. If she wants to protest the war in Iraq, shouldn't she, like, go to Iraq? Just sayin'.

Anchoress blogged Is this, finally, treason? Treason is a strong word. Read what Mrs. Sheehan is up to. Is it? I don’t know. Someone must.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraqis Hold Unity Protests

Gateway Pundit blogged
After a brutal week, Iraqis united on Friday:

• Iraq's most influential Shiite political leader called Friday for Sunni-Shiite unity.
• Several joint Sunni-Shiite prayer services were announced for Friday
• Top Shiite leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, blamed Saddam Hussein loyalists and followers of al-Qaida in Iraq boss Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
• U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said this was a "moment of opportunity" for Iraq.

Thanks to ABC News for this story, but why isn't the rest of the MSM announcing it?

Read More...

Summary only...

Big Problem With Google Pages

Ken Schafer blogged A few hours ago Google launched Google Pages.

And they were so snowed by people wanting to try it out they had to stop taking new users, and it is now on a waiting list.

If you have a Gmail account you can create your own web site on Google using a very nifty AJAX interface. The application itself is great, although the standard templates leave something to be desired.

Some of the nicest features:

• An “undo” button
• Ability to add images, links and pages easily
• Testing links while in edit mode
• 100MB of storage
• Simple, memorable URL

You should really try it out. But you might want to think twice before you hit “publish”. See that last feature (simple memorable URLs) is also the greatest weakness of Google Pages and I think it is going to cause a huge headache for Gmail users. And a potential PR nightmare for Google. Why?

When you hit publish your site goes live at username.googlepages.com.

Nothing wrong with that. In fact it looks like a feature - if you can remember your Gmail address you can remember your “Gpages” address.

It is not a bug. It is a "feature"

The problem is it is now trivial to reverse engineer your Gmail e-mail address. If you see a Google Pages site and want to e-mail the author - just replace googlepages.com with gmail.com.

I was all set to tell my kids and my 85 year-old mother (all Gmail users) that they could now post a web page or two super easy, but I’m not going to. I’ve worked very hard to make sure they’re addresses are not easy to find online and with one click of the publish button Google will make their e-mail addresses available to every stalker, sexual predator, phisher, and spammer out there!

I suggest you tell those non-technical users you know and care about that they should NOT use Gpages at this time. Right now I’d have to say that Gpages users are just setting themselves up for a whole heap of spam if they decide to post a site.

How long will it take spammers to get Gmail harvesters out in droves searching for URLs that can be converted into valid Gmail addresses?

(Note, if you already published a Googlepages site and are now worried about having exposed your personal information to the world, there is an “unpublish” option that you can use to take down the page.)

That sounds like a good idea.

I hate to say this but shame on Google for not seeing taht the bad guys could abuse this new service so easily. Given all the flack they’ve received about Blogger becoming a haven for spammers you would think they’d have learned to build some level of secure thinking into new products from the get-go.

Read More...

Summary only...

Turks attack Michelle

Michelle Malkin's site (which posted the Islamic cartoons) was the victim of a DoS (Denyal of Service) attack, with most of the IP addresses belonging to TurkTelecom. Tech people say the attack is shifting to different source addresses. Loading is spotty and slow. Big headache, but she is working on a more permanent solution. FYI, she will be cross-posting over at Pajamas Media.

I hope the nutcases don't attack PM as well.

Richard Stiennon at Threat Chaos notes:

Don't forget that the Webroot spy audit finds the highest occurrences of Trojan horses in Turkey indicating a lot of bot armies that are typically employed in this type of attack. (Yes folks, the greatest infection rate of Trojan horses is in....Troy!)

La Shawn Barber blogged When people have no argument, no leg to stand on, and severely limited reasoning ability, the impulse is to attack personally and peripherally. I’ve been and will continue to be the target of similar irrational impulses. Dissenters and haters won’t silence Michelle, they won’t silence me, and I hope you won’t let them silence you!

This is sheer stupidity. I don't like it when people make fun of my religion (Christianity), but I don't burn down embassies or even launch DoS attacks.

Read More...

Summary only...

Control of ports

Clark Kent Ervin editorialized in NYT could have imagined that, in the post-9/11 world, the United States government would approve a deal giving control over six major American ports to a country with ties to terrorism? But this is exactly what the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has done.

The committee is not secretive; financial newspapers reported this back in November, and no one raised any concerns. I don't know whether it is a good idea or not. I do believe that the Bush administration should delay it for the allowed for 45 day review period, but at the end of that period it might well be that it will turn out to be a reasonable idea. The purchasing company has already made concessions in the area of security, and they may make others during the 45 day review.

Since 1999, the ports of New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia and other cities have been operated by a British concern, P & O Ports, which has now been bought by Dubai Ports World, a company controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates. Defenders of the deal are claiming that critics, including the Republican and Democratic leaderships in Congress, are acting reflexively out of some bias against Arabs.

This is simply not true. While the United Arab Emirates is deemed by the Bush administration to be an ally in the war on terrorism, we should all have deep concerns about its links to terrorists. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of the emirates, and some of the money for the attacks came from there. It was one of only three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban regime. And Dubai was an important transshipment point for the smuggling network of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who supplied Libya, Iran and North Korea with equipment for making nuclear weapons.

That is true, however all of that was before 9/11. As Bush is fond of saying 9/11 changed everything, and since 9/11 the UAE has become one of our best allies in the War on Terrorism, and many US Navy ships have docked at the Dubai port.

Most terrorism experts agree that the likeliest way for a weapon of mass destruction to be smuggled into our country would be through a port. After all, some 95 percent of all goods from abroad arrive in the United States by sea, and yet only about 6 percent of incoming cargo containers are inspected for security threats.

Inspecting them in the US will do no good. Suppose a nuclear bomb is placed in a container. If it detonates when the container is opened for inspection, it will do almost as much damage as if the container is taken elsewhere for it to detonate. That is why most of the inspection is done overseas. If the Dubai Ports World wanted to help terrorists send a nuclear bomb in a container, we need to worry about it being loaded in Dubai, not unloaded in the US.

It is true that at the ports run by the Dubai company, Customs officers would continue to do any inspection of cargo containers and the Coast Guard would remain "in charge" of port security. But, again, very few cargo inspections are conducted. And the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading.

Michelle Malkin has some interesting ideas on the other side of the argument.

Read More...

Summary only...