A Question for Pandagonians

If you want to blame immigration restrictionists for crimes like this, when will you and your "anti-white-privilege" crowd take responsibility for the vast number of black-on-white prison rapes or the Knoxville atrocity?

I commented on the thread, but it got moderated out, which proves that Pandagon isn't anti-racist, it's just anti-white.

That is all.

No, We Don't All Have the Same Values

Fatwa in Egypt allows, or perhaps even encourages, women to breast-feed their male colleagues at work. Apparently it is supposed to de-sexualize the relationship.

Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Evil HR Lady and to whomever I got the link to her from (I forget who it was, but I thought it was a feminist blog of some sort).

That is all.

Meanwhile, in Iraq...

Hostile coalition deaths are more than 100 for the second month in a row - a first since this war began.

That is all.

Daniel Larison on Presidential Code-Phrases

Not much I can add.

That is all.

Andrew Sullivan's Theory on the Leak on Covert Operations Against Iran

Perhaps Cheney or his people did it to try and scuttle the attempt so that they could force a more - er - aggressive policy.

Which is similar to some of my own thoughts regarding the leak, at least in brinigng up the possibility that the goal of the leak was to produce bad will against the U.S. by Iran and force a more aggressive policy.

That is all.

Euphemisms (Updated!)

Is anyone else tired of the way that Sean Hannity and his ilk always talk about "funding the troops" but never about "funding the war," as if the funding was all about being nice to our servicemen and servicewomen rather than about prolonging the Iraqi occupation?

Update: more on this at Unqualified Offerings.

That is all.

D'OH!

And another comforting myth about Mexican immigration dies screaming.

That is all.

"Mandolin" is Being Quite Disingenuous

Over at Alas, a writer called "Mandolin" points out that "words are not weapons."

In this context, she is arguing against the metaphorical comparison of criticism to physical attacks. That is, when someone refers to a person criticizing their ideas as "attacking them."

In this case, she is specifically referring to people who disagree with feminism or "anti-racism" who get thin-skinned whenever someone calls them racist or sexist.

Fair enough.

But if she is really concerned about people blowing statements and words out of porportion, she should look in the mirror.

In a previous thread, there was a debate about whether or not anti-discrimination laws harmed people. Unless there were some nasty comments posted that were deleted (and if ther were, please someone tell me and I will revise this post), all of the responses by those who were against (or at least not entirely in favor of) anti-discrimination laws were polite, well-thought-out, and contained no derision or criticism of the groups in question.

And yet, Mandolin implies that anyone who doesn't think that the government should force people to rent to gay people or to employ them do not believe that gay people are human. Moreover, she and other posters call even the discussion of this "hateful."

"Hateful?" Debating whether or not landlords and business owners should have the right to determine who they hire, fire, or rent to is hateful?

And she is criticizing other people for being overly sensitive?

What a hypocrite!

(Oh, and by the way, don't comment on the first thread I mentioned. It has Alas's traditional "losers only" comment rules).

That is all.

Thought for the Day

Laura Ingaham was upset earlier today that someone from intelligence had leaked this story about covert efforts by the U.S. to destabilize the Iranian regime. She said that the leaker should be caught, or something ot that effect, with the implication that he or she would be prosecuted.

My thoughts:

How do we know that the leaker is someone who is against the policy? This leak could be an attempt to destroy any possibility of diplomacy with Iran, by saying "we'll be coming for you whatever we tell you, so you can't trust us, so don't bother talking with us." In fact, this leak could have been authorized by the administration exactly for this purpose.

That is all.

The Essence of McCain

Lawrence Auster on the man who was touted in 2000 as having so much "integrity:"

McCain wants to abolish politics, so that the elite who know what’s best for us can administer our society and our lives for us.

Of course, we already knew all that about McCain. What is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, but a major step toward turning America into a Europe-type country where democratic elections are a mere formality administered by the state, and unaccountable bureaucratic elites are the real rulers?

I think that sums it up nicely.

That is all.

Cloture Happens

Rats.

Well, on to the barricades, then. Call your Senator and tell him or her to vote against the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill!

That is all. For now.

Fox News' Priorities

We are facing an immigration amnesty that could fundamentally change or destroy our country, and it is not one of the top three stories on Fox News' website. But "Dems Waving White Flag" (i.e. Democrats willing to give in more to Bush to fund Iraq War) is right up there.

Lower down, still no mention.

Oh, but they do mention that Israel celebrates its 59th birthday.

It's nice to know how highly those who run the Fox News website prioritize the direct interests of the U.S.

That is all.

A Plea

Please call your Senators and tell them to oppose S. 1348, the Kennedy-Bush immigration plan (aka "the Kennedy-Bush amnesty plan").

The number for the Senate switchboard is 202-224-3121.

You can also find the numbers of your Senators and Congressmen by clicking on this link (listed alphabetically by last name).

It doesn't hurt to pre-emptively call your (House of Representatives) Congressmen as well, and tell them to oppose whatever the House version of the bill is if S. 1348 passes.

That is all.

Nicholas Stix on the Knoxville Murders

The crime and the cover-up.

Thoughts:

I heard on Michael Savage's show yesterday that some professor of journalism had said that the Knoxville case was not newsworthy because it had "no catch" (or something to that effect). He admitted that a similar white-on-black crime would, because it would be so rare.

Actually, that is fair enough, in my opinion. I don't mind white-on-black crime getting more media attention, just as female statutory rapist teachers get more attention than male ones.

The problem, however, is that this is not how the disproportionate coverage is played in the media. Whenever there is a report of a white-on-black crime, we are told to believe that it typifies race relations in the U.S. and that "white privilege" and racism are to blame. The Duke Rape Accusations were not portrayed as "man bites dog." At least with the ephebophilic female teachers, there was some acknowledgment that these don't look like typical victimizers.


Also, Rachel S., at that bastion of everything dedicated to bringing down western society, Alas, says that:

It is also ridiculous to assume that this makes “homosexuals have more rights than others.” Why? Because the legislation targets all crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Crimes against heterosexuals (and men), however rare they are, would also be covered. The identity of the perpetrator is also irrelevant. LGBT folks could commite hate crimes against other LGBT folks and be prosecuted for hate crimes, and the same could be said for men and heterosexuals.

Well, it appears in the Knowville case that there is a strong prejudice against charging blacks with racial hate crimes. So whatever the law says in theory, want to bet that a gay-on-straight hate crime will be similarly "de-hatified?"

That is all.

Ron Paul Climbing in New Hampshire Polls

He's not doing too well, but he is doing better:

In January he was at 1%, in April 2%, and now he is at 3%.

That is all.

Glaivester Endorses Ron Paul

For the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination.

That is all for now.

Daniel Larison Gets It.

Interventionism, Islam and jihad.

That is all.

We Shouldn't Stop Polluting

I mean, the real issue is what to do about the pollutants that are already in our air, water, and soil. Any plan for reducing current and future pollution (i.e. reducing auto emissions, reducing industrial waste) that does not explain what to do about pollutants that are already here is worthless and should be rejected. We cannot worry about reducing our current and future pollution unless we simultaneously deal with the pollutants that are already in the air, water and soil.

Sounds silly, right? Then why do we accept this argument when it comes to illegal immigration?

That is all.

Thoughts on Immigration

The immigration issue really comes down to three elements:

(1) Objectives. Whom do we want to let into in our country and whom do we want to keep out? For those already here but without permanent status (i.e. permanent resident alien or citizen), whom do we want to let stay in our country and whom do we want to keep out?

(2) Enforcement. How do we enforce this? That is, how do we keep the people out whom we want to keep out and how do we get rid of them if they get in anyway (or are already in).

(3) Documentation. For those whom we want to let in, how do we keep track of them and their status? This is important for making certain that those who are here temporarily leave when their time is up, for making certain that there is a clear path for permanent residence and/or citizenship for those whom we wish to add to our country, and for making certain that those who are here temporarily but indefinitely (e.g. those who need to get their status renewed) get processed in a timely manner.

The problem with guest-worker programs and the like is that they are based mainly on the notion that documentation is the only problem. That is also why "undocumented worker" is not an appropriate term for an illegal alien. It implies that they simply did not obey the technicalities of coming here. It ignores the fact that there are reasons why we don't let everyone in who wants to come in.

Enforcement is a necessity. Unless you want to let absolutely everyone who wants to come in in, you have to be able to stop people from coming in using non-official channels. If someone wants to come in for nefarious reasons (drug runners or terrorists or other assorted criminals), a guest-worker program designed to get people who would otherwise come in illegally "in the system" will not get them into the system, because their interests in coming here are themselves outside the system. Without some way to keep them out, they will come in illegally, guest-worker program or no.

But really, the primary issue (and the one no one wants to discuss) is objectives.

Whom do we let in (let stay) and whom do we keep out (kick out)? Until we address that issue, we cannot have true immigration reform.

That is all.

Liberal "Tolerance"

According to the tolerant feminists at Feministe, Jerry Falwell should burn in Hell, presumably for the mortal sin of not celebrating whenever a man b---f---s his boyfriend.

That is all.

More From Penraker

Tancredo - Find someone who is hard on immigration and back them. You are a legitimate single issue candidate. Immigration is not being talked about enough. But a single issue candidate is a sideshow, not a serious candidate.

But is there such a candidate among those who "have a chanve to win?" Or do you just want to forget this issue so you can concentrate entirely on killing as many Arabs as possible?

That is all.

Penraker the Moron

The old neocon on Ron Paul:

[Ron Paul should] go to his real home, the Democrat nutball wing.

Paul is obviously not a Democrat. If Penrkaer wants to call him an extemist libertarian, fine. But the fact he dislikes the war and thinks that our foreign policies in part aggravated the situation in the Mideast does not make him a liberal.

No Democrat would have argued for abolishing the IRS, as Paul has done. Nor would he argue to eliminate the Departments of Education of Energy.

AmConMag understands Penraker's ilk.

That is all.

Sorry About Light Posting

Lots of work, and then a four-day vacation without computer access.

I'll try to get something up tomorrow (technically today, as it is now 1 in the morning).

That is all.

Spider-Man 3

Eh, not terrible, but the movie didn't really work in terms of providing a complete story.

If you read the novelization, it will make more sense, but there are a ton of major unanswered questions.

The major problem, of course, was trying to tie in 3 or 4 separate plots.

The Sandman role was made too sympathetic as well.

On the other hand, I think it was well-acted. Whatever problems were there were due to the script, not to the actors.

That is all.

Thoughts on the Debate

I saw part of it, and will see the rest of it later as I have videotaped it.

I think that in many ways, Ron Paul probably got the most out of the debate, for two reasons:

(1) He is a virtual unknown, so publicity automatically is a good thing for him. Everyone (at least everyone likely to vote in the primary) knows McCAin and Giuliani, and to a lesser extent Romney, so seeing their face and discovering that they exist is not a benefit for them. Paul on the other hand is going to get some recognition from the debate, which can only be a good thing for him.

(2) As the only anti-war Republican candidate, he can probably get most of the protest vote by GOP voters unsatisfied with the war. If someone who was perceived as anti-war (whether being so or not) but who was better known and considered more moderate - like Chuck Hagel - were running, Paul would probably be stuck at 1-2% with most antiwar GOPers voting for the "more moderate" candidate. But as it is, if you are GOP, wish to vote in the primary, and don't like the war, you have one option. Granted, this may only be 10-30% of the vote, but it's enough to keep him in the race and to get him some notoriety.

Tom Tancredo may have gotten a boost - I will have to listen more carefully to the immigration questions asked. But as at least some of the other candidates want to appear to be tough on immigration, he will have a harder time standing out, at least for now.

The best answers of the debate were when Tancredo pointed out that mandatory spending (entitlements) rather than discretionary spending was the elephant in the room, and when Paul pointed out that inflation was a tax. Both of them touched on things that otherwise would not have been mentioned.

That is all.

Linda Chavez Gets it Wrong

One has to wonder whether or not Linda Chavez even understands what she is talking about in this article about Iraq.

Her essential question is a fair one in some ways: how to "hasten the war's end without also undermining American troops."

But here is where she begins to go astray:

If Democrats insist on tying the military's hands in executing the war — even if they drop actual pull-out timetables — they will undermine the troops' safety.

Now, if she were talking about the idea that we ought to be more brutal, like those who wished to flatten Fallujah the minute they burned our mercenaries, well, that may be a morally bad idea, but at least it would make sense. But the idea that timetables or benchmarks should be thought of as "tying our troops hands," is ridiculous.

This reminds me of Mike Gallagher bitterly telling some Congressman or Senator that if he didn't want to see more deaths of U.S. troops, he should give them the funding they need. Considering the actual issue at stake here - continuing vs. not continuing the war - and considering that there is scant evidence that previous massive funding has reduced the danger for the soldiers or caused them to get what they need, it didn't make a lot of sense.

Then she starts insisting that the civil war in Iraq is actually a proxy war between Al Qaeda and Iran. I don't agree with the implication of this that if we got rid of Iran and Al Qaeda that the Shiites and Sunnis would calm down, but at least she does acknowledge later on that the Iraqis themselves are part of the problem on this front.

This statement, of course, reveals the true heart of the war party:

If the Democrats want to be effective in changing conditions on the ground in Iraq, they should explore ways to pressure the Iraqi government to resolve its internal differences — and punish others, including Iran, if they continue to interfere.

Ah, we ought to expand the conflict. So the Democrats should act like the more extreme elements of the Republican Party. Good to know.

So what does she think we can do to punish Iraq if its leaders don't get along the way we want and start solving problems?

f Iraqis, for example, cannot come up with a way to share their oil wealth among different regions and sectarian groups, we shouldn't continue to pour money into rebuilding their infrastructure. If they can't rein in corruption and graft, why should we foot the bill?

Yes, this would be a threat. Because as everyone knows, American-funded Iraqi reconstruction has been so successful that withdrawing it is our biggest card to play. And if things do getworse, the Iraqis will blame the politicians, causing the politicians to do what we want to get the funding - there is no way the Iraqis will blame us and redouble the effort to kill our troops.

That is all.

Thoughts on Gays and the Military

Whenever people bring up the stock concerns about allowing homosexuals to actively serve in the military, the usual response is "they said similar things about racisl integration, and look how wrong they were!"

On the other hand, people also expressed concerns about the integration of females into the military (a much more comparable situation), and they were largely correct.

Of course, most people would assume that the fears there were irrational and that like the fears of racial integration, proved to be wildly overblown.

Of course, that is largely because the media mostly ignored stories that put sexual integration into a bad light, or at least ignored the sexual integration aspect of it, as noted by Steve Sailer:

However, democracy requires an active press. When the news media self-censors news stories about the downsides to lowering standards to accommodate women, we have less democracy and more mediacracy. The power of working women in newsrooms lead to a major coverup of news stories about, say, the problems caused by the sexual integration of the military: e.g., plane crashes, kinder-gentler boot camps, rampant pregnancies, the state of naval wives whose husbands come back from long cruises on co-ed ships the father of some seawoman's new baby, etc.

For at least the first half of the 90's these kind of stories were only regularly available in the Moonie-funded Washington Times.

That is all.

Sexy Filipino Cheerleader

A new post up on Rankine 911 linking to a video of a hot Filipino cheerleader jumping around and cheering.

That is all.

The Inflation Tax

Ron Paul's candidacy was worth it if all we got out of it was that statement from him at the debate that inflation is a tax created by the government printing money (or the electronic banking equivalent).

For someone to actually say that outside of a discussion at an obscure and fringe internet site is a major forward in our discourse.

That is all.

Republican Presidential Debates

I know they will be tomorrow (Thursday May 3) but I can't find anything telling me what time.

Does anyone know what time they will be on, and why doesn't MSNBC have it posted on their front page? What kinbd of morons are they?

(Update: Wikipedia says 8-9:30 pm)

That is all.

Thoughts on Ethnic Tensions

This post by Daniel Larison got me thinking.

I recall there eing some concern about Iraq's ethnic fractiousness prior to the invasion. It may not have been a big concern by a lkot of people, but it worried me.

So any claims that Iraq's ethnic diversity has not contributed to the civil warrish aspects of the current conflict are, in my opinion, rather suspect. Likewise, claims that the ethnic conflict is a non-factor that pro-warriors made up as an excuse for why the war was going badly I find similarly unpersuasive. Finally, any claim that the intra-Iraqi conflict in Iraq is simple two-sided, whether it be terrorists against freedom-loving Iraqis, or patriotic Iraqis against collaborators is, in my opinion, simply an attempt to overdmplify for the sake of the appearance of moral clarity.

Nonetheless, I do not think that Sunnis and Shiites, even in Iraq, are necessarily destined to be at each others' throats and in an eternal struggle against one another.

Rather, the issue simply is that you have three major factions (Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs, and Kurds) and a host of smaller ones, all of whom have different goals and all of whom view their sectarian allegiances as more important than their allegiance to the central government - not just in an abstract moral sense, but in a political sense as well (as a counterexample, most Americans would probably not feel so much loyalty to a church that was actively trying to overthrow the government that they would not report the church to the authorities).

?This makes it difficult to get the people to govern themselves as a single unit. A dictator can impose order, but without some form of strong central authority keeping things together, the different factions get violent with one another simply because they have competing ideas that are incompatible. (And of course in the last twenty years at least there has been a lot of ethnic tension developed because of the political arrangements, with an ethnically Sunni Arab dictator lording it over everyone).

Merging Canada with the U.S., for example, would cause a lot of conflict due to very different ideas of government between the two nations. It's not that we are in conflict with one another; it's that our goals as nations are different. For the most obvious examples, look at gun control and state-provided health care.

So in my minds ethnic strife was inevitable the minute a power vacuum in Iraq occurred, whetehr or not the ethnicities had a long history of conflict.

That is all.

David Gaubatz and the Magical Vanishing WMDs

Melanie Phillips recently posted an article repeating claims by Dave Gaubatz that he had found uranium enrichment sites in Iraq. Supposedly Bush let these sites be looted by mistake, which is why he is covering it up, although it would vindicate the WMD case for war.

Phillips blogs about it here.

Unqualified Offerings has posts here and here about it, as do a handful of others, including Julian Sanchez and Lawrence Auster.

There are a lot of reasons to doubt this story and to think that Gaubatz is loony (click on the first link to an Unqualified Offerings post and they provide a bunch of links showing this), but on the whole the most notable thing about this claim, in my opinion, is that it isn't really new. Three years ago, Michael Ledeen claimed that he had contacts who had discovered Saddam's WMDs and could confirm that they had been moved to Iran and that the CIA refused to investigate.

So this isn't even a new conspiracy theory.

(To be fair, I have not seen this mentioned much in the mainstream media, nor have I found more than a smattering of commentary on this topic by pro-war pundits, so it would be unfair to assume that this elaborate conspiracy theory represents the beliefs of the majority of pro-warriors).

That is all.

Why Libertarian Open-Bordersism Makes No Sense

I think that ReticentMan, a commenter on the ISteve archives, explains it best:

I think that no government interference is default the best option for the welfare of US citizens, unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. Not importing massive amounts of communist poor to ruin one of the only countries in the world that is even within a shouting distance of a libertarian ideal is quite a compelling reason.

That is all.