swelling
protest over alleged election fraud in iraq
“a group of the aggrieved have started protests, styled after the
ukrainian and lebanese, apparently a couple of hundred thousand marching
in baghdad.”
My impression is that iraqthemodel
becoming the best source on this. These problems appear to be mostly limited
to the Sunnis and Sunni areas.
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#iraq_elections_311205 |
advertising
disclaimer
advertising
disclaimer
advertising
disclaimer |
ukraine
- useful background reports
The usual fossil media thoughtless hype-machine is in action yet again.
Here are two reports that may help at least some to keep an open mind and
some balance regarding Ukraine, Russia and gas supplies.
ISN
Security Watch
Ukrayinska
Pravda
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#ukraine_301205 |
on
proposed french p2p law [technology]
It’s good to be able to agree with a socialist, even
if it’s a frog socialist.
The idea that you can stop this peer-to-peer activity is
ludicrous. It is also an attack on freedom of information, mainly being driven
by a few large corporations - such is the price of greed.
If it isn’t France, it would be another of
about 200 countries, and then another. Whoever leads will gain market advantages.
“We are only leading in a direction that is inevitable for the law
everywhere," said Christian Paul, a Socialist deputy who was also a
co-author of the amendments. "You will see other European nations adopting
such laws in the future because they just make sense."
“Artists currently get no money from peer-to-peer sharing, and with
this fee at least they would get some," said Aziz Ridouan, a 17-year
old high school student who has fought for Internet rights as president
of the Association of Audiosurfers. "If the government and industry
attack downloaders aggressively, we will just go underground with encryption
and all chance of revenue will be lost." ”
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#p2p_france_271205 |
media bias calculated [62-page .pdf]
“[...] for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s
campaign, another 93 contributed to Kerry’s campaign.” [page
4]
Look to the end of the .pdf document for tables of scores
for some think tanks, senators and media outlets. 50 is intentionally average
with higher numbers being left-wing and lower numbers being right-wing.
The USA is generally more right-wing than is Europe, therefore
the average would fall above 50 in Europe.
From
the abstract to the report:
“Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as "Is the
average article in the New York Times more liberal
than the average speech by Tom Daschle?" or "Is the average story
on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?"
”
—
“Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except
Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the
left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative
critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left
of center. Outlets such as USA Today, NPR's Morning Edition, NBC's Nightly
News and ABC's World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist
outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim
Lehrer, CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America.
Fox News' Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center
than any of the three major networks' evening news broadcasts. All of our
findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets.”
Note:
Liberal means left-wing or socialist in the USA.
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#media_bias_251205 |
krauthammer
on torture
Well structured item on the necessity of torture in difficult
situations, from Charles Krauthammer.
There is one minor error: the idea of ‘torture-lite’,
which I regard as deeply irrational.
Either you intend to ‘squeeze’ the source,
or you do not. If you do not, you should never start. If you do intend to
start, then you can put no limits on the lengths to which you will go. To
pretend otherwise is yet another attempt to wear ethical gloves in place of
taking real responsibility.
This factor is ethically and pragmatically central to whether
you start. If you put limits, the objects of torture will quickly adapt to
how far they will need to hold out.
The seeking of perfection and rules in human life
can never be more than some forlorn distant illusion.
“And even if the example I gave were entirely hypothetical, the conclusion--yes,
in this case even torture is permissible--is telling because it establishes
the principle: Torture is not always impermissible. However rare the cases,
there are circumstances in which, by any rational moral calculus, torture
not only would be permissible but would be required (to acquire life-saving
information). And once you've established the principle, to paraphrase George
Bernard Shaw, all that's left to haggle about is the price. In the case
of torture, that means that the argument is not whether torture is ever
permissible, but when--i.e., under what obviously stringent circumstances:
how big, how imminent, how preventable the ticking time bomb.”
—
“ Such a determination would not be made with an untroubled conscience.
It would be troubled because there is no denying the monstrous evil that
is any form of torture. And there is no denying how corrupting it can be
to the individuals and society that practice it. But elected leaders, responsible
above all for the protection of their citizens, have the obligation to tolerate
their own sleepless nights by doing what is necessary--and only what is
necessary, nothing more--to get information that could prevent mass murder.
“GIVEN THE GRAVITY OF THE DECISION, if we indeed cross the Rubicon--as
we must--we need rules. The problem with the McCain amendment is that once
you have gone public with a blanket ban on all forms of coercion, it is
going to be very difficult to publicly carve out exceptions. The Bush administration
is to be faulted for having attempted such a codification with the kind
of secrecy, lack of coherence, and lack of strict enforcement that led us
to the McCain reaction.”
Other
lighter, straight-talking items from Krauthammer may be found here.
- For instance:
on
the lunatic in Iran
- “So a Holocaust-denying, virulently anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist,
on the verge of acquiring weapons of the apocalypse [Ahmadinejad], believes
that the end is not only near but nearer than the next American presidential
election. (Pity the Democrats. They cannot catch a break.) This kind of
man would have, to put it gently, less inhibition about starting Armageddon
than a normal person [...].”
- on
‘intelligent design’
- “ [...] when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge
-- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a ``theory''
that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as
the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary
changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this
world of constant and accumulating change and says, ``I think I'll make
me a lemur today. [...] ”
- on
foolish US oil behaviour
- “Yet for three decades we have done criminally little about it.
Conservatives argued for more production, liberals argued for more conservation,
and each side blocked the other's remedies -- when even a child can see
that we need both.”
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#tortchah_241205 |
bush
latest speech themes
“So, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorized
the interception of international communications of people with known links
to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. This program is carefully
reviewed approximately every 45 days to ensure it is being used properly.
Leaders in the United States Congress have been briefed more than a dozen
times on this program. And it has been effective in disrupting the enemy,
while safeguarding our civil liberties.
“This program has targeted those with known links to al Qaeda.
“I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September
the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as our nation is --
for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants
to kill American citizens.”
—
“ As we fight the war on terror, we'll also continue to work to build
prosperity for our citizens. Because we cut taxes and restrained non-security
spending, our economy is strong and it is getting stronger. We added 215,000
new jobs in November. We've added nearly 4.5 million new jobs since May
of 2003. The unemployment rate is down to 5 percent, lower than the average
of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Despite hurricanes and high gas prices, third
quarter growth was 4.3 percent. More Americans own their own homes than
at any time in our history. Inflation is low, productivity is high and consumer
confidence is up. We're heading into a new year with an economy that is
the envy of the world, and we have every reason to be optimistic about our
economic future.”
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#bush_201205 |
updated
and extended: how
politics really works, the patriot act as an example
by
guest writer, the auroran sunset
I have never taken much interest in the Patriot Act, or in the hysteria
that pervades most discussion of that law. I have a great deal of faith in
America’s ability to reform itself if necessary; I have little sympathy
with most campaigners’ fundamentalist attitudes toward civil rights;
and more importantly, I tend to tune out the moonbats of this world: they
may talk sense once in a green sun, but who has the time or energy to discover
those supposed gems?
Yesterday, my head told me that now is the time to do a bit of work, which
I started by reading this fascinating floor
speech by Democratic Senator Feingold. Feingold was the coauthor (with
Republican Senator McCain) of the recent campaign finance reform laws that
have had a number of presumably unintended negative
consequences. These consequences are often overplayed by the fundamentalist
wing of the Republican Party in order to damage McCain and Feingold: both
fairly moderate possible contenders for their respective party’s nomination.
Feingold gives the impression of being a well-meaning idealist specialising
in anti-corruption and civil liberties law; like most well-meaning idealists,
he has a tendency to not to take the real world into account when trying out
his brilliant ideas.
Feingold’s speech has much detail on the congressional political process
and on problems with the patriot act. First on the political process:
“Mr. President, because I was the only Senator to vote against the
Patriot Act in 2001, I want to be very clear from the start. I am not opposed
to reauthorization of the Patriot Act. I supported the bipartisan, compromise
reauthorization bill that the Senate passed earlier this year without a
single Senator objecting. I believe that bill should become law. The Senate
reauthorization bill is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. If that
were the bill we were considering today, I would be here on the floor speaking
in support of it. In fact, we could have reauthorized the Patriot Act months
ago if the House had taken up the bill that the Senate approved without
any objections.
“I also want to respond to those who argue that people who are demanding
a better conference report want to let the Patriot Act expire. That is nonsense.
Not a single member of this body is calling for any provision of the Patriot
Act to expire. As Senator Sununu eloquently argued yesterday, just because
we are coming up against the end of the year does not mean we should have
to compromise the rights of law-abiding Americans. There are any number
of ways that we can get this done and get it done right before the end of
the year.
“Let me also be clear about how we ended up voting on a badly flawed
conference report just days before certain provisions of the Patriot Act
expire. The only reason that we are debating this conference report in the
middle of December, rather than the middle of September or October, is because
the House refused to appoint its conferees for three and a half months.
It passed its reauthorization bill on July 21, but didn’t appoint
conferees until November 9. In the Senate, on the other hand, we passed
a bill by unanimous consent on July 29 and appointed conferees the very
same day. We were ready and willing to start the process of resolving our
differences with the House right away, leaving plenty of time to get this
done without the pressure of the end of the year deadline.”
Next, on the contended section 215:
“Section 215 is at the center of this debate over the Patriot Act.
It is also one of the provisions that I tried unsuccessfully to amend here
on this floor in October 2001. So it makes sense to start my discussion
of the specific problems I have with the conference report with the infamous
“library” provision.
“Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain
secret court orders in domestic intelligence investigations to get all kinds
of business records about people, including not just library records, but
also medical records and various other types of business records. The Patriot
Act allowed the government to obtain these records as long as they were
"sought for" a terrorism investigation. That’s a very low
standard. It didn’t require that the records concern someone who was
suspected of being a terrorist or spy, or even suspected of being connected
to a terrorist or spy. It didn’t require any demonstration of how
the records would be useful in the investigation. Under Section 215, if
the government simply said it wanted records for a terrorism investigation
the secret FISA court was required to issue the order -- period. To make
matters worse, recipients of these orders are also subject to an automatic
gag order. They cannot tell anyone that they have been asked for records.
“Now some in the Administration, and even in this body, took the
position that people shouldn’t be able to criticize these provisions
until they could come up with a specific example of “abuse.”
The Attorney General makes that same argument today in an op-ed in the Washington
Post when he dismisses concerns about the Patriot Act by saying that “[t]here
have been no verified civil liberties abuses in the four years of the act's
existence.” That has always struck me as a strange argument since
215 orders are issued by a secret court and people who receive them are
prohibited by law from discussing them. In other words, the law is designed
so that it’s almost impossible to know if abuses have occurred. [...]
“The Senate bill also would give recipients of a 215 order an explicit,
meaningful right to challenge business record orders and the accompanying
gag orders in court. These provisions passed the Senate Judiciary Committee
unanimously after tough negotiations late into the night.
“The conference report did away with this delicate compromise.”
I cannot yet be bothered to read the Patriot Act and I doubt that most, if
any, of the vocal commentators on either side have. However, my understanding
now is that the Patriot Act is in most parts mostly harmless, and in fact
could be considered necessary. Only small parts of the act have sunset clauses
set to expire soon and those are the parts currently under debate. In fact,
the extension of those parts was rejected
yesterday:
“The 52-47 roll call by which the Senate voted to reject reauthorization
of several provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Sixty votes were needed to
overcome a filibuster of the bill.” [There is a role call list for
the vote at the last link.]
Not all of the problematic parts of the Patriot Act have sunset clauses expiring
on December 31st 2005. Not all of the parts with relevant sunset clauses are
problematic: some apparently increase the protections from intrusion. As Volokh
[a fundie wing Republican lawyer, who is fairly interesting and reasonable
on non-fundie agenda-related matters of law and civil rights] comments:
“For those of us who think of the Patriot Act as actual legislation
rather than a symbol of the Bush Administration, this is rather puzzling
stuff. The dirty little secret about the Patriot Act is that only about
3% of the Act is controversial, and only about a third of that 3% is going
to expire on December 31st. Further, much of the reauthorization actually
puts new limits on a number of the controversial non-sunsetting provisions,
and some of the sunsetting provisions increased privacy protections. As
a result, it's not immediately obvious to me whether we'll have greater
civil liberties on January 1, 2006 if the Patriot Act is reauthorized or
if it is allowed to expire. (To be fair, though, I'd have to run through
the effect of every expiring section and all of the reauthorization language
to check this - maybe I would feel differently if I did.)”
A large part of the problems arising in these debates is caused by the inability
to vote selectively. The senators are presented with a mammoth collection
of laws, the parts of which are often not even vaguely related to each other,
some good, some bad, some indifferent, and every other shade between. Assuming
the bill gets to a vote - the majority do not - the politicians must vote
yes or no for the collection.
In the case of the Patriot Act, the bureaucrats ever attempt to add items
from their wishlists, items that are invariably not good for liberty. Despite
the constant invocation of “terrorism” on the right, the Patriot
Act is in reality more aimed at the idiotic “war on drugs”. Despite
the constant invocation of civil liberties on the left, the Patriot Act is
mostly neutral on civil liberties: all of Feingold’s complaints are
in the end related to government attempts to avoid oversight, rather than
directly to the at least plausibly necessary created/extended exceptions to
various rights. On the moonbat left, the Patriot Act performs rather as a
useful Bush-bashing tool, useful because the complaints at least sound reasonable or plausible.
“I
voted for that bill because of this orphanage for the children. Of course,
I don’t like this billion dollar grant to my friends at Corruption Inc.
to barcode and track every baby. However, in the end we must think of the
children.” Or: “of course I support the troops and I greatly regret
being forced - by this part that would close one library in my district - to
vote against this bill to fund buying body armour.” This system of non-specific voting has great advantages for a dishonest or
corrupt politician: it gives the weasels a strong degree of deniability.
The politician can always disclaim responsibility, because their vote is
for a diverse package, rather than for a specific one. Similarly with pork-busting attempts, you cannot vote against someone’s pork
because at the same time you will probably be voting against your own pork, or against something “important”.
Most of the pork bills are huge
messy compromises, designed to make sure that nobody gets left out, all inserted
into something else that could be reasonably considered important. Thus all
can and do claim that they were not voting for the pork, but were actually
voting for the important bits. For example, the recent Highways Bill that
has been the main focus of the Porkbusters Campaign has at its centre a core
of work to modernise the American road infrastructure, something clearly important
for the functioning of a modern industrial nation. Of course it also has the
“bridge
to nowhere”, an unwanted
“parking garage” and much more.
It is reckoned that there is at least $24 billion ‘worth’ of pork
in that one transportation bill. It is a show.
There is an obvious and easy
solution:
“A single-subject, descriptive-title (hereinafter, SSDT) requirement
for all Congressional bills — more popularly labeled a truth-in-legislation
amendment as suggested by law professor Brannon Denning and attorney Brooks
Smith (see their “Uneasy Riders: The Case for a Truth-in-Legislation
Amendment,” 1999 Utah Law Review 858) — would only help cure
some of the legislative abuses inflicted upon the populace by both chambers
of Congress. The Denning/Smith version would read: "Congress
shall pass no bill, and no bill shall become law, which embraces more than
one subject, that subject being clearly expressed in the title."
”
There are a few more honest politicians, such as Coburn,
who are very slowly improving the situation, despite the ‘help’
of their friends. If you are determined enough, it is possible to
force the corrupt or craven into the light:
“In a 279-109 vote, the GOP-controlled House approved a resolution
saying the chamber is committed "to achieving victory in Iraq"
and that setting an "artificial timetable" would be "fundamentally
inconsistent with achieving victory." [...]
“It says that "setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal
of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their
deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally
inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq." [...]
“By putting the resolution to a vote, Republican leaders forced
Democrats to make a choice: either break ranks with their party and support
the GOP resolution, or oppose it and open themselves to criticism, ahead
of a congressional election year in which Iraq will be a focus, that they
had rejected the notion of victory in Iraq.”
Of course, the politicians will both do all they can to avoid being forced
to make clear acts; and when so forced, politicians will do all they can after
the fact to muddy the clarity of, or distract from, that act: just watch the
democrats now quibbling over the definition of “victory” and bemoaning
this “political stunt”, as if it being political or a stunt has
any relevance to their now recorded votes.
There is too much of both pessimism and optimistic credulity in discussion
of the actions of politicians. They are not invulnerable, things do slowly
improve. Neither are they to be trusted, no matter how nice today’s
soundbite may appear. Another example: McCain has managed to build a considerable
degree of credibility as a social moderate, who is willing to act against
corruption and is hardheaded enough to face problems out there in the non-American
world. Now watch carefully as he attempts to spend
that capital and get the votes of the fundamentalists in his party:
McCain has also been tacking rightward in less obvious—or at least
less aggressively publicized—ways. He has thrown his support behind
the teaching of “intelligent design” along with evolution in
public schools. He has endorsed a constitutional amendment in Arizona to
ban gay marriage and deny benefits to unmarried couples of any kind. He
has met privately with Jerry Falwell, in an apparent attempt to gin up a
rapprochement with the Christian right, which he famously and vividly attacked
at the height of the 2000 campaign.
A politician’s life is votes. Nothing more or less. In order to gain
the Republican nomination this sort of pandering to idiocy is necessary, as
McCain found when he failed to do so last time. To get the Democratic nomination,
one must pander to a different breed of idiocy, but the political pattern
is the same.
So now McCain does his pandering, opening himself wide open to hypocrisy
charges, but giving himself a very good chance of getting the nomination.
He has to calculate whether gain in support from a large section of the sheep
will be enough to compensate for the damage to his reputation in the eyes
of the serious. This is the reality of a politician’s life. Just as
the reality for those watching is never ever being certain just which parts
are real and which parts are for the votes. All we observers can be certain
of is that Mr .Politician did say x, they did vote y and they did act z -
at least assuming you trust your sources sufficiently for your purposes at
this instant.
There are also some votes in at least appearing honest and there are some
votes in acting “courageously”. The more courageous politicians
will at times act despite the feckless sheep, as Blair did in Britain vis
the necessary action in Iraq - but always the politician must calculate whether
they can get away with it, that is whether the sheep will keep voting for
them, and many (eg Churchill) pay a heavy price for that courage when they
miscalculate.
For sanity: do not despair; do not trust; study, make judgments and slowly
improve the world. There are many ways to improve the world, most are at least
in some sense outside politics.
Alternatively you can keep passively watching the show, fooling yourself
that you understand or care.
Or you can simply bury your head and hope it all “works out”
somehow, which it probably will because they are many many good people willing
to act where you are not.
It is your choice - although I would suggest that options two and three are
no real options for any who wish to honestly claim to be a citizen or a man.
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#patriot_act_191205 |
dare
the british hope that the socialist coup in the tory party has now ended
For several years, there has been no legitimate or genuine
Conservative [Tory ] opposition to Tony Bliar’s socialism. Bliar has
been given an easy ride by socialists who captured the Tory Party on the fall
of Thatcher.
A last, there are considerable signs that this may be changing.
From libdems4cameron.com
“wouldn't you like to help build a modern, progressive, liberal,
mainstream, opposition to labour?
why not support a party that believes in green politics, social justice
and localism?
“ "My Conservative Party believes passionately in green politics;
is committed to decentralisation and localism; supports open markets; is
prepared to stand up for civil liberties and the rule of law....
“....and wants Britain to be a positive participant in the EU, as
a champion of liberal values." ”
David Cameron pledges to remove the National Statistics
Office from government manipulation!
“Mr Cameron said the Conservative guarantee of independence for
the Bank of England to set interest rates would be reinforced with a promise
not surrender that role to the European Central Bank. "Under the Conservatives,
the United Kingdom will retain its own currency, and interest rates will
be set in the United Kingdom, for the United Kingdom. No other party is
prepared to make this pledge," he said.
“Meanwhile, an independent panel to judge the Chancellor's so-called
'golden rule' on borrowing would ensure that the rules were clear and being
met by ministers.
“In addition, the third lock on economic stability would be provided
by granting independence for the Office for National Statistics. "Only
with truly independent statistics can the business community and the public
believe the figures," he declared.” [Quoted from conservatives.com]
Meanwhile in parliament, David Cameron shreds Tony Bliar’s
failure and dishonesty in the EU:
Response
to the Prime Minister's statement on the EU Budget in the Commons
This is incredible stuff, at long last - scanning advised.
“On the budget, does the Prime Minister remember having three clear
objectives?
“First, to limit its size, when almost every country in Europe is
taxing and borrowing too much.
“Second, to ensure fundamental reform of the CAP.
“And third, to keep the British rebate unless such reform occurs.
“Isn't it now clear that he failed in every single one?”
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#david_cameron_191205 |
us
military learning curve in the m.e.
“Every brigade in Iraq and Afghanistan now has a secure intranet
page, which soldiers are encouraged to fill with observations and queries.
Early this year a secure online chat-room, the Battle Command Knowledge
System, appeared. Besides circulating thousands of tactical questions and
answers, it can help soldiers find technical experts, learn foreign languages,
contact counterparts in the war zone, or squint through the web camera of
an armoured vehicle in Iraq.”
—
“According to the new doctrine's authors, at Leavenworth's Combined
Arms Doctrine Directorate, key changes will stress the strategic importance
of civilian populations. The army's basic doctrinal aim is to move from
high-intensity offensive to low-intensity security and stability operations
- from creating shock and awe to winning hearts and minds. The new doctrine
will emphasise that, where possible, the two levels should co-exist - where
possible, for example, the army should exercise restraint in its offensive
operations. In addition, the revised "Operations" will stress
the need to protect civilians from external threats (such as Islamic terrorists)
and internal disorder (such as looters), while ensuring the provision of
"central services", including power and water.”
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#us_military_181205 |
very
nice little item by andrew neil on hayek and current world power
“Those who follow this route believe they have it within their power
to build, organise and mould society so that it conforms to their concept
of what is just and efficient. But it leads, argued Hayek,
to economic decline, poverty, social regression and, in extremis, famine,
starvation and the collapse of civilisation. Historic examples, said Hayek,
included Sparta, Revolutionary France, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany - and
all the tyrannies that blighted the 20th century. Constructivist
rationalism is The Road to Serfdom.
“Hayek favoured 'evolutionary rationalism'
which understands that there 'exists orderly structures which are the product
of the actions of many men [and women] but are not the result of human design'.
He believed this was the right approach because it is compatible with the
teachings of economic science and goes with the grain of human nature; for
these reasons, he thought, it leads to prosperity, progress and the flourishing
of humanity.”
—
“China has a long way to go to meet Hayek's demanding criteria of
a free and prosperous society. This is still a country whose leaders cannot
even bring themselves to tell their own people about a massive environmental
disaster. Huge economic distortions remain, including a deeply defective
banking system plagued with bad debts. Inflation is too high, corruption
endemic. Nor can there be any proper market economy or individual freedom
in the absence of the rule of law and entrenched property rights, two democratic
necessities that dictatorships always deny, China's included. But at least
China is moving in the right direction.
“With each step away from communist constructivism to Hayekian capitalism,
China has been richly rewarded. It is now the world's number one producer
of LCD screens and TVs; it makes 90 per cent of the world's toys, 70 per
cent of its photocopiers, 50 per cent of its cameras, 40 per cent of its
microwaves, 30 per cent of its handbags and suitcases and 16 per cent of
its clothing.”
—
“Consider the following: in France, the outflow of direct investment
abroad shot up from $16 billion in 1994 to almost $50 billion last year;
in Italy it has gone up from $5 billion in 1994 to $19 billion last year;
inward FDI to Germany and France fell sharply last year. In France the inflows
almost halved. In the case of Germany the figures seem to have dropped off
the bottom of the scale: foreign investors withdrew about $39 billion from
the country last year.”
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#hayek_091205 |
unusually
low us military death rate in iraq action
Action |
Duration |
Number killed |
KIA Avg. Rate per Year |
Rev War |
8 years |
25,324 |
3,166 |
Civil War |
4 years |
562,130 |
140,533 |
WWI |
1.58 years |
116,708 |
78,866 |
WWII |
3.75 years |
408,306 |
108,882 |
Marine Iwo Jima |
25 days |
6,891 |
100,608 |
Korea |
3.08 years |
54,246 |
17,612 |
Vietnam |
7 years |
58,249 |
8,321 |
Desert Storm |
42 days |
363 |
2,135 |
Iraqi Freedom |
2.667 years |
2,096 |
786 |
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#death_rate_021205 |
larf
yet again (or cry) at socialists - with steyn
Of course, the recent news is that the Smellygraph intend
to ‘let him go’, so there’s another surprise for the day
- can’t have anyone laughing at the idiots’ legions.
“Meanwhile, how are things looking in the United States? As you'll
recall, in a typically "pig-headed and blinkered" (Independent)
act that could lead to the entire planet becoming "uninhabitable"
(Michael Meacher), "Polluter Bush" (Daily Express), "this
ignorant, short-sighted and blinkered politician" (Friends of the Earth),
rejected the Kyoto treaty. Yet somehow the "Toxic Texan" (everybody)
has managed to outperform Canada on almost every measure of eco-virtue.”
related material
steyn
online
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#steyn_larfs_301105 |
brilliant
sharon may well outflank extremist loons of both right and left
“Opinion polls published soon after Mr Sharon's decision to found
his new party show him easily winning the next election, although in the
Middle East what looks a sure bet in November does not always look so obvious
in March, when the election will be held. But if anybody is to break the
majority two-party mould of Israeli politics, Ariel Sharon is that man.
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#sharon_271105 |
bush
speech in japan - transcript
George Bush continues to pressure the dying cult of socialism.
“Japan has also shown that once people get a taste for freedom,
they want more -- because the desire for freedom is written in the hearts
of every man and woman on this earth. With each new generation that grows
up in freedom, the expectations of citizens rise -- and the demand for accountability
grows. Here in Japan, Prime Minister Koizumi has shown leadership by pushing
crucial reforms to open your economy and make Japan's institutions more
responsive to the needs of its people. The Prime Minister knows that nations
grow in wealth and stature when they trust in the wisdom and talents of
their people -- and that lesson is now spreading across this great region.”
—
“ This summer, we took an important step toward these goals by forming
the Asian-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development. Together with Australia,
and China, and India, Japan, and South Korea, we will focus on practical
ways to make the best practices and latest energy technologies available
to all. And as nations across this region adapt these practices and technologies,
they will make their factories and power plants cleaner and more efficient.
I plan to use my visit to the region to build on the progress we are making.
By working together, we will promote economic growth and reduce emissions
-- and help build a better and cleaner world.”
—
“Taiwan is another society that has moved from repression to democracy
as it liberalized its economy. Like South Korea, the people of Taiwan for
years lived under a restrictive political state that gradually opened up
its economy. And like South Korea, the opening to world markets transformed
the island into one of the world's most important trading partners. And
like South Korea, economic liberalization in Taiwan helped fuel its desire
for individual political freedom -- because men and women who are allowed
to control their own wealth will eventually insist on controlling their
own lives and their own future.”
—
“China can play a positive role in the world. We welcome the important
role China has assumed as host of the six-party talks aimed at bringing
peace to the Korean Peninsula. We look forward to resolving our trade differences
in a spirit of mutual respect and adherence to global rules and standards.
And we encourage China to continue down the road of reform and openness
-- because the freer China is at home, the greater the
welcome it will receive abroad.”
—
“The United States is also concerned with the fate of freedom in Northeast
Asia, where great powers have collided in the past. The Korean Peninsula
is still caught in the past. An armistice -- a truce -- freezes the battle
lines from a war that has never really come to an end. The pursuit of nuclear
weapons threatens to destabilize the region. Satellite maps of North Korea
show prison camps the size of whole cities, and a country that at night
is clothed almost in complete darkness.”
And more.
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#bush_speech_241105 |
open
democracy growing in the tory party is undermining oldnewoldlabour
On Tony Bliar’s lack of legitimacy.
A poor and trivial article on the subject, but it raises
most interesting matters, for instance the quite ridiculous comment, “Posterity
will thank Michael H***** [Howard] for much of this”. Thank that idiot
who tried to engineer a stitch-up in place of open debate? How daft can these
scribblers get!
With the growing open government in the UK Conservative
Party and the willingness to face public debate, the backroom fix-ups of oldnewoldlabour
[UK Socialist Party], and the running from serious public debate will be far
less of an option for future Labour leaders, as will be the lack of serious
democracy in the party.
“This is the first time any party has forced its candidates to run
the gauntlet of hustings in front of activists live on television at the
annual party conference. As a follow-up, no aspirant prime ministers in
Britain have ever then gone on to confront each other in a series of live
television debates, in the way of the two Davids.
“Whoever wins, Cameron and Davis have already written themselves
into the political history books. By the end of this campaign, the two men
will have taken part in three full scale television debates, on BBC1, ITV1
(today at lunchtime), and Sky News (next Thursday), as well as sitting side
by side on Radio 4's Woman's Hour and numerous breakfast TV sofas. The campaign
will be remembered for these joint appearances. Traditional one-on-one interviews
have had less impact, even those conducted by Jeremy Paxman.
“The debates have been fresh: the first proper televised events in
this country in which the contestants have complied with the requirements
of the broadcasting professionals over such vital questions as format and
timing [...].”
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#uk_politics_231105 |
the
patriot act page
1 page
2
“Capping another tough week for President Bush and top Republicans
in Congress, a bipartisan backlash yesterday forced congressional leaders
to shelve a bill to extend provisions of the USA Patriot Act that expire
at the end of the year.
“Sidetracking the White House's push to preserve the expanded police
powers authorized after the 2001 terrorist attacks, a rare coalition of
liberal Democrats and conservative Republican lawmakers are demanding that
the bill's more controversial provisions -- set to run out at the end of
December -- should include more civil-liberties safeguards.
“They want federal authorities to notify targets of secret, ''sneak-and-peek"
searches within seven days of executing the warrant; get a judge's approval
before searching medical, financial, and library records; and allow the
subjects of an investigation to challenge court gag orders issued against
them.”
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#patriot_act_201105 |
bush
coherent on islamofascism and socialism [speech by George Bush]
“Last month, the world learned of a letter written by al Qaeda's
number two leader, a guy named Zawahiri. And he wrote this letter to his
chief deputy in Iraq - the terrorist Zarqawi. In it, Zawahiri points to
the Vietnam War as a model for al Qaeda. This is what he said: "The
aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam - and how they ran
and left their agents - is noteworthy." The terrorists witnessed a
similar response after the attacks on American troops in Beirut in 1983
and Mogadishu in 1993. They believe that America can be made to run again
- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.”
—
“ Defeating the militant network is difficult, because it thrives,
like a parasite, on the suffering and frustration of others. The radicals
exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone
else is always to blame and violence is always the solution [...].”
—
“The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge
of our new century. Yet in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle
against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic
radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to
speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims,
"what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who
grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that
they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that this road
- that this is the road to paradise - though he never offers to go along
for the ride.”
—
“While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize
my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite
the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and
anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled
the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware
that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure
to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons
programs.
“They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world
agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations
passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession
of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent
during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution
in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the
United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam
Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security."
That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who
had access to the same intelligence - voted to
support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”
George
Bush to China
“President Bush has arrived in China on the third stop of an eight-day
trip to Asia. President Bush says China should give its people greater freedoms,
holding up rival Taiwan as an example of successful Asian democracy.”
—
“In addition to economic reforms, President Bush is expected to discuss
political change in China and what he says is the need for the Chinese people
to have greater freedoms to express themselves, to worship without state
control, and to print Bibles and other sacred texts without fear of punishment.
“Earlier in this trip, Mr. Bush gave a speech in Japan where he said
Chinese leaders can help their country grow into a modern, prosperous, and
confident nation by meeting, what he called, the legitimate demands of its
citizens for freedom and openness.
“ "As China reforms its economy, its leaders are finding that
once the door to freedom is open even a crack, it cannot be closed,"
the president said. " As the people of China grow in prosperity, their
demands for political freedom will grow as well."
[George Bush is expected to raise such issues during his
current visit to China.]
“ The White House warmly welcomed China's purchase as a demonstration
of success in U.S. efforts to get China to follow through on promises to
reduce the trade imbalance.
“ "It's a very important thing, and I think it's a testament
to how our approach to China is yielding real results," said Mike Green,
senior director for Asian affairs on the National Security Council. "In
this case, an order for 70 737 aircraft from Boeing." ”
—
“ Bush also planned to continue his push to maintain a unified front
among all the U.S. partners in talks aimed at stripping North Korea of nuclear
weapons. After sitting down with Hu, Bush will have met on this trip with
all four other participants in the negotiations, which also include South
Korea, Japan and Russia.”[Quoted from abcnews.go.com]
balancing
demands for freedom and cooperation on ‘terror’
“China says its biggest terrorist threat comes from separatist forces
in its far-western region of Xinjiang, where most of the population is Muslim
and belongs to the Uighur ethnic group. But international human rights groups
and advocates of Xinjiang independence say China has exaggerated the threat
in the region to suppress legitimate protest.
“Asked about the U.S. stance on China's efforts to combat terrorism
in Xinjiang, Gonzales said: "We committed to try to be as helpful as
we can, and cooperative as we can, with the Chinese government."
“Gonzales said the United States and China had established "liaison
groups" to cooperate on counter-terrorism, and the two countries were
also considering forming more such teams. He declined
to be more specific.”
From a BBC Newsnight interview, Gorbachev speaking:
“The Russian leadership really means what it is saying,
they are truly committed to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons.”
related material
Authoritarianism
and liberty
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#bush_on_dogmas_201105 |
an
interesting article, not written by one of the best minds
“Restraining people from demanding ever bigger hand-outs of other
people's money is the chief role of government in a democracy. Alexander
Tytler, an 18th century Scottish historian and judge, used to insist that
democracy could only last as long as people didn't realise that they could
vote themselves as much as they wanted from the public treasury. Democracy
has in fact survived that realisation, but only because voters have been
persuaded that the other systems of government are so awful that they'll
get more under democracy. And they do: in a democracy, everyone steals from
everyone else, whereas in all the other systems, a small political elite
plunders the population with a ruthlessness and efficiency the people as
a whole can never quite manage to do to itself.”
I am unconvinced by the writer’s wish to obtain
striver Davis as UK Conservative Party leader, rather than urbane Cameron.
A major problem with recent leaders has been dedicated
mediocrity. Further, the under-educated striver tends to ‘have notions’,
a chip on the shoulder and a excessive enthusiasm to ‘put things right’.
The writer is sane to refer to the great Hayek,
but I do not want any more half-educated John Majors or Tony Bliars, let alone
the some of the uneducated risers who have destroyed so many lives in the
last century or two.
I want a person more rooted in history and culture, but
not another mindless old fogey living in the past.
It seems to me that Cameron is a fair potential representative
of this balance.
I quote once more:
“At about the same time, Aristotle composed the work, now lost,
On Kingship, in which he clearly distinguishes the function
of the philosopher from that of the king. He alters Plato's dictum - for
the better, it is said - by teaching that it is not merely unnecessary for
a king to be a philosopher, but even a disadvantage. Rather, a king should
take the advice of true philosophers; then he would fill his reign with
good deeds, not with good words.” [Quoted from Why
Aristotelean logic does not work]
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#best_minds_171105 |
solid
item by mister bean on free speech
On a crazy attempt by the UK goverment to force through
an anti-religious hatred ‘law’.
“The prime motivating energy for the Bill seemed to come not from
communities seeking protection from bullying by the British National Party
but from individuals with a more aggressive, fundamentalist agenda. Those
who have sought, from the very day of the publication in 1989 of Salman
Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses, to immunise religions against criticism
and ridicule - or at least to promote legislation that is so sinister and
intimidating, it can provide that immunity without even the need to prosecute
anyone. In other words, to impose self-censorship.”
Of course, there is much muddy water in discerning differences
between religions, philosophies or beliefs.
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#mr_bean_151105
|
integration,
civil war or eurocaliphate? the seething of france
“It may well be that the motive for the rioting was nothing more
than an inchoate grievance allied to youthful exuberance and a penchant
for bad behaviour, but it was Islam which gave it an identity and also its
retrospective raison d’être. The political aspirations of many French Muslim
organisations and explicitly of the most important political Islamic organisation
on the Continent, the Arab European League, is for much greater segregation,
for Verwoerd’s ideal of separate development - the very essence, to my mind,
of racism. The appalling Arab European League, in fact, likens assimilation
or integration to ‘rape’ and calls upon all Muslims to resist such cultural
imperialism. And the director of the Great Mosque of Paris, Dalil Boubakeur,
who delivered that nice fatwa, has seemed to request that the French government
give Muslims autonomy within the state; to, in effect, allow them to follow
their own rules. So for those pundits on French TV, apologies, but au contraire:
the French Muslims do not, as a whole, want greater integration. They want
less integration.” [Quoted from spectator.co.uk]
And on Muslim demography in France:
“Now go back to that bland statistic you hear a lot these days:
‘about 10 per cent of France’s population is Muslim’. Give or take a million
here, a million there, that’s broadly correct, as far as it goes. But the
population spread isn’t even. And when it comes to those living in France
aged 20 and under, about 30 per cent are said to be Muslim and in the major
urban centres about 45 per cent. If it came down to street-by-street fighting,
as Michel Gurfinkiel, the editor of Valeurs Actuelles, points out, ‘the
combatant ratio in any ethnic war may thus be one to one’ - already, right
now, in 2005. It is not necessary, incidentally, for Islam to become a statistical
majority in order to function as one. At the height of its power in the
8th century, the ‘Islamic world’ stretched from Spain to India, yet its
population was only minority Muslim. Nonetheless, by 2010, more elderly
white Catholic ethnic frogs will have croaked and more fit healthy Muslim
youths will be hitting the streets. One day they’ll even be on the beach
at St Trop, and if you and your infidel whore happen to be lying there wearing
nothing but two coats of Ambre Solaire when they show up, you better hope
that the BBC and CNN are right about there being no religio-ethno-cultural
component to their ‘grievances’.” [Quoted from spectator.co.uk]
Organised and planned, land for peace. Part of how Hitler
came to power was by organising street violence, which he then offered to
control in exchange for concessions.
“In September, the Algerian Islamist terror group GSPC issued a
communiqué describing France as "enemy number one" and called for Muslims
to conduct attacks on France. Agence France Presse reported this threat
without great fanfare, but the French authorities took it seriously enough
to round up over a dozen suspected terrorist cell members throughout the
country. The Post took a different look at the Algerian threat, noting that
the training for terrorists had focused on younger French citizens, with
a greater ability to move unrestricted through the streets of Paris and
other target-rich environments. Among the training areas that intrigued
the Post was the urban-warfare areas of Iraq:
“French police investigating plans by a group of Islamic extremists
to attack targets in Paris discovered last month that the group was recruiting
French citizens to train in the Middle East and return home to carry out
terrorist attacks, sources familiar with the investigation said.”
—
“Amir Taheri noted in the New York Post that the French have already
heard from people who claim that they can negotiate an end to the violence.
Local "emirs" representing the sink estates want the French police to withdraw
from the territories and allow sheikhs from the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist
organization with ties to al Qaeda, to arbitrate an end to the riots. "All
we demand is to be left alone," says Mouloud Dahmani, an "emir" who promises
a return to quiet in exchange for autonomy. It is, in effect, a land-for-peace
proposal aimed at the heart of France and Christendom.” [Quoted from
weeklystandard.com]
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#eurocaliphate_121105
|
enemy
territory in france
“Yet despite all the national and international headlines they occasioned,
last week's disturbances were no freak occurrence. For at least 15 years,
the immigrant and first-generation suburbs around France's large and medium-sized
cities have been out of control. Crime rates have gone through the roof:
According to the Renseignements Généraux, a division of the
police, 70,000 violent crimes have been recorded in urban settings since
the beginning of the year. They include the torching of more than 28,000
cars and 17,500 trash bins. According to the Interior Ministry, some 9,000
police cars have been stoned by youths this year.
“And property is not the only target. On October 27, the day the
two died in Clichy-sous-Bois, three young thugs in another Paris suburb
savagely killed a 56-year-old Frenchman who was photographing a lamppost.
Plenty of witnesses were around, but none came forward to testify. The attackers
were trying either to steal the man's digital camera or to "protect
their turf" from an intruder. Ten days earlier, in Vaulx-en-Velin,
a suburb of France's second largest city, Lyon, the police chased two teenagers
on a stolen scooter and one fell and hurt his ankle. The rumor spread that
he was in a coma because of the cops. A few nights of rioting ensued, with
violent faceoffs between teens and police on the exact spot where similar,
serious rioting occurred 15 years ago.
“At least as worrisome as such intermittent flare-ups is what happens
every day in these ethnic neighborhoods. Most have become a no-man's land
where police scarcely venture and the law of the jungle prevails. Honest,
law-abiding inhabitants feel abandoned. As Bally Bagayoko, deputy mayor
of Saint-Denis, a working-class suburb of Paris, put it: "People have
totally lost confidence in the police. In most cases, they don't even file
a complaint." Sometimes judges are physically threatened or attacked.
“What's more, none of this is any secret.....”
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#guerilla_urbaine_101105 |
karma
and the price of appeasement
“If President Chirac thought he was going to gain peace with the
Muslim community in France by taking an appeasement line in the Iraq war,
it certainly looks like he miscalculated. Today the streets of the French
capital are looking more like Ramallah and less like the advanced, sophisticated,
gay Paree image Monsieur Chirac likes to portray to the world [...].”
—
“ Back in the 1990s, the French sneered at America for the Los Angeles
riots. As the Chicago Sun-Times reported in 1992: "the consensus of
French pundits is that something on the scale of the Los Angeles riots could
not happen here, mainly because France is a more humane, less racist place
with a much stronger commitment to social welfare programs." President
Mitterrand, the Washington Post reported in 1992, blamed the riots on the
"conservative society" that Presidents Reagan and Bush had created
and said France is different because it "is the country where the level
of social protection is the highest in the world." ”
And then there was the canicule
[heatwave] and far more deaths than in New Orleans.
Also see comment at tas.
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#french_karma_081105 |
on
that nasty confrontational mister bush
“If the Prince wants to take a few examples of the non-confrontational
approach with him to the White House, here's a couple pulled at random from
the last week's news: the president of Iran called for Israel to be "wiped
off the map". Kofi Annan expressed his "dismay".
“Excellent. Struck the perfect non-confrontational tone. Were the
Iranian nuclear programme a little more advanced and they'd actually wiped
Israel off the map, the secretary-general might have felt obliged to be
more confrontational and express his "deep concern".
“In Sulawesi, Indonesia, three Christian girls walking home from
school were beheaded.
“ "It is unclear what was behind the attack," reported
the BBC, scrupulously non-confrontationally.
“In the Australian state of Victoria, reports the Herald Sun, "police
are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out
of respect for Islamic traditions and habits". Tough luck for us infidel
wife-beaters, but admirably non-confrontational Islam-wise.”
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#confrontational_bush_061105 |
some
sound advice for george from victor hanson
“The key to Iraq is enfeebling those around it who are weakening
the country - namely Syria and Iran. The U.S. should be calling for democratic
reform in both countries - constantly, without interruption, and in the
same idealistic fashion as we appeal to the Iraqis. The president must focus
world attention on just how awful those two regimes are. After all, an Iranian
president threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map at precisely
the time his government lies and connives to obtain nuclear weapons - which
alone could bring that avowed sick Khomeineseque dream to fruition, given
Iran's conventional military impotence. Again, the government of Iran is
not just talking about warring with the Sharon government or attacking the
Israeli nation, but rather liquidating the Jewish people - as Hitlerian
a promise of genocide as we have seen since the Holocaust. And he boasts
like a leader who fully expects to have nuclear weapons in the near future.”
Some comments from abelard:
Regarding the notion of “serious threats”,
you must control the oil fields as long as you are critically dependent
upon them. Further, all the wealth resulting in oil cannot be allowed to
be spent upon preparing military strength that can challenge the West.
Such a military threat cannot be permitted to allow to
develop. Madsam [Saddam Huessein] was listed as controlling the 4th largest
military operation on the planet before he was taken down a peg or five.
He was actively seeking expansion.
It is not possible to make agreements with medieval dictators,
they have a long history of breaking every agreement they make.
the web address for the article above is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics0511.php#hansons_advice_031105 |