Harry Kananian died in the year 2000 of mesothelioma -- a cancer almost always caused by asbestos. But the legacy that may survive him is the role he is posthumously playing in exposing evidence of asbestos litigation fraud.
In early 2000, the Ohio resident met with the law firm of Early, Ludwick, Sweeney & Strauss to see about collecting compensation from special trusts set up by companies to deal with asbestos liabilities. So the law firm filed a claim to one trust, saying Kananian had worked in a World War II shipyard and was exposed to insulation containing asbestos. It also filed a claim to another trust saying he had been a shipyard welder. A third claim, to another trust, said he'd unloaded asbestos off ships in Japan. And a fourth claim said that he'd worked with "tools of asbestos" before the war. Meanwhile, a second law firm, Brayton Purcell, submitted two more claims to two further trusts, with still different stories. The two firms swept up as much as $700,000 for Kananian and his estate from trusts and settlements.
In the legal trade, this is known as "double dipping" -- the process by which lawyers file claims at many different bankruptcy trusts on behalf of a single plaintiff. Each trust is told a different story about how the client got sick, and the plaintiff collects from all of them. Of course, the lawyers collect too. This practice may well have remained unexposed had not Brayton Purcell decided to cash in on Kananian one more time. It sued Lorillard Tobacco, this time claiming its client had become sick from smoking Kent cigarettes, whose filters contained asbestos for several years in the 1950s. That suit has now exploded on Brayton, exposing one of the asbestos bar's more lucrative cash cows.
In Cleveland, Judge Harry Hanna of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas has been asked to rule on a motion to disqualify Brayton from the suit and bar it from practicing in Ohio. The firm stands accused by Lorillard of lying to the court, defrauding asbestos trust funds and obstructing discovery. Those accusations come via a raft of internal emails and documents, most if which are referred to in the court record, that tell a story of two law firms using contradictory stories to rake in money from bankruptcy trusts, then potentially trying to cover it up. All parties are under a gag order from the judge. Last week, Brayton Purcell, amazingly, requested to withdraw itself from the case.
* * *
As the tort bar piled on endless -- and often bogus -- asbestos claims in the 1990s, many defendant companies started looking for a way out. One solution was to go into bankruptcy, turn over a huge chunk of money to an asbestos "trust," and emerge from Chapter 11 clear of asbestos woes. These trusts are responsible for one of the largest wealth transfers in history, shifting billions from companies and insurers to plaintiffs lawyers and their largely healthy customers. A number of large trusts are due to come online over the next year alone, with assets of $30 billion.
Many trusts are run by the very lawyers who created them; that is, once the trust is created, the defendant company is no longer involved with claims, and the trial lawyers divvy up the money. These lawyers, because their contingency fees are based on the trust's payouts, have no incentive to ensure that applicants for compensation were actually harmed by that particular trust's product. While it is not illegal to file at different trusts (and some industrial workers were exposed in multiple ways), most such claims are vague or contradictory. Trust payments are also considered legal settlements and thus confidential. So while the asbestos bar may wrongly double dip, this is usually hard to prove.
Harry Kananian met with the firm Early Ludwick in February 2000. According to an Early email, he wasn't clear how he'd been exposed. He had, however, served in the Army in World War II and remembered several months on troop ships known to contain asbestos. On one such two-week trip he'd done welding. He also recalled working in a factory that was "dusty," as well as a "white powdery substance" when he was remodeling his house.
Early Ludwick then filed its multiple claims -- to the 48 Insulations trust, the Eagle Picher trust, the UNR trust, the Celotex trust and others. Brayton Purcell was also retained by the plaintiff and filed claims to Johns Manville and Bethlehem Steel. The discrepancies were never questioned until Brayton sued Lorillard Tobacco, and Brayton probably never thought the prior claims would be an issue. But Lorillard suspected Kananian had already collected on the basis of his work history -- and it argued the jury had a right to know. To Brayton's dismay, Judge Hanna agreed earlier this year.
When Brayton's lead counsel, Chris Andreas, started to realize in February that Judge Hanna would allow the claims as evidence, his first strategy was to sell Early Ludwick down the river. Mr. Andreas seemed to hope that, if the judge thought Early's work was erroneous, he wouldn't allow the claims into court, where they might sway a jury. Mr. Andreas said in court that the Early claims were "flat incorrect," "simply inaccurate," "absurd" and "the most misleading information that [he'd] ever seen." The judge was unmoved.
In a March 10 email, Mr. Andreas relates the bad news to his partners, and explains the problems with the original claims. To give one example: In the UNR claim (which stated Kananian had unloaded asbestos off ships), Mr. Andreas says that, in fact, Kananian only supervised Japanese workers who'd unloaded ships. Also, "there is absolutely no evidence that anyone shipped or unloaded Unibestos [a UNR product] on any of ship [sic] he was involved with during this period, least of all Mr. Kananian himself." The rest of the Early claims had similar problems, he said, admitting that in one of Brayton's own claims "we also overstate Mr. Kananian's exposure . . ." In a separate email he states, "there is no way what our client sent them matches what they put in these forms."
Mr. Andreas worries that "I am forced to try to explain them away as mistakes by clerks or [attorneys]. A jury is going to look down on this type of fabrication by lawyers and can use this information to dump plaintiffs by finding that." He then offers a choice: They can give the money back, in which case Judge Hanna won't allow the claims, or they can "go forward at trial" and try to get the jury to focus on something other than "unsworn claim forms that were just used to pry money out of a bankrupt" (my emphasis). The goal, he says in another email, is to "blame [Early] for bulls----ing the trusts."
Meanwhile, Lorillard was trying to subpoena the confidential trust claims. Brayton knew the judge would go ballistic if it tried to officially squelch this process, so instead it worked behind the scenes. When the Celotex trust informed the law firms that it had received a subpoena, and asked whether they would try to legally block the subpoena, one outside lawyer suggested they "respond to [Celotex] via phone requesting that they resist . . ." Mr. Andreas noted: "I would love if Celotex gave these a--holes a hard time."
When it became clear Lorillard would get its way, the strategy changed again. Brayton Purcell decided it would work with Early Ludwick to submit amended claims to the trusts. In Brayton's original claim to Johns Manville, for instance, the form had described Kananian as a "laborer" who had direct contact with asbestos. It also said he'd worked in "shipyard construction/repair" and listed several Manville products, by name, to which he'd been exposed. The amended claim instead listed Kananian's occupation as "other," noted that he'd only been on board a ship where Manville products were installed, removed any reference to shipyard work, and deleted any Manville products. Other trust claims were similarly purged.
But Brayton Purcell had a problem. It needed to change the forms to bolster the Lorillard suit, but it didn't want to raise alarms at the asbestos trusts. Its solution was apparently to try to make sure the trusts didn't look closely. Even as Mr. Andreas was telling his partners that the original Early claims were "fictional," he instructed those working on the new claims to tell the trusts they were only "correcting some clerical errors." Partner Al Brayton instructed his staff, according to an email, to "simply re-do the old claim form with the new answers and submit with a cover letter. Do not call them."
By spring, Judge Hanna was getting suspicious. To the firms' dismay, he took the rare step of allowing Lorillard to depose its opponents. Brayton Purcell emails show it wondering if the former office assistant who'd prepared the original Manville claim was "disgruntled." Mr. Brayton had already instructed an underling to "immediately brief all personnel preparing claim forms or efficiency responses that they are not to 'make up' information to make a claim qualify." But the firms continued to obstruct, and the judge had enough. This summer, he ordered up their emails.
Among other things, the emails show that raise questions about Mr. Andreas's candor with Judge Hanna. On March 10, Mr. Andreas told the court that he didn't know if the original Early Ludwick claims had even been submitted to the trusts, and said he would "welcome" documentation showing they had. In fact, on March 3 -- a week prior to Mr. Andreas's statement -- a paralegal at Brayton sent an email to Early Ludwick noting that "trial attorney, Christopher Andreas, asked that I follow up with your office on the total amount of settlements your office has obtained in this case." That same day, Early Ludwick sent back an email listing the trusts and how much money had been obtained from each. As for Mr. Andreas welcoming proof from the trusts, this was about the same time he was hoping Celotex would resist.
Then there's Mr. Andreas's knowledge of the claims. On March 23, he told Judge Hanna that his firm would "stand by" its original Manville form. In fact, the firm had submitted a revised claim the night before. When Judge Hanna found out, he asked if Mr. Andreas had known. His response: "I'll just tell you right on the record and I'll repeat it under oath at any other point, I did not know about it when we argued on [March 23]. I did not know it had been prepared." However, Mr. Andreas had been sent an email with the revised form on March 22 -- the night before his "stand by" comment -- and had replied, only two hours after receipt.
* * *
Lorillard laid most of this out in a motion requesting that the judge dismiss the case, bar Brayton Purcell from Ohio, and turn the information over to the Justice Department. Lorillard is insisting the original claims were accurate, although Harry Kananian's real history remains the great mystery here.
Brayton Purcell in November filed a 101-page document, arguing that Kananian's mesothelioma was caused by the "total dose of inhaled asbestos from all products," including Kent cigarettes. Regarding its desire to alter the claims, it said it believes the jury had a right to accurate evidence. It addressed one issue, claiming that "while it may be true" that Mr. Andreas knew about the amended claim form even as he said he "stood by" the original, his statement related to the "overall accuracy" of that original. Then, last week, it filed a motion asking to be withdrawn, although it said it was doing this to help its client, not because of the allegations. Mark Abelson, of Campagnoli, Abelson and Campagnoli, an attorney for Brayton Purcell, says: "At this point in time, we don't believe that the Brayton Purcell firm had done anything wrong. It is my belief that Lorillard is making every attempt to create tangential issues to the litigation that will delay and deflect any actual trial on the merits of their own conduct." Early Ludwick had no comment. Lorillard did not return a call.
Judge Hanna has continued to push back the trial date until the claims issue is resolved. A hearing is set for this week, and it isn't clear he'll allow Brayton to withdraw and thus escape any further scrutiny.
Whatever happens, the exposure of this trust scam is bolstering a new wave of oversight. Judges are already taking a closer look at silicosis claims and "prepackaged" bankruptcies -- both cash cows for the trial bar. Just last week, a separate Ohio judge ruled that an asbestos plaintiff must turn over any prior claims to a bankruptcy trust. Similar rulings have been handed down in Virginia and California.
Meanwhile, reform proposals are beginning to emerge. One idea is for the trusts to release data about claimants, so that other trusts and defense attorneys can review existing claims. Some lawyers are requesting that active litigation be put on hold until companies can see who claimed from trusts. That this hasn't already happened is the fault of bankruptcy judges, who have been unresponsive to requests for more oversight of the trusts they help create.
A cleaner system would help true victims. Some lawyers for mesothelioma victims feel the need to file many claims because trusts are drying up -- making it difficult to get decent compensation. The feeding frenzy by plaintiffs lawyers who cash in repeatedly, often on behalf of plaintiffs who are entirely healthy, often leaves little for those who are truly ill. It isn't justice: It's fraud.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Trusts Busted: How Lawyers Defraud Trust to Pay Injured People
From the WSJ:
Dennis Prager, The Bible, the Koran and Keith Ellison
For those who wonder what all the fuss is about, click on the link.
Monday, December 04, 2006
The End of History and the Chestless Man
Dean Barnett re-reads Francis Fukayama’s “The End of History and The Last Man.”
I have not read the book, but this review makes me want to get my own copy.
I have not read the book, but this review makes me want to get my own copy.
THE OTHER AREA WHERE FUKAYAMA was extraordinarily prescient was in describing what kind of people might emerge from the comfort that liberal democracies produce. He makes repeated mention of the C.S. Lewis phrase “men without chests” to characterize the kind of loathsome creatures that might emerge from our splendid modern societies. Fukayama was writing 15 years ago; I bet he’s surprised at how rapidly chestless we’ve all become.
The Bush 41/Clinton years marked a signal decline into chestlessness. Both presidents presided over numerous misguided attempts to make life fair. Bush’s “Americans with Disabilities Act” remains (with the arguable exception of campaign finance reform), the single most damaging piece of legislation of the past 25 years. It wasn’t so much the provisions of the Act that were so harmful, although they represented an unacceptable amount of governmental overreach into private sector affairs, it was the message that the act gave to all Americans – If life has treated you unfairly, we’re from the government and we’re coming to help.
What the Taliban Does to Those who Teach little Girls...
Does anyone need a reminder of whom we are facing and fighting?
One reservist responded:
The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.
The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely. But his life was over, he was part-disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes, the remains put on display as a warning to others against defying Taliban orders to stop educating girls.
One reservist responded:
This is the perfect example of why I (a dad with two daughters, 12 and 8) am still in uniform as a reservist. I've been there once already (Iraq 04) and am gearing up to go again if necessary. And, don't tell me the Taliban are substantially different from the Baathists. They're both cowards and bullies toward their women.
So, where are the feminists while we're doing this fight? Same places they've always been - sitting somewhere safe yapping about stuff that doesn't matter while good men and women die to protect them.
God, but I'm getting tired of pulling the wagon these pukes ride on.
NY Times Dilemma: Truth or Solidarity? More on the Six Burned Iraqis.
Flopping Aces eviscerates the Times for it's defense of the lying AP and its characterization of the blogs as "mad blog rabble." Scroll down and click on the the links. The AP will not get this story to die, it has LEGS!
By the way, the NY Times reporter in Iraq sent his bosses a message doubting the story as reported by the AP.
And from HOT AIR we get: Jamilgate: NYT circles the wagons for the AP.
Here is how the Times frames the story:
In other words, who are you going to believe, the lying weasels who are conducting this war or the lordly, noble news people who would not lie to you ... (cough, Dan Rather, cough)... and who can't produce the "ever-ready with a quote" Lt. Hussein.
And Mary Katherine Ham has an excellent essay on Who is Capt. Jamil Hussein?
From the Iraqi Ministry of information, responding to the fake AP story:
This is about more than this single story:
BizzyBlog has some comments of his own. Answering Mary Katherine Ham's question:
The influence of blogs so far has been analysis rather than reporting. The Belmont Club:
To wind it up here is a HOT AIR video of the editor of the Boston Herald blasting the AP on Fox News.
By the way, the NY Times reporter in Iraq sent his bosses a message doubting the story as reported by the AP.
And from HOT AIR we get: Jamilgate: NYT circles the wagons for the AP.
Here is how the Times frames the story:
It is also true that the institution conducting America’s multibillion gamble in Iraq — the military — says that this standout of atrocities never happened, while a venerable, trusted news agency has twice interviewed witnesses who said, in extensive, vivid detail, that it did.
In other words, who are you going to believe, the lying weasels who are conducting this war or the lordly, noble news people who would not lie to you ... (cough, Dan Rather, cough)... and who can't produce the "ever-ready with a quote" Lt. Hussein.
And Mary Katherine Ham has an excellent essay on Who is Capt. Jamil Hussein?
From the Iraqi Ministry of information, responding to the fake AP story:
The second subject is rumors. The ministry received in a week more than 12 cases of claims, one stating 50 killed were there, 200 kidnapped here, 30 corpses found there etc. And when we dispatched our forces and investigators to the locations, we found nothing….
This is about more than this single story:
This is not a one-time transgression or a harmless rumor. This is indicative of a pattern, which is indicative of untold numbers of inaccuracies that were never caught, rumors that were never stopped, sources that were never verified. Each one of those has had a part, however miniscule, in forming the narrative of the war in Iraq and the greater War on Terror. That narrative has shaped public opinion in Iraq, the U.S., and around the world. That public opinion may end up playing a hand in whether we win or lose in that theater
BizzyBlog has some comments of his own. Answering Mary Katherine Ham's question:
Who is Capt. Jamil Hussein? Keep asking that question. Getting the answer right matters a great deal. You’d think reporters would understand that.
Oh, they understand very well, MKH, especially the “win or lose” part. The WORMs (Worn-Out Reactionary Media, formerly known as the Mainstream Media) want the false narrative to be the first one that hits the streets, even if it takes questionable sources and/or anonymous sources to make it happen. The WORMs know that the corrective narratives, if they even occur at all, barely matter, because the vast majority of readers, listeners, and viewers will never see, hear, or be aware of them
The influence of blogs so far has been analysis rather than reporting. The Belmont Club:
The press, because of its huge institutional presence is still the primary open source mechanism for "collection". The blogosphere has increasingly become a major player in "analysis". As the blogosphere continues to expand and MSM media personalities start to blog, the division of labor between these two entitites will start to blur. Organizations like Pajamas Media, Oh My News! and 18 Doughty Street are starting to provide original reportage -- collection -- while continuing to focus on analysis. But however the labor is divided, the conceptual distinction between collection and analysis remains and we will return to the subject later.
To wind it up here is a HOT AIR video of the editor of the Boston Herald blasting the AP on Fox News.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Saudi Executioner: Allah be Praised!
Little Green Footballs shows an interview with one of Allah's head choppers.
The Fying Imams, cont.
The case of U.S. Airways flight 300 gets stranger by the minute. When six traveling Muslim clerics were asked to deplane last week, it looked like another civil rights controversy against post-9-11 airport security.
Now new information is emerging that suggests it was all a stunt designed to weaken security….
Yesterday I spoke with a passenger on that flight, who asked that she be only identified as “Pauline.” A copy of airport police report, which I also obtained, supports Pauline’s account - and includes shocking revelations of its own. In addition, U.S. Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader also confirmed much of what Pauline revealed…..
The passenger, who asked that she only be identified as “Pauline,” said she is afraid to give her full name or hometown. She is spending the night at “another location” because she does not feel safe at home. She credits reports that one imam is apparently linked to Hamas. “It is scary because these men could be dangerous.”
Read the rest...
James Webb "Born Jerk"
Jim Webb (D-Media) had a slogan during his campaign for Senate: “Born Fighting.” It now appears that an equally valid descriptor is “Born Jerk.”
He seems to have surprised everybody. He surprised his supporters, led by the Washington Post, the Virginian Pilot and most of the press barons of Virginia, by demonstrating that he is not house trained.
I predicted that Jim Webb would surprise his friends. I little realized what a surprise he would be.
UPDATE:
A fan of James Webb insists that Jim is a "very private" person and doesn't want to talk about his son. It's a good story but it's a lie. Unfortunately, Webb is anything but reluctant to talk about his marine son. His offical web site has this picture of Webb holding up his son's boots.
And in case you wonder where I got the info that those boots Webb is holding are his son's, click HERE. He wore those boots on the campaign trail, using his son as a campaign prop.
James Webb is a classless jerk and his supporters are dupes.
Countercolumn has it right:
He seems to have surprised everybody. He surprised his supporters, led by the Washington Post, the Virginian Pilot and most of the press barons of Virginia, by demonstrating that he is not house trained.
I predicted that Jim Webb would surprise his friends. I little realized what a surprise he would be.
UPDATE:
A fan of James Webb insists that Jim is a "very private" person and doesn't want to talk about his son. It's a good story but it's a lie. Unfortunately, Webb is anything but reluctant to talk about his marine son. His offical web site has this picture of Webb holding up his son's boots.
And in case you wonder where I got the info that those boots Webb is holding are his son's, click HERE. He wore those boots on the campaign trail, using his son as a campaign prop.
James Webb is a classless jerk and his supporters are dupes.
Countercolumn has it right:
By the way, I'm sure the words "Webb" and "Decorated former Marine officer" will go together quite a bit in the media in the months to come. A lot more often than, say, "Webb" and "Ineffective former Secretary of the Navy."
Funny. Bob Dole was very highly decorated. But the press sure didn't refer to him as a "highly decorated WWII veteran" very much during the 96 campaign coverage.
MSM bias: "Everybody knows ..."
As I have pointed out innumerable times (for example HERE), the media reacts badly when it's errors are exposed. A story that is wrong or misleading is a defective product, no different from a defective car or any other consumer item. In fact, a defective press report can be quite a bit more harmful than a defective car - since "lemons" typically affect few people while erroneous press reports have been known to cause wars and kill large numbers of people. We have to go no further back than the "Koran in the toilet story" (HERE, HERE, HERE) that led to global rioting and the death of a reported 17 people.
Reminiscent of the worst of American businessmen of 40 years ago, media executives react with denial or silence, waiting for the outrage to subside so that they can continue doing what they have been doing and the public be damned.
So what causes the media industry to continue to produce massively defective products, seemingly undeterred by exposure of their defects? An instructive article (see headline link) provides one explanation: "The Conventional Wisdom" among among the mostly Liberal inhabitants of the media cocoon.
To extend the auto industry vs. the media industry analogy one step further, think of the Internet as the Japanese auto industry 50 years ago. At first, people laughed. But some bought because it was different and cheap. Then the word spread that Japanese cars were not only cheaper, they were better! And Detroit was in a life and death struggle. It took a while, but the American auto industry is now on it's last legs.
The past is prologue.
At this point, the media executives are still in a state of denial. Seeing the competition, they have begun publishing their product on-line. But it's still the same defective product - demonstrably so. And many in the media orbit are so committed to their ideological preferences that the business results don't seem to faze them. The share prices of the major media companies have tanked. NY Times stock is off 50% since 2002. The Washington Post Company is down 30% since 2005. How long will the shareholders of these companies endure having their wealth squandered by the wealthy, and very Liberal, dilettantes running their companies for their personal enjoyment?
In a future post we will look a the ways that hereditary management is insulated from corporate democracy and what can be done about it.
Reminiscent of the worst of American businessmen of 40 years ago, media executives react with denial or silence, waiting for the outrage to subside so that they can continue doing what they have been doing and the public be damned.
So what causes the media industry to continue to produce massively defective products, seemingly undeterred by exposure of their defects? An instructive article (see headline link) provides one explanation: "The Conventional Wisdom" among among the mostly Liberal inhabitants of the media cocoon.
Thus, whatever liberals generally believe at any given time can be understood to function as conventional wisdom within the media. "Everybody knows" that Bush is stupid, that Cheney is a fascist warmonger, and that the GOP is under the control of neocons, Halliburton and "Christianists." Most of all, "everybody knows" that the war in Iraq is another Vietnam -- a "quagmire" in need of "an exit strategy."
It's Heaven's Gate, you see? Cult members knew that there was a spaceship behind that comet, because one could not believe otherwise and remain a member. To the extent that they actually studied the facts about the Hale-Bopp comet (and they were fairly obsessed with it), they did so only with the purpose of finding "evidence" to confirm the unquestionable belief. And this backward way of thinking is deeply related to group psychology.
[snip]
If AP's editors have been hoodwinked for months by reporters passing along insurgent propaganda from "Police Captain" Jamil Hussein, what does this tell us about those editors, and what does it tell us about the institutional agenda of the Associated Press? If the AP is not a reliable news organization, but is instead just another MSM outfit devoted to disseminating liberal talking-points ...
Well, "everybody knows" that can't be the case, right? And this is how transparently partisan Democrats in the media like Couric and Rather can claim that there is no bias in their reporting: They operate within organizations that exclude and marginalize conservatives, while promoting and celebrating liberals. Belief is good, disbelief is bad.
In such an organization, the conventional wisdom of liberalism is not bias, it is merely what "everybody knows."
To extend the auto industry vs. the media industry analogy one step further, think of the Internet as the Japanese auto industry 50 years ago. At first, people laughed. But some bought because it was different and cheap. Then the word spread that Japanese cars were not only cheaper, they were better! And Detroit was in a life and death struggle. It took a while, but the American auto industry is now on it's last legs.
The past is prologue.
At this point, the media executives are still in a state of denial. Seeing the competition, they have begun publishing their product on-line. But it's still the same defective product - demonstrably so. And many in the media orbit are so committed to their ideological preferences that the business results don't seem to faze them. The share prices of the major media companies have tanked. NY Times stock is off 50% since 2002. The Washington Post Company is down 30% since 2005. How long will the shareholders of these companies endure having their wealth squandered by the wealthy, and very Liberal, dilettantes running their companies for their personal enjoyment?
In a future post we will look a the ways that hereditary management is insulated from corporate democracy and what can be done about it.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Michelle Malkin has the transcript of the press briefing by Iraq Ministry of the Interior
Rumors and reporting in Iraq
For example, we have some of the respected news outlets that deal with news fast and have a relation with many TV channels and the media in general, who distributed a story quoting a person called Jamil Hussein. Afterward, we searched our sources in our staff for anyone by this name-- maybe he wore an MOI uniform and gave a different name to the reporter for money. And the second name used is Lt. Maythem.
However, all of you know that the ministry of interior has a large public affairs office and its official spokesman, and we are ready to answer any questions you may have. Therefore, you should contact MOI PAO for all your needs to get real, true news. Based on that, we strongly deny any relation with those two names. In order to serve you better and strengthen the relationship with MOI, do not take statements that have no meaning and do not represent any official. We would like this note to be helpful to you and any statement made by those persons to be ignored.
The second subject is rumors. The ministry received in a week more than 12 cases of claims, one stating 50 killed were there, 200 kidnapped here, 30 corpses found there etc. And when we dispatched our forces and investigators to the locations, we found nothing.
AP Lies. Why the Associated Press Fails to Confirm Original story.
The AP is digging the credibility hole it is in deeper with every announcement it makes. Kathleen Carroll, you may resign your post. is a great illustration of their problem
Stating "I would not lie to you, trust me," is not the proof I need when somebody points out that it's very probable that I have been lied to.
Ignoring the issue and expecting it to go away may have been possible before the Internet and fact checking became so easy. Today, lies can be exposed more easily because there are millions of eyes and ears, and billions of links and incredible electronic data bases. and millions of people around the world have access to them.
Kathleen Carroll and her ilk at the AP are in the process of destroying their franchise.
For a slightly different view, here is Right Wing Nuthouse "Stringing Us along." (read the whole thing):
And here is added information from Sharon Tosi Moore, an officer in the United States Army Reserves, currently serving in Iraq.
Stating "I would not lie to you, trust me," is not the proof I need when somebody points out that it's very probable that I have been lied to.
Ignoring the issue and expecting it to go away may have been possible before the Internet and fact checking became so easy. Today, lies can be exposed more easily because there are millions of eyes and ears, and billions of links and incredible electronic data bases. and millions of people around the world have access to them.
Kathleen Carroll and her ilk at the AP are in the process of destroying their franchise.
For a slightly different view, here is Right Wing Nuthouse "Stringing Us along." (read the whole thing):
We have seen photos doctored, stories embellished or faked outright. Anyone remember the “chemical weapon attack” on Fallujah? We have seen civilian body counts inflated and stories of how they died swallowed whole by a press who would rather believe enemy propaganda than their own military; a press who suspends belief when given information that reflects poorly on the American military but insists on triple confirmations before they publish a retraction – if they ever bother.
And they don’t bother. The burning Sunnis were last week’s news, already forgotten in the rush of events. Bush and Maliki. The Iraq Study Group. Obama, Obama, Obama.
In their smug, self righteous little cocoons, the AP and others continue the process of making sausages out of the news. The burning Sunnis were just one mind-numbing atrocity in a Flanders Field of atrocities so who really, really cares down deep if we blew it? Just put up the old firewall of denial, do a cursory follow up by finding some “eyewitnesses” (who probably read about the burning Sunnis in the paper or saw the report on TV), neglect to mention our little police captain problem and that’ll do it. End of story.
AP can do this because ultimately, we are not their clients. Unlike newspapers or TV networks, the AP could give a hoot about the people who actually end up reading their enemy propaganda. The people who pay them are, of course, the newspapers and TV stations that subscribe to their service.
[snip]
This story is revealing of many things, not the least of which is that our free press is in trouble. Partly from infringements by government but also by lousy stewardship of this precious right being carried out by many the current practitioners of the craft. Not all, of course. There are still some excellent journalists writing for the top publications. But by and large, those whose responsibility it is to inform us, to keep us abreast of what’s going on in the world, are failing and failing badly.
And the hell of it is, no one seems to want to fix the problems much less address them.
And here is added information from Sharon Tosi Moore, an officer in the United States Army Reserves, currently serving in Iraq.
A winning situation all around.
Except, well, except for the tiny little detail that the incident most likely never happened. A week has gone by and no charred bodies were produced. No dramatic funeral parades, with all the attendant wailing and gnashing of teeth, occurred. Not one photo. No grand reprisals. Not even any speeches (and it is hard to imagine Iraqi religious leaders miss an opportunity to make speeches). Just a few remarks from the Iraqi government, largely ignored by the U.S. press, that all reports showed that that particular district had been quiet, and pleading the Iraqi people for calm.
No one thought to question this unusual divergence from normal protocol.
The gullible press swallowed the initial claims whole. Of the major news sources, only TIME Magazine used the word "reportedly" in their headline. Besides, there are always new and dramatic stories of gore and bloodshed in Iraq and no one has the time to check their sources carefully or to go back and correct erroneous reports.
A review of the databases that painstakingly record every single incident in Iraq shows no evidence or report of the event. It is hard to believe that something as momentous as this would have escaped the notice of both the U.S. military and the entire Iraqi government. And yet not one major news organization has recanted their article. The story has been allowed to stand, and as such has become a truth. It is now just one more legend that will be confidently repeated as truth in future histories of the conflict.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Another update on the Six Burned Iraqis and "Captain Hussein".
From Flopping Aces:
This latest dustup over Capt. Jamil Hussein and the Burning Six story just illustrates the need for the American public to be aware of this propaganda. We now know the AP, and have for sometime, is printing what these propagandists say and passing them off as facts when most or all of the stories cannot be corroberated.
Newt Gingrich: Re-Thinking Free Speech
From the Corner at NR:
Here's how the story was first reported. According to The Sun, Gingrich also said this:
I could not agree more.
And for a complete version of Newt's speech, click HERE
Newt & the First Amendment [Andy McCarthy]
Captain Ed offers an uncharacteristically overwrought analysis of Newt Gingrich’s sensible argument that the current threat – jihadists plotting mass-murder in a world where weapons of mass destruction are increasingly accessible – requires a rethinking of First Amendment principles.
The Speaker is right, and the fact that he is treading on this third rail is further indication that he will be formidable as a presidential candidate. Plainly, he understands that the modern threat environment requires going back to first constitutional principles rather than simply accepting the law as sculpted by the Warren Court.
As Judge Bork has often pointed out, as late as the 1942 case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court unanimously decreed:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. [emphasis added]
The contention that speech inciting violence and lawlessness cannot be regulated is a legacy not of the Constitution but of the Warren Court, which held in Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969) that government could not proscribe advocacy of the use of force (or of other violations of law) “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis added). There is no reason why the current Supreme Court could not reconsider whether Brandenberg is faithful to the original understanding of the First Amendment.
But even if – for argument’s sake – we concede that it is, what was “imminent” in the 1960s was far different from what is imminent with today’s technology. What seemed “likely” before the World Trade Center was built is not the same as what is “likely” now that the World Trade Center no longer exists.
Captain Ed says, “The remedy for bad speech is more speech.” This, effectively, is the Holmesian “marketplace of ideas” trope that is just an excuse for not thinking. If someone’s bad speech is a fatwa that sets a WMD attack in motion, my ability to speak out against the fatwa will be cold comfort to the dead. The First Amendment does not countenance commands to murder, and Speaker Gingrich is entirely correct to challenge us to think through these principles.
McCain/Feingold says the political speech that was the core of the original First Amendment protection can be regulated. Are you really telling me that we can stop someone from speaking out on behalf of a candidate for public office but we have to allow jihadists to call for mass murder? I don’t think so.
Here's how the story was first reported. According to The Sun, Gingrich also said this:
"We should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous," he said.
I could not agree more.
And for a complete version of Newt's speech, click HERE
Ann Coulter: COULTER GETS RESULTS!
The November 29, 2006 column:
The six imams removed from a US Airways flight last week have apparently adopted my suggestion that if they really want to protest the airline, instead of boycotting US Airways, they should start flying it frequently.
The spokesman for the imams — or as I believe it's phrased in their culture, "designated liar" — Omar Shahin, staged a protest at Reagan Washington National Airport on Monday, after which, according to The Associated Press, "he and other religious leaders boarded a US Airways flight to demonstrate their determination to continue praying and flying."
The original six imams removed from the flight last week first attracted attention when they said prayers to Allah on traditional Muslim prayer rugs in the boarding area. After boarding, they changed seats, spreading themselves throughout the plane. They were also overheard spouting anti-American rhetoric. Witnesses said the six men appeared to be either Islamic fanatics or U.S. Army chaplains on leave from Guantanamo.
Following the lead of FEMA in keeping Americans safe, the Homeland Security Department's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is investigating the removal of the imams from the US Airways flight. (Talk about coincidences — I'm currently investigating the removal of the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties from the Department of Homeland Security!)
Imam spokesman Shahin is a great example of why airport security ought to be profiling Arabs. Shahin's predecessor at the Islamic Center in Tucson was Osama bin Laden's financier and head of logistics — until he was arrested in Saudi Arabia in 2002.
Instead of aggressively distinguishing himself from his terrorist predecessor, judging by news reports, Shahin spent the five years after 9/11 denying that Muslims were behind the attacks and complaining of phony anti-Islamic "hate crimes" — as opposed to the pro-Islamic hate crimes he presumably endorses.
In 2003, for example, Shahin alleged that a woman in Arizona had thrown shoes at children at the mosque.
This is the most transparent hoax I've heard since, "If I did it, here's how I would have done it." This is like the joke about a speaker at an American communist rally opening with: "Workers and peasants of Brooklyn!" Shahin has so little insight into this country, he can't even invent a believable hate crime.
It's Arabs who have a thing about shoes being a sign of disrespect, not Americans. When Iraqis toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein, the crowd immediately pelted it with shoes. Saddam installed a mosaic of the first president Bush's face on the ground floor of his palace so that visitors would be forced to disrespect Bush by walking on his visage in their shoes.
Shahin himself couldn't get away from this pan-Arabic shoe fetish, adding: "The incidents of Muslims being attacked kind of shocked me in my shoes." Note to imams trying to fabricate hate crimes against Muslims: Americans don't share your shoe neurosis.
At Reagan National this week, Rabbis joined the Muslims at the prayer protest — though one imagines they did not share this prayer from the Hadith: "And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: 'O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'" In fairness, they usually save that one for the high holidays, like the "Festival of the Six Dead Jews" or "Honor Killing Week."
Nor this one, also from the Hadith: "The Prophet said: 'The Hour will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. The Muslims will kill the Jews. Rejoice! Rejoice in Allah's victory!'" (Is it just me, or might some fanatic twist those words into an excuse to kill Jews?)
Also strange was that the NAACP has piped in to complain about racial profiling of Muslims. The only reason Americans feel guilty about "racial profiling" against blacks is because of the history of discrimination against blacks in this country.
What did we do to the Arabs? I believe Americans are the victims in that relationship. After the attacks of 9/11, profiling Muslims is more like profiling the Klan.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
The Evolution of a Myth: "Six Iraqi Men Burned"
Here is how the wire services can take a lie and turn it into something the “everybody knows.”
The AP appears to have been using a fictional character to report fictional events. When called on it, they adamantly “stand by their story.”
Mary Katherine Ham shows how it’s done.
It’s chilling.
For more on the story see my previous posts HERE, HERE, HERE.
The AP appears to have been using a fictional character to report fictional events. When called on it, they adamantly “stand by their story.”
Mary Katherine Ham shows how it’s done.
It’s chilling.
For more on the story see my previous posts HERE, HERE, HERE.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Cheerleading for the Terrorists
The media, in all of its glory, wholeheartedly participating in the celebration of a new weapon designed to kill Jews...
For those of you who might be new to Snapped Shot, this is not the first time that the press has coddled up to terrorist "press conferences." Just close your eyes for a second and see if you can picture the media showing up to a press conference organized by the Klu Klux Klan, and reporting on the Klan as glowingly as they do these murderous scum. After seeing photos like these, that picture really isn't all that hard for me to picture any longer. How about you?
Click on the link for the pictures...
Willful Suspension of Disbelief
And from Protein Wisdom on the AP's Captain Hussein:
From Curt at Flopping Aces comes the news many of us quietly expected: Centcom has confirmed that Capt. Jamil Hussein, the primary source for the recent kerosene mosque murder reports—and for a whole host of reports of Shia massacres recounted by the AP—is neither an employee of Iraq’s Ministry of Interior nor is he a police captain.
In short, the AP has been relying on a bogus source for much of its reporting on Shia violence against Sunnis since at least April.
For those who continue to suggest that the mainstream press has a negligible impact on elections, consider that the majority of Americans who bothered to pay any attention whatsoever to this story will be left with an account of horrific sectarian violence against women and children—and the belief that sectarian strife in Iraq is not only inexorable and savage, but pandemic.
Bombshell: Centcom says AP’s Iraqi police source isn’t Iraqi police; Update: Fake cop linked to AP reporter?
Update: See-Dubya wants to know (a) who is Qais al-Bashir and (b) why is his byline on (almost) every AP story that quotes phony police captain Jamil Hussein?
Not All the News From Iraq Is Fake ... Just Some. The Question is: Which Part?
We are all familiar with atrocity stories out of Iraq, so when the next one comes along about, say six men being doused with gasoline and set afire, we agree that it’s all part of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq. The faster we get out of this hellhole the better, right?
Well suppose some of the atrocities did not happen. Suppose part of the stories coming out of Iraq are fabrications created by … oh, I don’t know … maybe people who want us to think that the situation is totally out of control. Who want us to think that Arabs are animals focused on killing each other and us. Suppose some of the “reports” come from people who don’t really exist; people whose name and titles are fictions.
But surely a reputable organization like the aP would not do such a thing? Surely they would check on a report by of six people being burned to death.
Well, let’s find out:
But who is Jamil Hussein? In fact, is there a Jamil Hussein? Read on…
Well suppose some of the atrocities did not happen. Suppose part of the stories coming out of Iraq are fabrications created by … oh, I don’t know … maybe people who want us to think that the situation is totally out of control. Who want us to think that Arabs are animals focused on killing each other and us. Suppose some of the “reports” come from people who don’t really exist; people whose name and titles are fictions.
But surely a reputable organization like the aP would not do such a thing? Surely they would check on a report by of six people being burned to death.
Well, let’s find out:
Doing a search via Google I began reading the stories printed about the burned six and each and every one had one thing in common. The only person stating that this incident happened was one Capt. Jamil Hussein. Every news report printed this man as the source of the information.
But who is Jamil Hussein? In fact, is there a Jamil Hussein? Read on…
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Is there a Civil War in Iraq
Patterico has a blog posting that relates to this. But the best discussion I have seen so far is found at Prospect.
Read the whole thing. Excerpt:
To call something a “civil war” simply because there is a high level of violence is lazy thinking. Is the genocide in Darfur a “civil war?” There is certainly a high level of violence but no one seems to call the violence in Darfur anything but “genocide.”
The Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the tribal fighting there was not a civil war even though some Afghans sided with the Russians and fought other Afghanis.
Read the whole thing. Excerpt:
What is civil war? The question is often raised about the disorders in Iraq. Does the violence between Iraqi religious and political factions amount to civil war, or is it best described another way? The US-led coalition's spokesmen, echoing the views of the White House and Downing Street, refuse to call the disorders civil war. Presumably they believe that to do so would be to admit defeat in their project to set up a stable, legitimate new Iraq.
To assess the situation in Iraq, it is helpful to understand how a civil war differs from an inter-state, cross-border war. There are three principal defining aspects of a civil war, each with numerous subsidiary requirements. The basic formula is simple: the violence must be "civil," it must be "war," and its aim must be either the exercise or the acquisition of national authority.
The "civil" part of the definition means the struggle must be conducted within a national territory, and that it must be carried on largely by the people of that territory, fighting between themselves. It must also involve a significant degree of popular participation.
A civil war also has to be a war—what the dictionary calls a "hostile contention by means of armed forces." Does this definition require formal battles and campaigns? Or does factional or regional struggle suffice? For us the baseline is a minimum degree of organisation, formality and identifiability of the combatants. The battles do not have to be organised, in other words, but the people do. A civil war requires leaders who say what they are fighting for and why, and a public that understands what it is all about—the divisions, the people and the goals.
The third principal condition, authority, is just as important. The point of the violence must be sovereign rule: combatants must be trying either to seize national power or to maintain it. This is the difference between, for example, the Russian civil war and the tribal rebellions now taking place in 14 of India's 28 states, or the late 1990s insurgency of Subcomandante Marcos in Mexico. Revenge, struggles for rights, mass criminality and positioning for economic gain are not sufficient, individually or severally. The opponents must be fighting to rule.
To call something a “civil war” simply because there is a high level of violence is lazy thinking. Is the genocide in Darfur a “civil war?” There is certainly a high level of violence but no one seems to call the violence in Darfur anything but “genocide.”
The Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the tribal fighting there was not a civil war even though some Afghans sided with the Russians and fought other Afghanis.
An important feature of the conflict in Iraq is the lack of public rhetoric against the enemy by popular leaders. All of Iraq's leaders call constantly for unity, tolerance and an end to the violence. This was far from the case with Lenin, Franco, Cromwell or even Lincoln. To the extent that Iraq's violence involves separatist and regional tendencies, the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. (The Kurds do not feature much in Iraq's civil war scenario. They are essentially separate from the Arab Iraqi state, and should they move to formalise this status, no Arab Iraqi player will be strong enough to stop them.)
Could Iraq be the first civil war ever without battles, generals, explicit war aims, the use of partisan public rhetoric by civilian leaders, mass public participation and targets of a predominantly military nature? Even if Iraq today possessed these characteristics, it would still lack something even more important: the struggle for authority. In Iraq, the state actors are fighting for authority. But the others are not, which is probably why we do not hear from them. The Shia militias are the armed wings of the two biggest parties in parliament, and their people own the top ministries. Neither Badr nor the al-Sadr movement is big enough or strong enough to own the state itself. They balance each other while the Sunnis, whose violent actors are far smaller, provide the final guarantee against a full grab for power by either. It is no coincidence that the only player, apart from the state, that acknowledges war aims is the only player whose war aims constitute the traditional aspiration of exclusive control: the religious element of the Sunni insurgency. The aspiration to a new Baghdad caliphate frees the Wahhabis and Salafists from the pragmatic calculations of al-Sadr or the Baathists, and lets them dream of control, and talk about it on their websites.
Objectively, it must be concluded that the disorders in Iraq do not constitute a civil war but are nearer to a politico-military struggle for power. Such struggles in Muslim countries defy resolution because Islam is irreconcilably divided over the issue of the succession to Muhammad. It might be said that Islam is in a permanent state of civil war (at least where there is a significant minority of the opposing sect) and that authority in Muslim lands can be sustained only by repression if the state takes on a religious cast, since neither Shia nor Sunni communities can concede legitimacy to their opponents.
This is funny!
Peter Marshall: Paul, can you get an elephant drunk?
Paul Lynde: Yes, but he still won't go up to your apartment.
Peter Marshall: According to Cosmo, if you meet a stranger at a party and you think he's really attractive, is it okay to come out directly and ask him if he's married?
Rose Marie: No, wait until morning.
Peter Marshall: Which of your five senses tends to diminish as you get older?
Charley Weaver: My sense of decency.
Peter Marshall: In Hawaiian, does it take more than three words to say "I love you"?
Vincent Price: No, you can say it with a pineapple and a twenty.
Peter Marshall: Prometheus was tied to the top of a mountain by the gods because he had given something to man. What did he give us?
Paul Lynde: I don't know what you got, but I got a sports shirt.
Peter Marshall: What are "Do It", "I Can Help" and "Can't Get Enough"?
George Goebel: I don't know but it's coming from the next apartment.
Peter Marshall: As you grow older, do you tend to gesture more or less with your hands while you are talking?
Rose Marie: You ask me one more growing older question, Peter...and I'll give you a gesture you'll never forget!
Peter Marshall: According to Zsa Zsa, does black look sexy on a woman?
Redd Foxx: I wouldn't have it any other way...
Peter Marshall: What are "dual purpose" cattle good for that other cattle aren't?
Paul Lynde: They give milk and cookies... but I don't recommend the cookies!
Peter Marshall: If you find someone lying unconscious in the street, should you do anything?
George Goebel: I'd probably crawl around him I guess.
Peter Marshall: Paul, why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
Paul Lynde: Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
Peter Marshall: Charley, you've just decided to grow strawberries. Are you going to get any during your first year?
Charley Weaver: Of course not, Peter. I'm too busy growing strawberries!
Peter Marshall: In bowling, what's a perfect score?
Rose Marie: Ralph, the pin boy.
Peter Marshall: Eddie, according to the Institute of Motivational Research, a wife should be beware if another woman takes an interest in a certain item of her husband's clothing. What item?
Ed Asner: Well, shorts immediately springs to my mind...
Peter Marshall: It is considered in bad taste to discuss two subjects at nudist camps. One is politics. What is the other?
Paul Lynde: Tape measures.
Peter Marshall: True or false...a pea can last as long as 5,000 years.
George Goebel: Boy it sure seems that way sometimes...
Peter Marshall: Is there a weight limit for bags on airline flights in this country?
Charley Weaver: If she can fit under the seat, she can fly.
Peter Marshall: During a tornado, are you safer in the bedroom or in the closet?
Rose Marie: Unfortunately, Peter, I'm always safe in the bedroom.
Peter Marshall: Can boys join the camp fire girls?
Marty Allen: Only after lights out.
Peter Marshall: When you pat a dog on its head he will usually wag his tail. What will a goose do?
Paul Lynde: Make him bark.
Peter Marshall: True or false, George...experts say there are only seven or eight things in the world dumber than an ant.
George Goebel: Yes, and I think I voted for six of 'em.
Peter Marshall: If you were pregnant for two years, what would you give birth to?
Paul Lynde: Whatever it is, it would never be afraid of the dark.
Peter Marshall: According to Ann Landers, is there anything wrong with getting into the habit of kissing a lot of people?
Charley Weaver: It got me out of the army!
Peter Marshall: Is it possible for the puppies in a litter to have more than one daddy?
Paul Lynde: Why, that bitch!
Peter Marshall: It is the most abused and neglected part of your body-what is it?
Paul Lynde: Mine may be abused but it certainly isn't neglected!
Peter Marshall: Charley, what do you call a pig that weighs more than 150 pounds?
Charley Weaver: A divorcee.
Peter Marshall: Back in the old days, when Great Grandpa put horseradish on his head, what was he trying to do?
George Goebel: Get it in his mouth.
Peter Marshall: According to Movie Life magazine, Ann-Margret would like to start having babies soon, but her husband wants her to wait a while. Why?
Paul Lynde: He's out of town.
Peter Marshall: Dennis Weaver, Debbie Reynolds, and Shelley Winters star in the movie "What's The Matter With Helen?" Who plays Helen?
Charley Weaver: Dennis Weaver - that's why they asked the question.
Peter Marshall: Who stays pregnant for a longer period of time, your wife or your elephant?
Paul Lynde: Who told you about my elephant?
Peter Marshall: When a couple have a baby, who is responsible for its sex?
Charley Weaver: I'll lend him the car. The rest is up to him.
Peter Marshall: James Stewart did it over twenty years ago when he was forty-one years old. Now he says it was "one of the best things I ever did." What was it?
Marty Allen: Rhonda Fleming.
Peter Marshall: Jackie Gleason recently revealed that he firmly believes in them and has actually seen them on at least two occasions. What are they?
Charley Weaver: His feet.
Peter Marshall: If you're going to make a parachute jump, you should be at least how high?
Charley Weaver: Three days of steady drinking should do it.
Peter Marshall: Do female frogs croak?
Paul Lynde: If you hold their little heads under water.
Peter Marshall: You've been having trouble going to sleep. Are you probably a man or a woman?
Don Knotts: That's what's been keeping me awake.
Peter Marshall: Your baby has a certain object which he loves to cling to. Should you try to break him of his habit?
Joan Rivers: Yes. It's daddy's turn.
Paul Lynde: Yes, but he still won't go up to your apartment.
Peter Marshall: According to Cosmo, if you meet a stranger at a party and you think he's really attractive, is it okay to come out directly and ask him if he's married?
Rose Marie: No, wait until morning.
Peter Marshall: Which of your five senses tends to diminish as you get older?
Charley Weaver: My sense of decency.
Peter Marshall: In Hawaiian, does it take more than three words to say "I love you"?
Vincent Price: No, you can say it with a pineapple and a twenty.
Peter Marshall: Prometheus was tied to the top of a mountain by the gods because he had given something to man. What did he give us?
Paul Lynde: I don't know what you got, but I got a sports shirt.
Peter Marshall: What are "Do It", "I Can Help" and "Can't Get Enough"?
George Goebel: I don't know but it's coming from the next apartment.
Peter Marshall: As you grow older, do you tend to gesture more or less with your hands while you are talking?
Rose Marie: You ask me one more growing older question, Peter...and I'll give you a gesture you'll never forget!
Peter Marshall: According to Zsa Zsa, does black look sexy on a woman?
Redd Foxx: I wouldn't have it any other way...
Peter Marshall: What are "dual purpose" cattle good for that other cattle aren't?
Paul Lynde: They give milk and cookies... but I don't recommend the cookies!
Peter Marshall: If you find someone lying unconscious in the street, should you do anything?
George Goebel: I'd probably crawl around him I guess.
Peter Marshall: Paul, why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
Paul Lynde: Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
Peter Marshall: Charley, you've just decided to grow strawberries. Are you going to get any during your first year?
Charley Weaver: Of course not, Peter. I'm too busy growing strawberries!
Peter Marshall: In bowling, what's a perfect score?
Rose Marie: Ralph, the pin boy.
Peter Marshall: Eddie, according to the Institute of Motivational Research, a wife should be beware if another woman takes an interest in a certain item of her husband's clothing. What item?
Ed Asner: Well, shorts immediately springs to my mind...
Peter Marshall: It is considered in bad taste to discuss two subjects at nudist camps. One is politics. What is the other?
Paul Lynde: Tape measures.
Peter Marshall: True or false...a pea can last as long as 5,000 years.
George Goebel: Boy it sure seems that way sometimes...
Peter Marshall: Is there a weight limit for bags on airline flights in this country?
Charley Weaver: If she can fit under the seat, she can fly.
Peter Marshall: During a tornado, are you safer in the bedroom or in the closet?
Rose Marie: Unfortunately, Peter, I'm always safe in the bedroom.
Peter Marshall: Can boys join the camp fire girls?
Marty Allen: Only after lights out.
Peter Marshall: When you pat a dog on its head he will usually wag his tail. What will a goose do?
Paul Lynde: Make him bark.
Peter Marshall: True or false, George...experts say there are only seven or eight things in the world dumber than an ant.
George Goebel: Yes, and I think I voted for six of 'em.
Peter Marshall: If you were pregnant for two years, what would you give birth to?
Paul Lynde: Whatever it is, it would never be afraid of the dark.
Peter Marshall: According to Ann Landers, is there anything wrong with getting into the habit of kissing a lot of people?
Charley Weaver: It got me out of the army!
Peter Marshall: Is it possible for the puppies in a litter to have more than one daddy?
Paul Lynde: Why, that bitch!
Peter Marshall: It is the most abused and neglected part of your body-what is it?
Paul Lynde: Mine may be abused but it certainly isn't neglected!
Peter Marshall: Charley, what do you call a pig that weighs more than 150 pounds?
Charley Weaver: A divorcee.
Peter Marshall: Back in the old days, when Great Grandpa put horseradish on his head, what was he trying to do?
George Goebel: Get it in his mouth.
Peter Marshall: According to Movie Life magazine, Ann-Margret would like to start having babies soon, but her husband wants her to wait a while. Why?
Paul Lynde: He's out of town.
Peter Marshall: Dennis Weaver, Debbie Reynolds, and Shelley Winters star in the movie "What's The Matter With Helen?" Who plays Helen?
Charley Weaver: Dennis Weaver - that's why they asked the question.
Peter Marshall: Who stays pregnant for a longer period of time, your wife or your elephant?
Paul Lynde: Who told you about my elephant?
Peter Marshall: When a couple have a baby, who is responsible for its sex?
Charley Weaver: I'll lend him the car. The rest is up to him.
Peter Marshall: James Stewart did it over twenty years ago when he was forty-one years old. Now he says it was "one of the best things I ever did." What was it?
Marty Allen: Rhonda Fleming.
Peter Marshall: Jackie Gleason recently revealed that he firmly believes in them and has actually seen them on at least two occasions. What are they?
Charley Weaver: His feet.
Peter Marshall: If you're going to make a parachute jump, you should be at least how high?
Charley Weaver: Three days of steady drinking should do it.
Peter Marshall: Do female frogs croak?
Paul Lynde: If you hold their little heads under water.
Peter Marshall: You've been having trouble going to sleep. Are you probably a man or a woman?
Don Knotts: That's what's been keeping me awake.
Peter Marshall: Your baby has a certain object which he loves to cling to. Should you try to break him of his habit?
Joan Rivers: Yes. It's daddy's turn.
Gloria Allred and Legal Extortion
From Captain's Quarters:
Gloria Allred has threatened Michael Richards with a lawsuit unless he came through with an apology and some cash.
Is there anything, anything, that lawyers are not allowed to do that ordinary mortals would be put in jail for?
Gloria Allred has threatened Michael Richards with a lawsuit unless he came through with an apology and some cash.
Perhaps I missed this in the never-ending press coverage that accompanies the legal profession, but when did extortion become legal? Allred has publicly threatened Richards, telling him to bring his checkbook or she will file a lawsuit against him. For all intents and purposes, this is extortion, and Allred should be facing an ethics investigation for her bald-faced threats.
Is there anything, anything, that lawyers are not allowed to do that ordinary mortals would be put in jail for?
A tense time for a papal visit: Turkey and Islamofascism.
An excellent review of the power of Islam in Turkey and the persecutionof Christians in that "secular" nation.
To reach Turkey's most important Roman Catholic church, a visitor must scour a traffic-choked street to find the metal doors, walk down a flight of stairs, cross a courtyard and finally step into the consecrated basilica.
Inside the Holy Spirit Cathedral here, the lights remain low until a minute before evening Mass, and then reveal frescoed ceilings with gold-trimmed arches, 22 crystal chandeliers and blond-marble columns. On this night, 14 worshipers dot the pews.
In the Turkish capital, Ankara, the only Catholic church is even more discreet: It is marked simply by a French flag.
Why do they have to cower and hide in modern, forward-looking, European, secular Turkey?
When Pope Benedict XVI travels to Turkey next week, he will be making his first trip to a predominantly Muslim country at a moment of diplomatic fragility.
He also will be traversing some of the most ancient and revered milestones of Christianity, in a land where Christianity is disappearing and where non-Muslim minorities complain of systemic discrimination, harassment and violence against them.
Mood Indian; Dartmouth and Indians as a Political Correctness Runs Amuck
A "must read" from Powerline as Dartmouth, ever in the running for the title of Political Correctness Champs carries off the title.
Certainly the highlight of this installment of Dartmouth's Indian wars is athletic director Josie Harper's apology for the inclusion of the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux in the upcoming hockey tournament at Dartmouth, and for all other travails ever suffered by Native Americans at Dartmouth. Ms. Harper seems to have been inspired by the apologies offered by Bill Clinton in days of old, for offenses he had not committed to those who had not suffered them. Thus spake Josie on behalf of the Pussycats in her letter to the editor of the student newspaper on Tuesday:
I am writing to strongly denounce the historical and recent affronts to the Native American community at Dartmouth and to offer the support of the athletics department in playing a leading role to combat racial, ethnic and sexist ignorance and intolerance on our campus.
At the same time, I must offer a sincere apology to the Native American community, and the Dartmouth community as a whole, for an event that will understandably offend and hurt people within our community. In late December, we will host a men's ice hockey tournament that includes the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux. UND is one of 14 colleges or universities that continue to maintain a Native American name and image to represent their athletic teams.
Let me state clearly that UND's position is offensive and wrong. When we scheduled UND nearly two years ago to participate in our tournament, we did so without considering their team's nickname and symbol. Perhaps we should have, but I deeply regret that we didn't.
On Friday, as I was traveling on College business, a member of my staff met with the Native American Council to discuss our hockey tournament and to offer our apology for the pain that it will cause. In the days and weeks ahead, I will develop a specific and continuing plan to address issues of respect and tolerance within the athletic department as well as considering a policy for scheduling athletic contests against institutions that support offensive nicknames and symbols.
Ann Coulter on the Six Imams
WHAT CAN I DO TO MAKE YOUR FLIGHT MORE UNCOMFORTABLE?
by Ann Coulter
November 22, 2006
Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.
Witnesses said the imams stood to do their evening prayers in the terminal before boarding, chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah" — coincidentally, the last words heard by hundreds of airline passengers on 9/11 before they died.
Witnesses also said that the imams were talking about Saddam Hussein, and denouncing America and the war in Iraq. About the only scary preflight ritual the imams didn't perform was the signing of last wills and testaments.
After boarding, the imams did not sit together and some asked for seat belt extensions, although none were morbidly obese. Three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage.
Also they were Muslims.
The idea that a Muslim boycott against US Airways would hurt the airline proves that Arabs are utterly tone-deaf. This is roughly the equivalent of Cindy Sheehan taking a vow of silence. How can we hope to deal with people with no sense of irony? The next thing you know, New York City cab drivers will be threatening to bathe.
Come to think of it, the whole affair may have been a madcap advertising scheme cooked up by US Airways.
It worked with me. US Airways is my official airline now. Northwest, which eventually flew the Allah-spouting Muslims to their destinations, is off my list. You want to really hurt a U.S. air carrier's business? Have Muslims announce that it's their favorite airline.
The clerics had been attending an imam conference in Minneapolis (imam conference slogan: "What Happens in Minneapolis — Actually, Nothing Happened in Minneapolis"). But instead of investigating the conference, the government is now investigating my favorite airline.
What threat could Muslims flying from Minnesota to Arizona be?
Three of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 received their flight training in Arizona. Long before the attacks, an FBI agent in Phoenix found it curious that so many Arabs were enrolled in flight school. But the FBI rebuffed his request for an investigation on the grounds that his suspicions were based on the same invidious racial profiling that has brought US Airways under investigation and into my good graces.
Lynne Stewart's client, the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, is serving life in prison in a maximum security lock-up in Minnesota. One of the six imams removed from the US Airways plane was blind, so Lynne Stewart was the one missing clue that would have sent all the passengers screaming from the plane.
Wholly apart from the issue of terrorism, don't we have a seller's market for new immigrants? How does a blind Muslim get to the top of the visa list? Is there a shortage of blind, fanatical clerics in this country that I haven't noticed? Couldn't we get some Burmese with leprosy instead? A 4-year-old could do a better job choosing visa applicants than the U.S. Department of Immigration.
One of the stunt-imams in US Airways' advertising scheme, Omar Shahin, complained about being removed from the plane, saying: "Six scholars in handcuffs. It's terrible."
Yes, especially when there was a whole conference of them! Six out of 150 is called "poor law enforcement." How did the other 144 "scholars" get off so easy?
Shahin's own "scholarship" consisted of continuing to deny Muslims were behind 9/11 nearly two months after the attacks. On Nov. 4, 2001, The Arizona Republic cited Shahin's "skepticism that Muslims or bin Laden carried out attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon." Shahin complained that the government was "focusing on the Arabs, the Muslims. And all the evidence shows that the Muslims are not involved in this terrorist act."
In case your memory of that time is hazy, within three days of the attack, the Justice Department had released the names of all 19 hijackers — names like Majed Moqed, Ahmed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi and Ahmed Alnami. The government had excluded all but 19 passengers as possible hijackers based on extensive interviews with friends and family of nearly every passenger on all four flights. Some of the hijackers' seat numbers had been called in by flight attendants on the planes.
By early October, bin Laden had produced a videotape claiming credit for the attacks. And by Nov. 4, 2001, The New York Times had run well over 100 articles on the connections between bin Laden and the hijackers — even more detailed and sinister than the Times' flowcharts on neoconservatives!
Also, if I remember correctly, al-Qaida had taken out full-page ads in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter thanking their agents for the attacks.
But now, on the eve of the busiest travel day in America, these "scholars" have ginned up America's PC victim machinery to intimidate airlines and passengers from noticing six imams chanting "Allah" before boarding a commercial jet.
by Ann Coulter
November 22, 2006
Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.
Witnesses said the imams stood to do their evening prayers in the terminal before boarding, chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah" — coincidentally, the last words heard by hundreds of airline passengers on 9/11 before they died.
Witnesses also said that the imams were talking about Saddam Hussein, and denouncing America and the war in Iraq. About the only scary preflight ritual the imams didn't perform was the signing of last wills and testaments.
After boarding, the imams did not sit together and some asked for seat belt extensions, although none were morbidly obese. Three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage.
Also they were Muslims.
The idea that a Muslim boycott against US Airways would hurt the airline proves that Arabs are utterly tone-deaf. This is roughly the equivalent of Cindy Sheehan taking a vow of silence. How can we hope to deal with people with no sense of irony? The next thing you know, New York City cab drivers will be threatening to bathe.
Come to think of it, the whole affair may have been a madcap advertising scheme cooked up by US Airways.
It worked with me. US Airways is my official airline now. Northwest, which eventually flew the Allah-spouting Muslims to their destinations, is off my list. You want to really hurt a U.S. air carrier's business? Have Muslims announce that it's their favorite airline.
The clerics had been attending an imam conference in Minneapolis (imam conference slogan: "What Happens in Minneapolis — Actually, Nothing Happened in Minneapolis"). But instead of investigating the conference, the government is now investigating my favorite airline.
What threat could Muslims flying from Minnesota to Arizona be?
Three of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 received their flight training in Arizona. Long before the attacks, an FBI agent in Phoenix found it curious that so many Arabs were enrolled in flight school. But the FBI rebuffed his request for an investigation on the grounds that his suspicions were based on the same invidious racial profiling that has brought US Airways under investigation and into my good graces.
Lynne Stewart's client, the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, is serving life in prison in a maximum security lock-up in Minnesota. One of the six imams removed from the US Airways plane was blind, so Lynne Stewart was the one missing clue that would have sent all the passengers screaming from the plane.
Wholly apart from the issue of terrorism, don't we have a seller's market for new immigrants? How does a blind Muslim get to the top of the visa list? Is there a shortage of blind, fanatical clerics in this country that I haven't noticed? Couldn't we get some Burmese with leprosy instead? A 4-year-old could do a better job choosing visa applicants than the U.S. Department of Immigration.
One of the stunt-imams in US Airways' advertising scheme, Omar Shahin, complained about being removed from the plane, saying: "Six scholars in handcuffs. It's terrible."
Yes, especially when there was a whole conference of them! Six out of 150 is called "poor law enforcement." How did the other 144 "scholars" get off so easy?
Shahin's own "scholarship" consisted of continuing to deny Muslims were behind 9/11 nearly two months after the attacks. On Nov. 4, 2001, The Arizona Republic cited Shahin's "skepticism that Muslims or bin Laden carried out attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon." Shahin complained that the government was "focusing on the Arabs, the Muslims. And all the evidence shows that the Muslims are not involved in this terrorist act."
In case your memory of that time is hazy, within three days of the attack, the Justice Department had released the names of all 19 hijackers — names like Majed Moqed, Ahmed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi and Ahmed Alnami. The government had excluded all but 19 passengers as possible hijackers based on extensive interviews with friends and family of nearly every passenger on all four flights. Some of the hijackers' seat numbers had been called in by flight attendants on the planes.
By early October, bin Laden had produced a videotape claiming credit for the attacks. And by Nov. 4, 2001, The New York Times had run well over 100 articles on the connections between bin Laden and the hijackers — even more detailed and sinister than the Times' flowcharts on neoconservatives!
Also, if I remember correctly, al-Qaida had taken out full-page ads in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter thanking their agents for the attacks.
But now, on the eve of the busiest travel day in America, these "scholars" have ginned up America's PC victim machinery to intimidate airlines and passengers from noticing six imams chanting "Allah" before boarding a commercial jet.
Remarks by the Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff at the Federalist Society's Annual Lawyers Convention
Chertoff addresses International Law and how it affects the US and other coutries:
In 2004, the International Court of Justice waded into a thicket that is probably one of the most difficult of all in the area of international relations, and that has to do with Israel and its activities in the West Bank of the Jordan River. There, in a case entitled Legal Consequences of Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the ICJ issued a very broad advisory opinion concluding that the construction of a wall that was specifically designed to keep suicide bombers out of Israel, where they were blowing up people on a regular basis, violated international law, had to be dismantled, and reparations had to be made because the wall was put up.
Part of that reasoning process was the ICJ concluding that Israel could not use the threat of terrorist attacks emanating for the Palestinian territories to justify the wall because the attacks were not attributed to a state. In other words, using what I would consider a very hyper-technical reading, the court was relatively dismissive of what most of us would regard as a very compelling, fundamental attribute of state sovereignty -- the right to protect your citizens from being killed by people coming in from outside.
And I think this sequence of decisions shows an increasing tendency to look to rather generally described and often ambiguous "universal norms" to trump domestic prerogatives that are very much at the core of what it means to live up to your responsibility as a sovereign state. Now who interprets these laws? Of course, to the extent we're dealing with the text of treaties, if this country is party to a treaty we have consented to it -- if it's been ratified by the Senate -- and it's fair that we live up to the letter of the agreement we have signed.
But often the letter of the agreement is not what controls; it is, in fact, what we have not agreed to that people seek to impose upon us. And of course this begins with the judges and justices of various international courts, not, of course, appointed by or ratified by our legal -- our political process, that looks to customary international law, that is often considered to be described by what they say are the opinions of international law experts. That basically means professors.
Friday, November 24, 2006
From Rummy to Gates
By R. Emmett Tyrrell who has know Gates for 20 years.
I have known Mr. Gates for almost two decades and I can tell you whose guy Mr. Gates was originally. It must have been sometime in 1985 when my friend, Director of Central Intelligence Bill Casey, had me to lunch at his office and introduced me to someone he thought very highly of, a protege of his, Bob Gates. Bill always had proteges, but Mr. Gates was one of his favorites. Bill recognized that Mr. Gates was intelligent, principled, and understood the Soviet Union. In fact, Mr. Gates had done graduate work in the same department as I had, Indiana University's Department of History, under a distinguished Soviet specialist who became a mentor to me and to the American Spectator's Editorial Director Wladyslaw Pleszczynski.
From that point on, I watched Mr. Gates with especial interest and dined with him from time to time. Anyone who thinks Mr. Gates lacks grit or an independent mind is mistaken. He was clear-headed on the Soviets and will be clear-headed on the Islamofascists.
Assassination: So cool, it's the new black! And a Bizarre Response from Someone at The European Court of Justice
So, the KGB has successfully whacked a Putin critic in Great Britain. I'm sorry, the KGB has allegedly successfully whacked a Putin critic in Great Britain. This comes after about two years after they allegedly nearly successfully poisoned Yushchenko in Ukraine, in an attempt to whack the leader of the Orange Revolution.
The Syrians successfully whacked... whoops, there I go again. The Syrians allegedly successfully whacked a critic in the Lebanese cabinet, less than two years after they allegedly successfully whacked the Lebanese Prime Minister. (I expect any minute now to hear the news that Bashir Assad signed a deal with News Corp. for a book entitled, "I Didn't Order Hariri Assassinated, But Hypothetically If I Did, Here's How It Went Down.")
Saddam Hussein got the death penalty in a two-year-and-change trial that the organization Human Rights Watch has deemed "fundamentally unfair" and "unsound." I suppose we may have the wrong Iraqi dictator; perhaps it was some other Saddam Hussein who slaughtered all those people.
[snip]
UPDATE: So not long after this initial post, I got quite the response from a reader in Europe:
There is no such thing as the KGB, so such an organization could not "whack", or even "allegedly whack" anyone, whether in London or elsewhere.
Semantics. The Russian secret police and spy network can change the letterhead, but they’re the same bunch of cold-hearted SOBs. If it bothers you so much, print out the posting, cross out KGB and write “FSB” above it.
Indeed, the British police are not even certain the man was deliberately poisoned and have downgraded the investigation to "suspicious death", which suggests they're moving away from that theory. He ate sushi just before he fell ill.
Interesting. The man is on his deathbed, pointing the finger at Putin, and the insistence is, “the fish did it.” Round up the usual sushi chefs. Of course, eating bad sushi often leaves diners with their hair falling out, their throats swelling, severe damage to the nervous and immune systems and sudden heart failure. Happens all the time, right?
I’m sure it’s strictly coincidental that he had tea with a former KGB bodyguard before falling ill.
The interesting thing is why he was investigating this woman journalist's death and on behalf of whom. Since the neocons/Israel Lobby have been screeching from day 1 that it was Putin who did it, finding evidence to support that claim would be nothing new. However, if he had uncovered evidence that she had been murdered by someone else, and was too honest to suppress it, that would be a sensation that the guilty parties might not want to come out. A qui profite le crime?
It was Neocons! Honest to God, this is like a parody of inane lefty conspiracy
theories.
Read the whole thing.
Is the L.A. Times reporting unconfirmed enemy propaganda from an Iraqi stringer with ties to the insurgency? Or is the paper simply misreporting.
Great reporting from Patterico; it's what the Drive By Media wish it were.
A well researched analysis of what the LA Times reported and what actually happened.
A well researched analysis of what the LA Times reported and what actually happened.
The soldier claimed that there were no airstrikes in Ramadi that day, while the L.A. Times stringer claimed there had been an airstrike. When I checked into it, the weight of the evidence indcated that the soldier was right and the L.A. Times was wrong.
The military flatly denies that there was an airstrike — a denial that the L.A. Times has failed to report to this day. Several other media reports state that civilians died from small-arms fire and tank fire, and not an airstrike.
The soldier claimed that only insurgents were killed in the fighting, while the L.A. Times claimed that women and children were killed. Once again, the soldier’s claims appeared to be true, and the L.A. Times claim false.
Other than the L.A. Times report, there is no evidence that women or children were killed in the attack. The available evidence, including other media reports and information through a contact at a Ramadi hospital, indicates that the bodies brought into a Ramadi hospital were all adult males. This fact is suggestive of the possibility that those killed were insurgents, not innocent civilians.
The soldier claimed: “No houses were destroyed and only one courtyard wall was damaged”; by contrast, the L.A. Times stringer claimed that “at least 15 homes were pulverized by aerial bombardment.” There are no media reports with reliable firsthand accounts of pulverized homes.
Indeed, I found only one story (published by Reuters) in which a journalist claims to have been on the scene to report observations of the damage firsthand, and he said: “One small structure was burnt out in that street.” Once again, the objective evidence seemed to favor the claims of the soldier.
If men were angels.
There is a very disturbing video that is making the round on the internet. It is an actual video of a Texas highway patrolman being shot and killed by a 72 year-old man who was being stopped for not wearing his seat belt. The patrolman cannot be seen, but the shooter can and the patrolman’s death can be heard. The website it NOT workplace friendly due to sexual content surrounding the site and the sounds are chilling; be warned. Click HERE for the video.
The shooting of a 92 year-old woman by police during a raid on a suspected drug house brought this to the fore. The immediate assumption was that the cops had shot an obviously innocent person. Until it came out that she had shot and wounded three of the police before herself being shot.
The shooting became a cause celebre especially among the Libertarian side of the political spectrum, partly because the police had a no-knock warrant for the house. What seems to have Libertarians riled up is that no-knock raids are very often associated with drug busts and Libertarians despise the illegal drug laws.
The Web site Patterico’s Pontifications brought this subject to my attention, and I followed a number of links to become familiar with the subject. I was interested in the comments that followed the posting. What I found interesting and extremely offensive among the responses was the dismissal of the crime and a focus on the seatbelt laws.
The larger American community is asking why the Muslims community is not expressing more outrage at the horrific carnage that their co-religionists are committing throughout the world. Instead, after a pro-forma denunciation of whatever murders have been committed by Muslims, we get immediate cries or racism and discrimination against Muslims. See the Six Imams story as a perfect example.
However, we have to look no further than Patterico’s blog to see exactly the same reaction by our Libertarian friends. “Too bad, he’s dead; now let’s talk about the evils of seatbelt or drug laws.”
I once had sympathy for Libertarianism as some people had sympathy for Communism. As an ideal, it may have some merit. The only problem with either philosophy is people. As Madison said in Federalist #51: :If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." But human history testifies to human infallibility, human desire for dominance and human evil. We live in a fallen world in which neither Libertarianism nor Communism will lead to any result except a state of nature, red in tooth and claw, and one in which the compromises found in a representative republic may be the best we can do.
Libertarians pretend that there was once a time when men were left alone to govern themselves for the most part and want a return to that state of freedom. But it is a freedom that never was and never will be. They dream of Utopia and will deliver a Dystopia in which 72 year old men in old cars shoot and kill a young husband and father to avoid a traffic ticket.
The shooting of a 92 year-old woman by police during a raid on a suspected drug house brought this to the fore. The immediate assumption was that the cops had shot an obviously innocent person. Until it came out that she had shot and wounded three of the police before herself being shot.
The shooting became a cause celebre especially among the Libertarian side of the political spectrum, partly because the police had a no-knock warrant for the house. What seems to have Libertarians riled up is that no-knock raids are very often associated with drug busts and Libertarians despise the illegal drug laws.
The Web site Patterico’s Pontifications brought this subject to my attention, and I followed a number of links to become familiar with the subject. I was interested in the comments that followed the posting. What I found interesting and extremely offensive among the responses was the dismissal of the crime and a focus on the seatbelt laws.
I have nothing against the police officer, but he died doing something valueless and counterproductive that should not be what law enforcement is about. It should be about public safety — protecting people from external dangers, not their own safety equipment choices — enforcing public morality as in not harming others (good vs. evil), enforcing court orders to protect, not take away, free citizens’ rights.Then I realized what this reaction reminded me of. It was the Muslim reaction to 9/11 and its aftermath.
If he had at least shot the man aiming a rifle at him I might acknowledge some value in his final actions. While undoubtedly the officer was brave and held off firing either due to decency or shock (many people freeze when confronted with aggression), police officers in free countries should not be enforcing helmut or seatbelt laws. These laws should be struck down.
The larger American community is asking why the Muslims community is not expressing more outrage at the horrific carnage that their co-religionists are committing throughout the world. Instead, after a pro-forma denunciation of whatever murders have been committed by Muslims, we get immediate cries or racism and discrimination against Muslims. See the Six Imams story as a perfect example.
However, we have to look no further than Patterico’s blog to see exactly the same reaction by our Libertarian friends. “Too bad, he’s dead; now let’s talk about the evils of seatbelt or drug laws.”
I once had sympathy for Libertarianism as some people had sympathy for Communism. As an ideal, it may have some merit. The only problem with either philosophy is people. As Madison said in Federalist #51: :If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." But human history testifies to human infallibility, human desire for dominance and human evil. We live in a fallen world in which neither Libertarianism nor Communism will lead to any result except a state of nature, red in tooth and claw, and one in which the compromises found in a representative republic may be the best we can do.
Libertarians pretend that there was once a time when men were left alone to govern themselves for the most part and want a return to that state of freedom. But it is a freedom that never was and never will be. They dream of Utopia and will deliver a Dystopia in which 72 year old men in old cars shoot and kill a young husband and father to avoid a traffic ticket.
When Victory is Not Optional
The situation in the Middle East appears to get direr each day. And in the US it appears that radical Muslims are making test runs to see what it takes to set up their next terror bombing.
But for most of us, the terror is far from our doors. And even in the midst of war-torn countries, most people live their lives, keeping their heads down, trying to get enough food to eat and a place to stay.
That’s why there is a debate today in the US about the course in Iraq – and throughout the world: a withdrawal to “Fortress America” where every day is filled with Thanksgiving abundance and where poor people are not thin, but morbidly obese. Where “Black Friday” is not a memory of destruction and death, but a day where the entire population goes shopping in wretched excess.
Wretchard at the Belmont Club makes the point exceptionally well:
For many in America, victory appears optional. But it’s an optical illusion.
But for most of us, the terror is far from our doors. And even in the midst of war-torn countries, most people live their lives, keeping their heads down, trying to get enough food to eat and a place to stay.
That’s why there is a debate today in the US about the course in Iraq – and throughout the world: a withdrawal to “Fortress America” where every day is filled with Thanksgiving abundance and where poor people are not thin, but morbidly obese. Where “Black Friday” is not a memory of destruction and death, but a day where the entire population goes shopping in wretched excess.
Wretchard at the Belmont Club makes the point exceptionally well:
Lady Luck sometimes deals the enemy stinkers in the short run, but long-term luck is made by stacking the odds in our favor and playing with deep reserves. When you really think about it, many of Hezbollah's opponents are playing against them on guts. If they hold their own it may be due to a determination not to lose that guys in Washington may not have. When victory seems optional then it always seems like there are better things to do. When you've got your back to the wall it concentrates the mind wonderfully.
For many in America, victory appears optional. But it’s an optical illusion.
Mona Charen on the Six Imams
When you hear about "flying while Muslim" remember:
Is it discrimination? Well, of course it is. But that cannot be the end of the discussion. We are so robotic in America whenever the word “discrimination” is used that we shut down thought and all genuflect in the direction of whoever is complaining. But the proper question is not whether it is discrimination but whether it is justified.
Of course passengers would not be nervous in the presence of six priests or six rabbis. Neither of these groups has any history of blowing up innocent people. Nor do Americans despise those who pray. In fact, uniquely among Western democracies, we are great fans of religion.
But Islam is problematic. While we would love to think that Islam is as pacific as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism, the facts suggest otherwise. Time and again, terrorists who have committed or attempted to commit murder on a large scale have done so after becoming serious Muslims.
This is a hijacking of a great faith you say? Maybe so. I’m inclined to believe it since I do not think that a billion people would be drawn to a religion of hate. But that much having been said, the haters within Islam are certainly having a heck of a run at the moment. Maybe they are only ten percent of the worldwide total of the umma, but that still leaves us with 100 million very religious fellows who believe they have divine sanction to blow us up.
The Elite Snobbery of many liberal Jews
I hate the headline I just wrote. I am not shy about my Jewish heritate, but the truth must be faced. Charles Krauthammer, himself a Jew, makes the point that the most talked about movie of the season, perhaps the year, "Borat" is one long example of
And more:
...a supreme display of elite snobbery reveling in the humiliation of the hoaxed hillbilly.
But it is one thing more, something Brooks alluded to in passing but which requires at least one elaboration: an unintentionally revealing demonstration of the unfortunate attitude of many liberal Jews toward working-class American Christians, especially evangelicals.
And more:
Sacha Baron Cohen, the creator of Borat, revealed his purpose for doing that in a rare out-of-character interview he granted Rolling Stone in part to counter charges that he was promoting anti-Semitism. On the face of it, this would be odd, given that Cohen is himself a Sabbath-observing Jew. His defense is that he is using Borat’s anti-Semitism as a “tool” to expose it in others. And that his Arizona bar stunt revealed, if not anti-Semitism, then “indifference” to anti-Semitism. And that, he maintains, was the path to the Holocaust.
Whoaaaa. Does he really believe such rubbish? Can a man that smart (Cambridge, investment banker and now brilliant filmmaker) really believe that indifference to anti-Semitism and the road to the Holocaust are to be found in a country and western bar in Tucson?
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world.
With anti-Semitism re-emerging in Europe and rampant in the Islamic world; with Iran acquiring the ultimate weapon of genocide and proclaiming its intention to wipe out the world’s largest Jewish community (Israel); with America and, in particular, its Christian evangelicals the only remaining Gentile constituency anywhere willing to defend that besieged Jewish outpost — is the American heartland really the locus of anti-Semitism? Is this the one place to go to find it?
In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez says that the “descendents of the same ones that crucified Christ” have “taken possession of all the wealth in the world.” Just this month, Tehran hosted an international festival of Holocaust cartoons featuring enough hooked noses and horns to give Goebbels a posthumous smile. Throughout the Islamic world, newspapers and television, schoolbooks and sermons are filled with the most vile anti-Semitism.
Baron Cohen could easily have found what he seeks closer to home. He is, after all, from Europe where synagogues are torched and cemeteries desecrated in a revival of anti-Semitism — not “indifference” to but active — unseen since the Holocaust. Where a Jew is singled out for torture and death by French-African thugs. Where a leading Norwegian intellectual — et tu, Norway? — mocks “God’s Chosen People” (“We laugh at this people’s capriciousness and weep at its misdeeds”) and calls for the destruction of Israel, the “state founded ... on the ruins of an archaic national and warlike religion.”
Yet amid this gathering darkness, an alarming number of liberal Jews are seized with the notion that the real threat lurks deep in the hearts of American Protestants, most specifically Southern evangelicals. Some fear that their children are going to be converted; others, that below the surface lies a pogrom waiting to happen; still others, that the evangelicals will take power in Washington and enact their own sharia law.
This is all quite crazy. America is the most welcoming, religiously tolerant, philo-Semitic country in the world. No nation since Cyrus the Great’s Persia has done more for the Jews. And its reward is to be exposed as latently anti-Semitic by an itinerant Jew looking for laughs and, he solemnly assures us, for the path to the Holocaust?
Look. Harry Truman used to tell derisive Jewish jokes. Richard Nixon said nasty things about Jews in government and elsewhere. Who cares? Truman and Nixon were the two greatest friends of the Jews in the entire postwar period: Truman secured them a refuge in the state of Israel and Nixon saved it from extinction during the Yom Kippur War.
It is very hard to be a Jew today, particularly in Baron Cohen’s Europe, where Jew-baiting is once again becoming acceptable. But it is a sign of the disorientation of a distressed and confused people that we should find it so difficult to distinguish our friends from our enemies.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Military Not "So Poor And So Black"
From Villanous Company:
Outstanding analysis that utterly destroys Rangel. Read the whole thing.
Today, we address the persistent notion that the military is over-recruiting from poor, minority, urban areas and that today's recruits are less educated than their civilian peers. Unsurprisingly, like almost everything else Representative Rangel has said, these allegations turn out to be completely unsupported by the facts.
Outstanding analysis that utterly destroys Rangel. Read the whole thing.
US To Withdraw From Lebanon
(Satire)
(2006-11-22) — A day after the assassination of Lebanese Christian politician Pierre Gemayel, Democrats in the U.S. Congress called on President George Bush to pull U.S. troops out of Lebanon as a way of ending the strife that threatens to descend into civil war.
“As everyone knows,” said Rep. Jack Murtha, D-PA, a former Marine, “the American military is the cause of terrorism and sectarian tensions around the world. We can’t win in Lebanon, so we need to begin a phased redeployment immediately.”
Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, a professional Vietnam veteran, said, “There’s no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Lebanese people in the dead of night terrorizing kids and children and women, breaking historical customs, religious customs. Lebanese soldiers should be doing that.”
The former Democrat presidential nominee added, “if American young people would study hard, do their homework and make an effort to be smart, they wouldn’t get stuck in Lebanon.”
House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, said the recent U.S. elections in which Democrats swept to a majority in the House and Senate, “were a mandate from the voters to get out of Lebanon and liberate those people from the oppression of the U.S. occupation that causes them to act out like this.”
Asked when the president would submit to the will of the people and pull the military from Lebanon, an unnamed White House spokesman said, “1984.”
In related news, Iran and Syria today offered to mediate the crisis by holding a summit meeting with the president of Lebanon and Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah to discuss ways of preventing foreigners and Muslim fanatics from upsetting Lebanon’s
Miss Brussels Dreams of Genocide
Last September Halima Chehaïma, the 18-year old daughter of a Moroccan father and a Flemish mother, was elected Miss Brussels. Until next week Ms Chehaïma was also the absolute favorite of the bookmakers for the election of Miss Belgium next month. She was thought to be an excellent candidate to symbolize the multicultural paradise that Belgium has become. However, a girl’s dream was shattered.
Halima Chehaïma was a controversial candidate. Last October she stood for the Marxist-Leninist Labour Party in the local elections in Molenbeek, the predominantly Muslim Brussels borough where she lives. The party is so marginal that she did not get elected, but her declaration that Israel must be wiped off the map raised the eyebrows of the organizers of the Miss Belgium pageant. What really seems to have ruined her chances, however, is her connection with Bilal Ould Haj, a Belgian criminal of Moroccan origin.
Read the rest...
Those Airport Imams
Kudos to US Airways. Risking fines and a boycott, it did the right thing this week by removing a group of Muslim men from a flight to protect its crew and passengers.
By most accounts, the six bearded men were behaving suspiciously at a time when airports were on high alert for sky terror during the holidays. "There were a number of things that gave the flight crew pause," an airline spokesman said. According to witnesses and police reports, the men:
• Made anti-American statements.
• Made a scene of praying and chanting "Allah."
• Asked for seat-belt extensions even though a flight attendant thought they didn't need them.
• Refused requests by the pilot to disembark for more screening.
Also, three of the men had only one-way tickets and no checked baggage.
Police had to forcibly remove the men from the flight, whereupon they were taken into custody. A search found no weapons or explosives, and they were released to continue on their journey.
Within hours, the men enlisted a Muslim-rights group to make a stink in the press, insisting they were merely imams returning home from an Islamic conference in Minneapolis. They say they were "harassed" because of their faith.
But were they victims or provocateurs?
All six claim to be Americans, so clearly they were aware of heightened security. Surely they knew that groups of Muslim men flying together while praying to Allah fit the modus operandi of the 9/11 hijackers and would make a pilot nervous. Throw in anti-U.S. remarks and odd demands about seat belts, and they might as well have yelled, "Bomb!"
Yet they chose to make a spectacle. Why? Turns out among those attending their conference was Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who will be the first Muslim sworn into Congress (with his hand on the Quran). Two days earlier, Ellison, an African-American convert who wants to criminalize Muslim profiling, spoke at a fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim-rights group that wasted no time condemning US Airways for "prejudice and ignorance."
CAIR wants congressional hearings to investigate other incidents of "flying while Muslim." Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Con-yers, D-Mich., has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.
While it's not immediately clear whether the incident was a stunt to help give the new Democratic majority cover to criminalize airport profiling, it wouldn't be the first time Muslim passengers have tried to prove "Islamophobia" — or test nerves and security.
Two years ago a dozen Syrian men caused panic aboard a Northwest Airlines flight by passing bags to each other as they used the lavatory. As the plane prepared to land, they rushed to the back and front of the plane speaking in Arabic.
Then there's the case of Muhammed al-Qudhaieen and Hamdan al-Shalawi, two Arizona college students removed from an America West flight after twice trying to open the cockpit. The FBI suspected it was a dry run for the 9/11 hijackings, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. One of the students had traveled to Afghanistan. Another became a material witness in the 9/11 investigation.
Even so, the pair filed racial-profiling suits against America West, now part of US Airways. Defending them was none other than the leader of the six imams kicked off the US Airways flight this week.
Turns out the students attended the Tucson, Ariz., mosque of Sheikh Omar Shahin, a Jordan native. Shahin has been the protesters' public face, even returning to the US Airways ticket counter at the Minneapolis airport to scold agents before the cameras.
In an Arizona Republic interview after 9/11, he acknowledged once supporting Osama bin Laden through his mosque in Tucson. FBI investigators believe bin Laden set up a base in Tucson.
Hani Hanjour, who piloted the plane that hit the Pentagon, attended the Tucson mosque along with bin Laden's onetime personal secretary, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Bin Laden's ex-logistics chief was president of the mosque before Shahin took over.
"These people don't continue to come back to Arizona because they like the sunshine or they like the state," said FBI agent Kenneth Williams. "Something was established there, and it's been there for a long time." And Shahin appears to be in the middle of it.
CAIR asserts the imams are peace-loving patriots. "It's inappropriate to treat religious leaders that way," a spokesman said.
Yeah, they all wear halos. Omar Abdul-Rahman, a blind sheikh, is serving a life term for plotting to blow up several New York landmarks. Imam Ali al-Timimi, a native Washingtonian, is also behind bars for soliciting local Muslims to kill fellow Americans. Imams in New York were recently busted for buying shoulder-fired missiles. Another in Lodi, Calif., planned an al-Qaida terror camp there.
We could go on and on. Imams or not, US Airways did right by its customers. Shahin is calling on Muslims to boycott the airline; that might actually work in its favor. US Airways has been flooded with calls from Americans saying it just became the safest airline.
What Happens When You leave your Friends in the Lurch?
Pretty soon you run out of friends.
From The Belmont Club...
[snip]
And in response to a long, rambling, Posting by an Israeli hater named "Cedarford" who stated that "the Iraqis are not our allies"... here is a reasoned response:
From The Belmont Club...
Max Boot details the history of "cutting and running" throughout American history. The consequences were often tragic and somegimes wide-ranging. The inevitable rhetorical question is asked. Why should any ally trust America?.
[snip]
And in response to a long, rambling, Posting by an Israeli hater named "Cedarford" who stated that "the Iraqis are not our allies"... here is a reasoned response:
"the Iraqis are not our allies". But individuals are, and whatever we undertake, whichever individuals come in on our side, whatever their political status or citizenship may be, they are our allies. And they are less likely to do that when one has a record of leaving them in a lurch.
At one level the question is entirely practical. I'm sure many readers have had the experience of trying to convince someone in the field to take a risk. You are more likely to succeed if they know you either a) will not ask them to get in over their head; b) stand by them. Or you can ask yourself what the greatest fear of a locally recruited intelligence agent is. It is being sold out.
Criminal organizations understand the prestige that comes with a reputation for being a "stand up". It has less to do with morals than credit. When you let people down, you use up your credit. And one day you have none left.
Saudi Slaver Gets Prison, Saudis Upset
From the Denver Post:
Read the whole thing...
"Guys, you simply can't keep slaves over here ... nope, not even sex slaves."
And that's exactly what an unfortunate 24-year-old Indonesian woman, brought to the U.S. by Al-Turki to be family nanny and housekeeper, was: a slave. Al-Turki had confiscated her passport, paid her less than two bucks a day, kept her in a basement and sexually assaulted her.
Even his high-priced lawyers - likely paid for, as was his $400,000 bail, by the Saudi government - couldn't save Al-Turki from richly deserved jail time.
At sentencing, Al-Turki refused to apologize but did claim that prosecutors were attacking his "traditional Muslim behaviors." Not exactly a feminist, then.
Suthers' task couldn't have been easy over there. This "no slaves" business was probably tough to digest for folks who not so long ago may have owned a couple of humans themselves. Saudi Arabia only officially outlawed the practice of slavery in 1962. According to human rights organizations, the country still has plenty around - especially women.
Read the whole thing...
What American journalists should be thankful for
Via Michelle Malkin whose views on this issue I heartily endorse. A message to the people who inhabit the sewers known as the Drive By Media:
Read the rest, there's lots more...
In between breathless condemnations of the Bush administration for stifling its free speech, endless court filings demanding classified and sensitive information from the military and intelligence agencies, and self-pitying media industry confabs bemoaning their hemorrhaging circulations (with the exception of the New York Post), my colleagues in the American media don't have much to time to give thanks.
Allow me:
Give thanks we don't live in Bangladesh, where you can be put on trial for writing columns supporting Israel and condemning Muslim violence. Just ask Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, editor of Blitz, the largest tabloid English-language weekly in Bangladesh. He is currently facing a sedition trial for speaking out about the threats radical Islam poses in Bangladesh. He has been imprisoned, harassed, beaten, and condemned. In court last week, his persecutors read these charges against him: "By praising the Jews and Christians, by attempting to travel to Israel and by predicting the so-called rise of Islamist millitancy in the country and expressing such through writings inside the country and abroad, you have tried to damage the image and relations of Bangladesh with the outside world." For expressing these dissident opinions, he faces the possibility of execution.
Read the rest, there's lots more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)