Nov. 24th, 2003

sigh.

Nov. 24th, 2003 06:59 am
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
sigh.
Europeans are inherently anti-Semitic and their leaders are guilty of pushing a biased policy in the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has told EUpolitix.com.

“What we are facing in Europe is an anti-Semitism that has always existed and it really is not a new phenomenon,” he argues in response to an EU poll that rated Israel above Iran and North Korea as a threat to world peace.

Sharon throws out the distinction between anti-Semitic beliefs and legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies in the Middle East.

“Today there is no separation. We are talking about collective anti-Semitism. The state of Israel is a Jewish state and the attitude towards Israel runs accordingly.”

“I would say, in my opinion, EU governments are not doing enough to tackle anti-Semitism,” he counters.

Israel has recently stepped up the pressure on EU governments to do more, calling for a joint EU-Israel Council to be set up to tackle the problem.

Sharon strongly believes that Europe’s own biased policies hamper its role in the Middle East peace process.

The EU has made no secret of its strong opposition to Israel’s construction of a “security fence” which has cut off many Palestinians from vital social services, family members and employment.

Israel argues that the fence is vital to protect its citizens from devastating suicide bomb attacks.

...

Sharon later makes the extraordinary claim that the growth of the Muslim community is also a threat to Jews living in Europe.

“Since there is an ever strengthening Muslim presence in Europe, it certainly endangers the life of Jewish people.”

“Of course, the sheer fact that there are a huge amount of Muslims, approximately 17 million in the EU, this issue has also turned into a political matter.”
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
Mrs. Bradlee in verse
So here's your Empire. No more wine, then?
Good.
We'll clear the Aides and khitmatgars away.
(You'll know that fat old fellow with the knife --
He keeps the Name Book, talks in English too,
And almost thinks himself the Government.)

Rudyard Kipling (what are the odds?)
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
shorter Richard Perle
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed-- Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need; To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild-- Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain, To seek another's profit
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace-- Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought) Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No iron rule of kings, But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things. The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread, Go, make them with your living
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden,
And reap his old reward-- The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard-- The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-- "Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less-- Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness. By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do, The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.

Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days-- The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise: Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years, Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
We don't have to worry any more. Our boys and girls in Iraq have PowerPoint on their side.
As United States forces battle a deepening guerrilla insurgency on the ground in Iraq, they are also waging a major media offensive to try to cast the contested occupation in a more positive light.

The media blitz coincides with a sharp rise in attacks by guerrillas against American interests and comes amid signs that both US troops and the American-led civilian administration are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis.

Last week, the military unveiled a new spokesperson for US forces in the country, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, a higher-ranking officer with more media experience than those who have until now been the public face of the occupation.

'Yet it hardly gets mentioned'
That followed a redesigning of the podium from which news conferences are held, with two large flat-screen monitors now installed to carry slick Powerpoint presentations the military is using to show off operations and tout successes.

A large, deep-blue seal representing the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority now hangs prominently behind the podium, right in front of television cameras, with the words "Justice, Freedom, Liberty, Security" written around its border.

I suppose there are advantages to having the world press sleep through briefings, but I'm pretty sure the Geneva Convention forbids asking noncombatants to watch slide presentations.

Unless they do that cool dissolve between slides thing. I love that.
sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
because without it, I would never have found AmericanDaily.com.

From what I can tell, it's a site you volunteer to write for, with a somewhat conservative bent. My first clue was this, from "The Mainstream Media Is The No. 1 Threat To World Peace":
We here in the United States have become almost immune to the daily assault on our integrity by the mainstream media. Many people here have literally shut off the televisions and radios, put down the papers and the magazines, and have searched out places on the Internet that comes straight from the source for their daily diet of what’s happening and information. The reason they have turned away from the talking heads is simple, the talking heads haven’t done their research, are reporting rumor and innuendo, have become whores for the almighty rating and have moved away from legitimate journalism only to offer editorialized, ideological propaganda.

Because the drumbeat against the war has been so damn loud in the mainstream media. I'm reasonably sure that none of you have searched out places on the Internet that comes straight from the source for their daily diet of what’s happening and information, 'cause you're here, but you can take my word for it. This guy is a conservative.

It's also the first time I've ever seen the phrase "the Dutch were the most skittish," like, ever.

But I digress.

This is the most extraordinary argument I've seen so far against the gay marriage decision.

It seems that the decision was written by the Chief Justice, a woman who not only believes in Gay Rights, she has lesbian friends - the reason, parenthetically, that a "pro-marriage" group gave when they unsucessfully sued to force her to recuse herself.

So how's this for legal reasoning?
In a 4-3 decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled two days ago that what you thought marriage was all about, isn’t. It ruled that “barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.”

I have several dictionaries of varying publication dates and ALL of them indicate that the word “marry” means a “union to join a man and a woman for life.” In case that wasn’t clear, the word “marriage” is defined in my various dictionaries, as “the act of legally uniting a man and woman in wedlock.” How did four Massachusetts Supreme Court judges find that limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex is somehow in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution and Law?

Well, it appears that this was a decision that really had nothing to do with the Massachusetts Constitution or Law. In fact, it appears the decision was made even before the case was filed.

The decision written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall states, “The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not.”

Two “individuals?” Not “a man and a woman?” When I read that wording, it struck me as being quite odd. In fact, it struck me as being very similar to wording used on homosexual and lesbian websites, where you almost never find the words girl, boy or woman, man. It’s “individuals.” It appears that sexual identity isquite an iffy thing in that culture.

So, I did a little research on the subject of Margaret Marshall and discovered that back in March of this year an ethics complaint was filed against Justice Marshall to remove her from two cases involving homosexual marriage, one of them being the Goodridge vs the Department of Health which was just decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The basis of the complaint was Judge Marshall’s “close friendship and association with Atty. Mary Bonauto, the lesbian lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Goodridge case.”

Judge Marshall also, shockingly, had different legal reasoning in her decision than the dissenting justices had in their dissent. Also, the dictionaries would have to be changed.

The author recommends impeachment.

She also assures us that she really likes colored people.

No kidding, take a look. You can't make this stuff up.

Well, maybe Neal Pollack can, but I wouldn't know where to begin.

Profile

sisyphusshrugged: (Default)
sisyphusshrugged

November 2016

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789 101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 2nd, 2025 02:36 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios