May 23, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
A local Jewish organization yesterday denounced an exhibit by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) that compares the slaughter of animals for food to the Holocaust. Adam Solender, executive director of the Jewish Federation of Greater Manchester, said the exhibit displayed in the plaza in front of the State House in Concord yesterday afternoon, "trivialized the memory of millions of innocent victims of the Holocaust." "It's an incredible moral equivalency that I think steps over the line," Solender said. Manchester resident and Holocaust survivor Stephen Lewy said the display was disturbing.
" . . . in World War II, the Nazis compared Jews to animals. PETA is comparing the life of a chicken to that of a human being . . . There is no moral equivalency, never! One cannot compare the suffering and racial genocide of millions of Jews to animals." ["Jewish group raps PETA exhibit", Union Leader News, May 23, 2003]
PETA, like Hitler, just did.
May 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
A headline at Reuters reads "U.S. Troops on Shooting Spree After Attack in Iraq":Gunmen fired anti-tank rockets at a U.S. armored vehicle in the tense Iraqi town of Falluja, sending U.S. troops into a shooting spree that killed two Iraqis, residents said on Thursday.
Since when is defending oneself against rockets a "spree" as if the troops were engaging in some wild shopping contest?
At least 15 Iraqis died in the clashes between demonstrators and U.S. troops last month. On May 1, a grenade attack wounded seven U.S. soldiers in the town.
Since when is a grendade attack associated with "demonstrations"? Reuters obtained no comments from American officials.
May 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the BBC:The United Nations has overwhelmingly approved a resolution lifting economic sanctions against Iraq and giving its backing to the US-led administration. Fourteen of the 15 Security Council members voted to adopt the resolution with France, Russia and Germany - countries which opposed the war on Iraq - all giving their support. Syria - the sole Arab state represented on the council - boycotted the meeting. Voting took place nine weeks to the day after US-led coalition forces invaded Iraq at the start of a military campaign that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime.
...Mr de Villepin said the agreement on the new resolution showed that the UN was again resuming its place in international politics, adding that international unity was the only way to deal with Iraq's problems. ["UN approves US Iraq plans", BBC, May 22, 2003]
Bear in mind that 'international unity'--i.e., appeasement by the US--was not needed for the US and UK to take out Saddam Hussein.
In its key points on the UN resolution to end sanctions in Iraq the BBC lists the reason why the resolution was approved:
- Russian and French companies will be able to complete lucrative contracts
As a cross--the US should have unilaterally lifted the sanctions nine weeks ago, as opposed to having to wait over two months, in order to lend moral sanction to the corrupt UN body.
May 21, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
In today's USA Today:Smarting from criticism it has been caught flat-footed in postwar Iraq, the Bush administration is set to ask the U.N. to lift sanctions there and create a fund to disburse Iraqi oil revenue. ["US to ask UN to end Iraq sanctions"]
The first question is: why? Given that the U.S. unilaterally went against the Security Council when it invaded Iraq, why is it going the the U.N. now? To make "Old Europe" happy?
As early as Wednesday, the U.S. will ask the United Nations Security Council to approve a resolution ending all trade and economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1990. The resolution calls for establishment of a reconstruction fund at Iraq's central bank to collect oil revenue. Occupying U.S. and British authorities, consulting an interim Iraqi administration, would have power over spending.
Thank God the resolution hands no power to the UN, like the old UN managed "oil for food" program--which is better named the oil for Saddam's toys program.
The article makes no mention on why the so-called United Nations Security Council has not dropped the sanctions already. Clearly, the fate of Iraq is not the Security Council's main concern--hampering U.S. efforts to establish an orderly society an Iraq is. After all, if the U.S. succeeds in establishing peace in Iraq--by acting against the whims of the U.N. what does this say about the UN? (The answer, of course, is obvious--the
UN is evil.)
The real question is: why does the U.S. play along in propping up the U.N. farce? Appeasement masquerading behind "diplomacy"?
May 21, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From BBC News:Millions of workers in India have held a nationwide strike in protest at government plans to privatise state-owned businesses. The one-day stoppage severely affected the banking, transport, insurance and mining sectors, and brought Calcutta to a virtual standstill as protesters marched through the streets...The strike was called by trade unions including the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU) and the Hind Mazdoor Sabha, who claimed about 40 million workers were participating in the walk-out....The government's privatisation plans aim to raise 132 billion rupees ($2.75bn) by selling off state-run companies in the year ending March 2004...."We want a complete halt to privatisation and other economic policies that favour only the rich," said Swadesh Dev Roye, leader of the National United Forum, an umbrella group of labour unions in state-run oil companies....The government has said labour reforms are needed to allow Indian industry to compete with countries such as China. And it claims privatisation is needed to bridge its increasing fiscal deficit. [21 May 2003]
Swadesh Dev Roye leader of the National United Forum, an umbrella group of labour unions in state-run oil companies claims that privitization will only help "the rich." As a leader of a Union, he is clearly rich, but the privization policy will not favour him, as with less monopolies and more competition his union will have less power. This perhaps explains the real motivation for opposing privitization--smaller companies are harder to unionize.
Economically, India's bloated state run industries should have never existed. Privatisation will make all productive Indians more prosperous but leaving them free from the chains imposed by the state.
May 20, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
A headline for an ABC article reads "Dividend Tax Cut Cost More Than Thought."
Message to ABC News: Tax cuts save taxpayers money. 