How about "Man arrested for tresspassing and physically refusing to leave despite being asked peacefully to do so"? Malls are places to shop, just likes roads are throughways to drive. They are not created to advertise your support for keeping a ruthless dictator in power. That's what garbage dumps and the Berkely campus are for.
Mar 5, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Watching Fox News today I almost fell over with laughter. John Gibson was reporting that the idiot sub-human shields in Iraq fled in shear panic when they realized that they were pawns to Saddam. They thought they'd shield schools (as if Bush would attack schools which were not cover for nuclear plants), but Saddam made them shield power plants and other obvious military targets. (Duh!) They told reporters they were duped by Saddam. John Gibson and Shephard Smith were hysterical: they were acting like they were surprised by it all.
"Saddam was deceptive? No!"
"Saddam Lied? No!"
It was classic.
Too bad the sub-human shields fled Iraq already. I was hoping they'd catch some JDAMs. Oh well.Mar 5, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Singer Harry Belafonte should be thrown on a banana boat and cast to sea for his un-American opinions of late. Here's his latest analysis of President Bush, which began by calling him "evil":"I think he has a very selfish, arrogant point of view. I think he is interested in power, I think he believes his truth is the only truth, and that he will do what he wants to do despite the people."
Obviously this is meant to be an insult, but think about it for a minute. If GWB is selfish the alternative is non-selfish, i.e., the selfless, i.e., that he would be willfully sacrificing America's interests to our enemies. If Bush is "arrogant," the alternative would be that Bush is self-doubting of America's power to defend itself. If Bush is interested in "power" (a very vague expression) the alternative is that he cowers from his reponsibility to use America's power. If Bush believes "his truth" is the only truth, the alternative is that he thinks Osama Bin Laden and the rest of them are no more wrong that Americans are. If Bush will do what he wants despite the people, the alternative is that he cowers to public opinion, or worse, to international opinion that includes murderous, oppressive, totalitarian dictators that are hell-bent on seeing the end of America.
Belafonte makes it clear in spades. In his opinion GWB is evil because he is not sacrificing America's interests, he is not self-doubting, he is not a coward, he does not respect Osama Bin Laden's (or Belafonte's) world-view, and Bush cares about reality over other people's opinions. Belafonte wants an American president who will capitulate to terrorists, who will let terrorists continue murdering Americans until there is no America left. That is, apparently, his ideal president.
So you decide who's evil: Belafonte or GWB.
Mar 4, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Yahoo! News today:LOS ANGELES - The entertainment industry must not blacklist people who speak out against war with Iraq, the Screen Actors Guild said.
This is such a crock. The ones who face blacklisting in far-left Hollywood are the few Hollywood supporters of the war. Fortunately most Americans aren't sympathetic to the Hollywood lefties, and the real concern is that the American public will boycott them. That, if anything, is what the execs are concerned about, and indeed should be.
Mar 4, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Almost all of the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home last night after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous....Nine of the original 11 activists decided to pull out after being given an ultimatum by Iraqi officials to station themselves at targets likely to be bombed in a war or leave the country....Abdul Hashimi, the head of the Friendship, Peace and Solidarity organisation that is hosting the protesters, told the shields to choose between nine so-called "strategic sites" by today or quit the country.
The Iraqi warning follows frustration among Saddam Hussein's officials that only about 65 of the shields had so far agreed to take up positions at the oil refineries, power plants and water-purification sites selected by their hosts. [Daily Telegraph, 2/3/03]
Mar 3, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Today in Manhattan's Union Square subway stop I saw a guy with a "No War" sign that was printed from A.N.S.W.E.R., the Marxist organization that has been the main force behind anti-war protests.
The guy was shouting, "Money for schools, not for war!" I asked him, loudly enough for passersby to hear, "So are you a Marxist like A.N.S.W.E.R.'s members, or are you their patsy?" He said, "What?" and I repeated the question. He said "I don't know what you're talking about" so I nodded and said, "Oh, you're a patsy."Mar 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Developer Larry Silverstein, who looked like he was going to block any building taller than 70 stories from going up at the World Trade Center site, has not only approved the Libeskind design; he's agreed to pay for the spire:
Developer Larry Silverstein threw his support behind the soaring new vision for Ground Zero yesterday, vowing to pay for a 1,776-foot spire that would raise the city's skyline higher than any other in the world.
Silverstein's commitment for the first time offered rebuilding officials a solid way to pay for the signature tower in architect Daniel Libeskind's plan.
"Larry says the plan presented today is extraordinary, and he's completely supporting the plan," said Silverstein spokesman Gerald McKelvey. [New York Daily News, 2/28/03]
This is actually not too surprising, the Libeskind proposal does address Silverstein's concerns: The spire that extends to 1,776 feet (including the antenna on top) only has 70 floors of office space in it. Above that is a "vertical garden" that Silverstein wouldn't have to worry about leasing. All the other office buildings in the project are shorter.
The tower is slim and tapering; with less of its volume in the upper stories, concerns about fire safety and evacuation would be alleviated. Finally, the latest revision of Libeskind's proposal rebuilds all 10 million square feet of office space that were lost, as Silverstein insisted; he has added one more tower and heightened some of the adjoining buildings.
To the question: Why would Silverstein pay for all those extra floors for a garden? I think the answer is: Having the world's tallest building makes it a landmark site, which is why people would want to lease space in it. The Sun reported just the other day that space is always in demand at landmark sites. And Silverstein also knows a lot of people will be very angry with him if he insists on short buildings, perhaps even to the point of boycott--and that will hurt his market.
Meanwhile, here's an aesthetic comment by New York Sun architecture critic James Gardner with which I agree:
[T]he fact that the slurry walls held up and are rough hewn [does not] really say anything about the pluck of New Yorkers (I think that was supposed to be the point). And the fact that the sun will shine on the memorial each year at precisely the moment when the Twin Towers were hit hardly makes for any interesting form.
In fact, if there is any parallel between the form and the message of Mr. Libeskind's design, as of most of the other contributions, it is that both formally and contextually, he is trying to do things that are simply not within the competence of architecture, of inhabitable structure. It is the Frank Gehry phenomenon....
[A]ll the meanings that all the forms in Mr. Libeskind's design are supposed to express are entirely invisible unless another medium (a written text) is invoked to bring them to light: There is simply no way the eye can take in, or even care about, the fact that the main building is 1,776 feet tall. [New York Sun, 2/28/03]
Mar 1, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
All we heard from the American Left since 1970s is condemnation of how the American government supported dictators such as the Shah, Pinochet, and Noriega. The Left has blamed all ills of the world on America's puppet "rightwing dictatorships." The Left promoted an embargo of South Africa's Afrikaaner government, even though it caused tremendous hardship on South Africans, and especially among their poor. The Left generally supported the US invasion of Somalia to depose of warlords, as well as the invasion of Bosnia to fight Milosevic. For thirty years the Left has purportedly wanted America to depose of dictators who violate "human rights" by both economic and military means. A significant portion of the Left--and probably the vast majority--are not pacifists. They have demonstrated a willingness to war for some issues.
So why is it that the Left is so vociferously opposed to deposing Saddam Hussein by war? There are a few--only a few--possibilities.
1) They aren't opposed to war per se, just war not sanctioned by the UN.
2) They aren't opposed to wars in which America has nothing to gain, e.g., Bosnia and Somalia. They are only opposed to war in which America has a conceivable interest, such as in Iraq.
3) They aren't opposed to war per se--they are just opposed to war with Saddam Hussein, for some reason.
4) They aren't opposed to war against Saddam Hussein per se, but they hate America so much that they do not want us--or perhaps President Bush--to be victorious. That is, even if they want Saddam Hussein to go, it pales in comparison to their desire to hold down America, to lessen its stature, to make it vulnerable.
I will comment on each of these possible motivations in a future post.Feb 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
There has been a lot of faux concern about the cost of the war. (Since when has the Left been concerned about the cost of any government endeavour?) The reality is that this war should be paid for in ways such as this.1) Cancel all foreign aid to any country that doesn't fully support the U.S. actions against Iraq.
2) Remove American bases from Germany, Saudi Arabia, and other countries that are less than cooperative.
3) Use Iraq's oil production profits to pay for all expenses incurred during the occupation.
4) Stop paying dues to the UN.
America should not have to pay for this war, or more precisely, it should be reimbursed.
Feb 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
I confess, sometimes I really like this guy. Here's some of what he said at the American Enterprise Institute the other night:
[W]e are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror: outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction.
In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world--and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country--and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.
The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq....
Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them....
The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.
Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before--in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.
There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. The nation of Iraq--with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people--is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.
The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.
It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world--or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim--is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different. Yet the human heart desires the same good things, everywhere on Earth. In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.
Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. [George W. Bush, 2/26/03]
Feb 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the New Yor Sun:A grand jury yesterday indicted eight people on terrorism charges, among them Sami Amin Al-Arian, a professor of computer engineering at the University of South Florida. Mr. Al-Arian is a "Palestinian activist" who had come to be something of a cause celebre for those who beleive that any scrutiny of radical Muslims in America is the symptom of a nascent police state.
Mr. Al-Arian gained national attention after September 11, when videotaped comments calling for "Death to Israel" led his university employers to begin the process of attempting to fire him. His supporters claimed that he was being unfairly persecuted for his political beliefs and challenged his dismissal. [...]
Prominent among Mr. Al-Arian's defenders in his fight with the University of South Florida was "Officials at the University of South Florida…have started proceedings to fire him -- essentially for being a fiery Palestinian activist who embarrasses them," Mr. Kristof wrote in a March 1, 2002, column. "A university, even a country, becomes sterile when people are too intimidated to say things out of the mainstream." ["Under the Tampa Palms," Editorial, New York Sun, February 21, 2003]
If Sami Amin Al-Arian had been videotaped publicly calling for "Death to Gays" or "Death to Blacks," would the New York Times be rallying to defend his academic freedom. Doubtless the Times would take such statements to be "hate speech," while "Death to Israel" is "protected discourse."
In other words, the Times considers inciting hatred against Israelis acceptable in a university. Why? Presumably because that paper thinks it not necessarily unreasonable to cast Israel as an oppressor. "Hate speech," in other words, is antagonistic speech the Times considers unreasonable.
What if the University of South Florida deems Mr. Al-Arian's "Death to Israel" unreasonable? Apparently the Times allows only itself the privilege of passing such judgments.
Feb 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes Amir Taheri in a disheartening column (Rev. Jackson, Let Me Speak, Feb. 22, 2002, National Post) on his experience with leftist "anti-war" protesters:Our aim had been to persuade the [London] organizers to let at least one Iraqi voice be heard. Soon, however, it became clear the organizers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!"
But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," "Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine" and "Indict Bush and Sharon." Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war....The thugs also confiscated photographs showing the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam's forces gassed 5,000 people to death in 1988.
Amir Taheri's column demonstrates once again that today's leftists are not against dictatorship, poverty, brutality, mass slaughter of innocent people, or weapons of mass destruction in the hands of maniacal killers:
We managed to reach some of the stars of the show, including Reverend Jesse Jackson, the self-styled champion of American civil rights. One of our group, Salima Kazim, an Iraqi grandmother, managed to attract the reverend's attention and told him how Saddam Hussein had murdered her three sons because they had been dissidents in the Baath Party; and how one of her grandsons had died in the war Saddam had launched against Kuwait in 1990.
"Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" 78-year old Salima demanded. The reverend was not pleased.
"Today is not about Saddam Hussein," he snapped. "Today is about Bush and Blair and the massacre they plan in Iraq." Salima had to beat a retreat, with all of us following, as the reverend's goons closed in to protect his holiness.
What these leftists fear most is America winning a just war. They are opposed to a free country's government doing what it ought to do: protect its citizens and interests from an evil and dangerous dictator.
Hashem al-Iqabi, one of Iraq's leading writers and intellectuals, had hoped the marchers would mention the fact that Saddam had driven almost four million Iraqis out of their homes and razed more than 6,000 villages to the ground.
These leftists are emotionalists driven by hatred of America and what it stands for: the right of each individual to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." They desire to see America sacrificing itself to evil in order to appease "world opinion," especially the opinion of morons and thugs. They are motivated by what novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand called "hatred of the good for being good," which is the essence of nihilism.
It's time to stop pretending that these leftists are motivated by something positive.
