Yet the commercial farms that could have provided much of the food needed are lying abandoned, their owners forced out. Jenny Parsons, one such farmer, and her children, tried to visit their family farm and were attacked by government supporters. [...]
Nobody who opposes the government now is safe from torture, from arbitrary imprisonment. [...] In this country even members of parliament and human rights lawyers can end up in torture chambers. [...] "They electrified me on my genitals, on my toes, in my mouth, and they said 'this is the mouth you use to defend human rights,'" said Gabriel Shumba, a human rights lawyer. "The world must know of the kind of life that the people of Zimbabwe are living under. It is terrible," Job Sikhala, an opposition member of parliament, said from his hospital bed, where he is recovering. [BBC News]
The response from America's "Civil Rights","African-American", "Leaders":
[Deafening silence.]
For more coverage on Zimbabwe visit our Africa section.
Jan 21, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
I guess it's supposed to be a joke, because it begins, "A liberal and a conservative were sitting in a bar." That's the way a lot of jokes begin, so this must be one. It continues,"Then Bill Gates walked in. 'Hey, we're rich!' shouted the conservative. 'The average person in this bar is now worth more than a billion!' 'That's silly,' replied the liberal. 'Bill Gates raises the average, but that doesn't make you or me any richer.' 'Hah!' said the conservative, 'I see you're still practicing the discredited politics of class warfare.'"
What can I say? I just don't get it. This isn't a joke at all -- every word of it is true.
I'm not really sure what former paid Enron advisory board member Paul Krugman thinks he's accomplishing by starting his New York Times column with this putative joke today. I suppose it sets up a straw man he can demolish. And Krugman obviously thinks that if he himself brings up the subject of class warfare, he will somehow pre-empt his critics from accusing him of it. He does it in just about every column now.
But whatever Krugman's purpose, it reveals with stunning clarity the way this man of the "little people" sees the world. As far as I'm concerned, it's simply a fact that when a "big people" like Bill Gates enters any environment, he makes everyone around him wealthier in countless ways -- through the productivity his products add to their working lives, the value he creates for their investment portfolios, and just the plain old inspiration of showing what superlative achievement looks like.
Bill Gates can come into my bar any time. I'm buying.
Jan 21, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
I do not support school vouchers. The claim of a "right" to education has no basis in reality, and government funding of private schools would destroy what little independence they have left. (A preferable alternative would be tuition tax credits, which make it easier for individuals to fund private education using their own money.)
Nevertheless, the arguments of many voucher opponents are intended simply to protect the public school monopoly. One such argument is the claim that school choice hurts public schools by draining them of money and talent. If that were true, then so much the better. But it turns out it isn't:
As research has accumulated showing that school choice benefits participating students, its critics have relied more and more heavily on the argument that school choice will hurt public schools and the students who remain there after participating students have left for private schools. In response to these criticisms, advocates claim that school choice programs indirectly benefit public schools and their students by forcing public schools to compete with private schools, providing a strong incentive for those public schools to improve....
Of the few studies that have been done of U.S. public schools exposed to school choice, none have ever found a decrease in the academic performance of public school students, and a few have found academic gains. [Jay P. Greene and Greg Forster, "Rising to the Challenge: The Effect of School Choice on Public Schools in Milwaukee and San Antonio," Manhattan Institute Civic Bulletin 27, October 2002]
Jan 20, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
PARIS--Human Rights Watch recently reported that, "Libya has detained government opponents for years without charge or trial, prohibited the formation of political parties or independent non-governmental groups, and muzzled its press. In the past, the Libyan government has also been responsible for torture, 'disappearances' and the assassination of political opponents abroad." And so, when faced with the question of which country to elect as head of the Commission of Human Rights earlier today, members of the United Nations made the only sensible choice: Libya.
Several nations abstained from voting on the matter, as diplomats expressed concern over voting against the heinous regime; they didn't want to offend the African nations that nominated the likes of Libya. Aw, shucks, how thoughtful!
But really, who cares about political prisoners, anyway? And so what if, in 1988, the Libyan government bombed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie? What's so offensive about that?
"I don't think there is any country free of human rights violations," reminded the Libyan ambassador, who criticized any potential division of countries into "bad guys or good guys."
Yeah, who benefits from distinctions like that? Certainly not the bad guys...
Jan 20, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Now we see the reward Juan Miguel Gonzalez got for returning his son to a life of slavery that his mother died to free him from:
Cuba's Communist Party said Monday that more than 97 percent of voters showed overwhelming support for the nation's socialist system by electing 609 candidates who ran uncontested for parliament....
[Among them were] Juan Miguel Gonzalez, father of Elian, the Cuban boy at the heart of the international child custody battle in 2000.... [Associated Press, 1/20/03]
Jan 20, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
SAN FRANCISCO--As part of a world-wide leftist orgy, thousands of anti-west protestors gathered in downtown San Francisco on Saturday to stampede through the city in the name of "peace," tyranny, and hatred of capitalism.
Hordes of angry masses littered the city's Financial District with signs and stickers glorifying murderous fundamentalist regimes and vilifying those who dare defend themselves against terrorists. One sign labeled President Bush a Nazi (an ironic accusation, coming from a bunch of hippie-flavored fascists), while others stuck to the good ol' fashion "racist" brand, which usually works well enough to scare college students and media-types into submission.
At the center of attention "a sinister Uncle Sam on stilts cackled as he poured a can of gasoline down the craw of a man costumed as a grotesque Bush," described an observer. One protestor's sign asked, "How did our oil get under their soil?" Well, ma'am, they stole it from Western companies who discovered and owned it. It's called nationalization.
Later, a group of about 200 peace-lovers smashed windows and news racks before police chased them away. And in this town, that's what "peace" is all about.
Jan 19, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Courts have gone too far to keep religion out of public schools and other forums, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.
Although the Constitution says the government cannot "establish" or promote religion, the framers did not intend for God to be stripped from public life, Scalia said Sunday at a religious ceremony....
The rally-style event about 50 miles south of Washington drew a lone protester, who silently held a sign promoting the separation of church and state.
"The sign back here which says 'Get religion out of government' can be imposed on the whole country," Scalia said. "I have no problem with that philosophy being adopted democratically. If the gentleman holding the sign would persuade all of you of that, then we could eliminate 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. That could be democratically done." [Associated Press, 1/13/03]
Question to Judge Scalia: If atheists became a majority in the country and decided to "democratically impose" the wording, "under NO God" on the whole country, would he regard that as legitimate? The removal of the words "under God" does not promote atheism or any other religious doctrine.
But Scalia is wrong on a much more fundamental level. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of government--to forbid things from being done even if a democratic majority wants to do them. Our country is not a democracy, nor should it be; is is a republic: a system of representative government limited by the rule of law to the protection of individual rights. That is the system the founders intended to impose on the whole country, and that is the system the Supreme Court has a constitutional duty to impose on the whole country.Jan 19, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
In case you haven't heard, Libya will chair the United Nations' human rights commission.
Says Mumar's son, Seif Gaddafi: "We have a better human rights record than our neighbours. Sure, we are not Switzerland or Denmark; we are part of the Third World and part of the Middle East. But we are better than our neighbours."
How about if we let the D.C. snipers sit on an anti-crime commission? The shoe bomber terrorist advise the Homeland Security office? Child molesters advise on children safety?
The simplest proof about the moral bankruptcy of the United States is that it is a member of the United Nations. If this country had a shred of moral resolve, a shred of confidence in its morality, it would have long rejected the very idea of a U.N. as the most perverse institution on earth.Related Article: Another United Nations Sham: Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi to Head the U.N. Human Rights Commission
