| November 2006 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
July 2007 Stats for The Big Picture.
The U.N. Human Rights Council is the replacement for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which was disbanded for including many of the world's most brutal and oppressive regimes in its voting membership.
The UN Human rights council continues to be tested to see if it is any improvement over its predecessor. Yesterday Mr. David Littman, Representative of the Association for World Education, addressed the UN Human Rights Council. Here is the text of his remarks, provided to this site by Mr. Littman.
(All boldfacing is in the original.)
WORLD UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM
3nd session (20 November - 8 December 2006). President: Amb. Luis Alfonso de Alba (Mexico)
[All NGO statements had to be cut from 3 to 2 minutes; reduced passages in brackets not spoken.]
Sir, two weeks ago we again briefly referred to that great tragedy in Darfur about which the High Commissioner had then issued a warning ["Action must be taken now] to stop the killings and displacements" - a warning that she has now vividly described, insisting that "the ongoing atrocities must stop." We shall reiterate the words of 43 NGOs in our May appeal [to the High Commissioner]: "We believe that the role of the new Human Rights Council will be, in part, tested by the way the Darfur conflict is faced."(1) This is still true today!
In his message to the Council this morning, the Secretary-General spoke of the glaring case of Darfur, "which would merit scrutiny at a special session."
Mr. President, we are all experiencing a historic moment in world history with the pope's official visit to Turkey, and this climacteric should inspire us to reflect. Pope Benedict was right to declare two months ago: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul." We heard similar words in his appeal yesterday - almost identical to those we have used here for the past three and a half years, in requesting the Commission, and then the Council: "to condemn all who kill, call upon others to kill, terrorise, or use violence in the name of God or religion - of any religion!" - and we have urged the inclusion of such a firm condemnation by the Council in any future resolution on: Combating Defamation of Religions.
[Here, at the opening meeting of the Council, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khann - speaking for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) - affirmed that: "Islam abjures, renounces and condemns violence. Islam calls for peace, not war; love not hatred; tolerance, not bigotry."]
We ask again whether there is not a grave risk that lack of a clear condemnation on this major issue might be construed by many as acquiescence in this ugly 'defamation' and might provoke more manifestations of 'Islamophobia'?
[Sir, we would remind the Council that in 1999 a Geneva Spiritual Appeal was promulgated, being signed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Gro Harlem Bruntland (General Director of the WHO), Mary Robinson (HCHR), Cornelio Sommaruga (President ICRC), and Sadako Ogata (HCR). It calls on all "Not to refer to any religious or spiritual imperative to justify any form of violence." This 'Appeal' brought Christians, Jews, and Muslims to declare in Geneva's St Peter's Cathedral in March 2003: "Together, we denounce all reference to God to justify and foster hatred."]
Mr President: "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven…a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time of war, and a time of peace." [Ecclesiastes, 3: 1, 7]
Today, violence and killing in the name of a faith or God is being carried out daily on a vast scale in the Middle East. It is time to speak out here to condemn any use of violence in the name of God or religion.
May it soon be a "time of peace" and of dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis - and throughout the Middle East - and for all calls to kill in the name of religion, faith, or sectarian belief to be placed beyond the pale of civilization. Amen
-----------
1. E/CN.4/2006/NGO/3: Urgent Appeal to stop crimes in Darfur by invoking the Genocide Convention
A headline today: "Rice begins new push to end Arab-Israeli conflict"
Reports warn of a coming civil war in Lebanon, in which Hezbollah will try to take over the nation. This state of affairs in Lebanon is in large part a result of Condi's pressure on Israel to stop the recent Israel-Hezbollah war, in which Israel was destroying Hezbollah.
Condi is in large part responsible for the current state of affairs on Lebanon. It is her responsibility to put a great deal of attention into cleaning up the mess that was left there when she pressured Israel to stop decimating Hezbollah.
A September 25th article on this site began as follows:
In a post on August 17th, I examined why Condi and the GWB administration supported an end to the Israel-Hezbollah war via U.N. resolution 1701, which relied on U.N. security forces.
U.N. Resolution 1701 on the Israel-Hezbollah war was passed less than a week ago, and already no one can tell why the U.S. supported it, or what good we thought it was supposed to do. The resolution leaves it up to Lebanon to enforce its provisions against Hezbollah, and as of today:
I started with Condi's stated goal of preventing a return to what the status quo was before the war:
"We do seek an end to the current violence, we seek it urgently. We also seek to address the root causes of that violence," she said. "A cease-fire would be a false promise if it simply returns us to the status quo."
My conclusion, which seemed surprising to me at the time, was that Condi actually believed it was possible to accomplish something useful via the U.N., given the active support and participation of the Lebanese government:
...GWB and Condi seem to think Lebanon really is going to disarm Hezbollah. Where they're getting this from, I have no idea, but it's evident they haven't given up on it yet.
Second, GWB and Condi have decided to trade the possibility of an imminent outright destruction of Hezbollah by Israel, for specific advances in the official stance of the U.N. vis-a-vis Hezbollah. They actually believe that the threat of U.N. resolutions and sanctions will make it difficult for Iran and Syria to provide arms to Hezbollah. They're essentially hoping for long-term peer pressure, over a period of years, to take the place of an immediate victory on the ground, which they felt presented too great a danger of initiating a larger war.
The September 25th article examined the latest developments in Lebanon, and found that at that point things were going well for the GWB/Condi plan there.
The latest developments, however, indicate that the plan, of relying on the Lebanese government plus the U.N. to control Hezbollah, does not appear to have been correct:
Hezbollah Plans Overthrow of Lebanon Government
LEBANON: HEZBOLLAH ANNOUNCES 'SURPRISE ACTS' AGAINST GOVERNMENT
Iran reportedly smuggling arms to Hezbollah via Syria
Last week I had the opportunity to meet and speak to Yossi Olmert, the brother of Israeli PM Ehud Olmert. Yossi noted that pressure from Condi was key to Israel's decision to end the Israel-Hezbollah war when it did. Given the latest developments, it seems that it was incorrect for Condi to pressure Israel into halting its war against Hezbollah at that time, as well as to rely on the U.N. plus the Lebanese government to control Hezbollah.
I believe Condi was trying to do the most responsible thing, and to find a way to resolve the situation without war. If her strategy works, and Hezbollah is put down, it will be important to recognize it and applaud her.
But Hezbollah wants to destroy the government in Lebanon. Talking to them isn't going to change their views. Their methods are violent, and defeating them is likely to require force. So far, the combination of the Lebanese government and the U.N., has not applied sufficient force, and has not found any successful alternative approach, to achieve the goal of controlling Hezbollah.
H A P P Y
T H A N K S G I V I N G!
"wow, absolutly breathtaking!" says a YouTube commenter.
This Is London has an article saying that Michael Richards (Seinfeld's Kramer) has said anti-Jewish things as well, during his standup act. I believe all the top writers and actors on Seinfeld, other than Richards, were Jewish. We know from the Letterman show on Monday that Jerry is a very good friend of his. It appears to be possible that Richards, while a brilliant comedy actor, is not a gifted comedy writer; that he was just trying to shock, as comedians often attempt to do; and that he's not actually prejudiced against Jewish or Black people.
IF ONLY THE UN COULD ACT AS DECISIVELY AS THE WORLD SOCCER FEDERATION DOES, ABOUT IRAN.
This should shut down those pathetic rumors that the administration might seriously considering asking Iran to help stabilize Iraq:
Bush warns Syria, Iran after Lebanon killing
US President George W. Bush accused Syria and Iran of fomenting violence and instability in Lebanon, as he condemned the assassination of Lebanese cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meanwhile made a hasty telephone call to Lebanon's Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, amid signs of US concern over the fate of the Beirut government which emerged from Lebanon's 'cedar revolution.'
"Today we saw again the vicious face of those who hate freedom," Bush told American troops in Hawaii during a trip home from Asia.
"We strongly condemn the assassination today in Lebanon of Pierre Gemayel."
Bush did not apportion direct blame but called for an investigation into "those people and those forces" behind the killing of the anti-Syrian Christian leader.
"We support the Siniora government and its democracy and we support the Lebanese people's desire to live in peace and we support their efforts to defend their democracy against attempts by Syria, Iran and allies to foment instability and violence in that important country," said Bush.
The killing came against a backdrop of global calls, so far resisted by the United States, for a dialogue with Syria and Iran over chaos in Iraq.
But Bush's tone, further bolstered in a written statement on the killing, appeared to cast further doubt on already slim chances of such a diplomatic opening.
The Liberal tactic of using a physical attack to prevent someone from speaking was seen again at Ball State this month:
Conservative activist David Horowitz got a 50-foot "not welcome" sign, 15 cheese pizzas and nearly a cream pie in the face before speaking at Ball State University about political agendas of professors Wednesday night.
Two women were arrested by university police near the Teachers College in connection with the pie-throwing incident, but the identity of the pizza pranksters remains a mystery.
Sgt. John Foster said one woman, Ball State junior Cassandra Reed, ran at Horowitz with a cream pie in her hand. Director of Public Safety Gene Burton stood between the two, and he and other officers were hit with the pie, Foster said.
"Gene saw it coming and got in the middle," he said.
The police pursued Reed and Grace Mitchell, Columbia City, who was with Reed at the time of the attack, Foster said.
Reed was arrested on suspicion of resisting law enforcement and three counts of battery of a police officer, and Mitchell was arrested on suspicion of resisting law enforcement, Delaware County Jail officials said. Reed remained in jail on $17,500 bail, but Mitchell was released Wednesday night on a $2,500 bond, officials said.
Libs are building a reputation as being authoritarian repressors of free speech. If they want to avoid that, they'd better stop things like this from happening.
Since critics always evoke Vietnam, we should carefully examine its three phases: (1) 1963-1969, a phase of constant troop increases; (2) 1970-73, a phase of a steady downsizing of the American presence as Vietnamization took hold and counterinsurgency improved; (3) 1974-5, a phase of abandonment of the South Vietnamese government, followed by the conventional victory of the Communists. The second phase was the wisest course and should be the closest to our present strategy.
One can see why our military would expect 500,000 Americans to battle a North Vietnamese army of one million, with Soviet and Chinese advisors manning batteries in the North, along with another couple of hundred thousand Viet Cong guerrillas in the South.
Even generous estimates of the number of insurgents in Iraq conclude there are about 10,000 active killers - a fraction of just the irregulars in the south of Vietnam alone. Why then, when the numerical disparities are so much more favorable to our cause than during the Vietnam War, are we, rather than our vastly outnumbered enemies, lamenting the paucity of troops? That we have not secured the country may be due to the limitations put on our soldiers rather than their number; and to our preference for conventional rather than counter-insurgency fighting....Any gain from having more military forces "freed" from Iraq to face crises elsewhere would be vastly overshadowed by the far greater number of new crises that would soon arise - once Iranians, Syrians, Chinese, North Koreans, and the new Latin American Communists sought to emulate the successful Iraqi formula of defeating and humiliating the U. S. military.
...So yes, let us talk about sending more troops, or taking them out altogether, or cry about bad news coverage. But the truth is that, if they were given more tactical leeway to go on the offensive, we would already have enough soldiers in Iraq to win a victory that even a hostile media will have to acknowledge and enemies watching must respect - but only if we persevere here at home in this latest climate of renewed hysteria.
Hanson brilliantly brings a historical perspective to an analysis of today's MSM:
...Third, what does unbalanced reporting really mean? We all harp that the media - specifically, the wire services, network television, and the international stations like the BBC and CNN - all focused on Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, the carnage left by IEDs and suicide bombers, and the allegations against the Marines at Haditha, and neglected entirely the damage we did to the terrorists and Islamic fascists, or the singularity of seeing parliaments in places like Kabul and Baghdad.
But the important question left unspoken is Why? Was the unbalanced converge, in the case of leftwing elites in the American media, a simple effort to embarrass Republican policy, allowing more sympathetic Democrats to regain power? In the case of the envious European media, was it to take down the Americans a notch or two to remind us that we are not as powerful as we think?
...One can grasp that generic hypocrisy by reviewing all the journalists' charges leveled against Gulf War I - too much realpolitik; too much pay-as-you-go war thinking; too much Colin Powell and James Baker and not enough Paul Wolfowitz; too much worry about stability and not enough about millions of poor Kurds and Shiites; too much worry about empowering Iran. Then compare those charges to those leveled against Gulf War II - too much naïve idealism; too much expense in lives and treasure; not enough Colin Powell and James Baker and too much Paul Wolfowitz; too little worry about regional stability and too much given to ungovernable Iraqis; and too little thought about empowering Iran.
The one common denominator? Whatever the United States does is suspect; and journalists without responsibility for governance, either for setting policy or for its implementation, are always brighter than generals, politicians, and policy planners saddled with it.
"Fake relics sold on eBay 'funding terrorism':"
Forged archaeological artefacts traded on internet auction sites such as eBay are helping to fund international terrorism, it was disclosed today.
The faked historical relics, purporting to be genuine, Middle Eastern artefacts dating from as far back as 2000 BC, are being sold to innocent collectors and tourists for up to £2,000 each.
Police believe the profits are flowing back into criminal networks in the Middle East and that some is helping to fund insurgency in places like Iraq.
Some of the seized artefacts were on display at an exhibition of fake and forged works of art at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London today.
The exhibition is being held by the Metropolitan Police's specialist Arts and Antiques unit to raise awareness of the increasingly sophisticated fraud, estimated to worth up to £200 million a year in Britain alone.
Detective Constable Ian Lawson said of the artefacts: "We know for a fact that there is a terrorism link. Archaeological stuff is being exported by the tonne load from Middle Eastern countries. If the money goes back into criminality, some will inevitably end up in the hands of terrorists."
Six imams were removed from a flight:
Muslim leaders expressed outrage on Tuesday after six imams were removed from a commercial airline flight in Minnesota for what they said was nothing more than trying to say evening prayers.
...Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, said the airline asked airport police to remove the six men from the Minneapolis to Phoenix flight because their actions were "arousing some concerns" among both passengers and crew.
He said the men had been praying at the gate area but he did not know if they tried to pray once at their seats inside the plane.
He also said some witnesses reported the men were making anti-American statements involving the Iraq war, asked to change seats once inside the cabin, that one requested an extender to make his seat belt larger even though he did not appear to need it and that in general "there was some peculiar behavior."
I'd be concerned too if I saw a bunch of imams praying before a flight. I've rarely heard of imams praying for a safe flight. I've rarely heard of imams praying to be protected from Islamic terrorists. On the contrary, there is tremendous documentation of imams praying for terrorism, and praying for people to blow up planes, etc., in the name of Islam.
Muslim leaders expressed outrage on Tuesday after six imams were removed from a commercial airline flight in Minnesota for what they said was nothing more than trying to say evening prayers.
"They were treated like terrorists ... humiliated," said Abu Hannoud, civil rights director for the Arizona chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who said the men were taken off the US Airways flight in handcuffs.
..."They were rewarded by being treated like terrorists," [Hannoud] said. "Their humiliation is really a humiliation for the entire Muslim community," he added,
Note that these imams don't say one word condemning terrorists who blow up planes, trains, busses, and restaurants in the name of Islam. They don't like being treated like terrorists, but they don't say that anyone who is a terrorist is lost to Islam.
On the contrary, they make a statement that contains a veiled threat, by claiming outrage and "humiliation for the entire Muslim community."
In current Islamic culture, outrage is considered a sufficient pretext for rioting, burning buildings, etc., e.g. the cartoon riots, which were ascribed by Muslims to nothing more than a sense of outrage. So when these imams claim outrage, not only for themselves, but for the "entire Muslim community," they are making a veiled threat of violence. They prove that we are right to be vigilant against Islamofascism and Islamic terrorism in the U.S.
If imams don't like being thrown off of flights, they need to start holding rallies, marches, and vigils in which they loudly proclaim that anyone who blows up planes, trains, busses, and restaurants in the name of Islam, is lost to Islam, with no "ifs" "ands" or "buts". Until they separate themselves from the Islamic terrorists, they cannot claim to deserve to be considered separate from the Islamic terrorists.
"Edible cotton breakthrough may help feed the world." 10 years of safety tests are anticipated to make sure the genetically-modified cotton is stable, i.e., that the cotton seed does not revert back to its normal, uneatable, condition.
I posted previously about the new satirical news show from "24" producer Joel Surnow, when I attended the taping of its pilot episode. I also noted Surnow's recent appearance at the Liberty Film Festival, where he said the Fox News Channel was showing interest in carrying it. Today FNC has made an announcement that they will develop the show.
Fox News Satire Targets Left's 'Sacred Cows'
Fox News Channel is preparing a new Saturday night comedy show tailored to its largely right-leaning audience.
Fox will tape two episodes of the yet untitled show and air them in late January, with the possibility that the program could become a weekly feature.
The show would take aim at "the sacred cows of the left" that don't get lampooned very much by other comedy shows, according to Joel Surnow, co-creator of "24" and one of the executive producers of the new Fox program.
The pilot ep was hilarious.
A cosmonaut is to hit a golf ball in space.
