I assume that the various anti-US tyrant groups in Iraq -- comprised of real beasts -- have been using these NR dispatches to advance their retarded efforts. Imagine his success had he invented only plausible lies. My friend Vassar, who's lived and worked in Iraq at US military bases for the past three years, tells a very different story about US troops: they love the Iraqi people, except for those trying to kill them, and want to help build a democracy.
Question: Did critics "out" Beauchamp's wife, by revealing her identity, in exposing how he came to obtain his position as the New Republic's insider war critic? Did critics reveal her identity in order to "punish" her for her husband's courageous truth-telling?
Now comes word of a recant. He is either a good journalist who told the truth, and a criminal soldier, or he is a lyingly poor journalist who invented tales when he and his comrades actually observe US military codes of conduct. Or maybe he told the truth and is now lying to avoid prosecution.
The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.Funny that to sell $20 billion in arms to the Saudis, they have to pledge $30 billion in weapons to Israel.
The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.
I think that nobody should lose a job over an arrest, especially if that person has done nothing in public to disgrace himself with regard to the charges against him. And let's also remember that every step along the road to justice risks a misstep: innocent people get convicted (Genarlow Wilson), and guilty people get found "not guilty" (OJ, Robert Blake). When the accused's story comes to light, we all have to make our decision about the person, not just the judge and the jury. This study concludes that judges and juries "get it wrong" over 10% of the time.
When Vick's story materializes, we might find that he really did know nothing about what his friends and relations did in the house he bought them. He could be a guy like me who loves animals and abhors dogfighting, but has some friends and relations from childhood who -- unbeknown to him -- have developed into severely retarded brutes. In this context, even if he gets convicted of some technicality, I will judge him favorably and support no sanctions against him. On the other hand, an examination by us in the public may show that he supports dogfighting. In this context, even if his fancy lawyers win all "not guilty" verdicts, I will consider him scum and cheer the most extreme sanctions against him.
Only one NFL player so far has exposed himself having a retarded brain and a cruel heart in this matter, Washington Redskins' Clinton Portis who said, ''I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property, it's his dog. If that's what he wants to do, do it. I think people should mind their own business.''
If government officials can better achieve "income redistribution" than can the private efforts of individuals (either by people helping those of meager means, or by those of meager means using their intelligence and effort to increase their income and wealth), then why not turn over to government officials other desired goals, such as building cars and investing capital?
I can understand Buffett voting democrat because he views the Iraq war as a disaster that harms the economy, but I cannot understand how he desires democratic tax policies, rather than regarding them as an unfortunate trade-off in electing a president most likely to end the Iraq war.
Here's an excellent analysis of Buffet's claim.
Anyone who honestly thinks that Aaron is the bad guy and Bonds is the tragic victim either has absolutely no sense of American history, or is a complete idiot... I know exactly where this is about to lead. It’s leading to a barrage of “sellout” and “Uncle Tom” nonsense from folks who are anxious to misuse America’s most lethal weapon of mass distraction: race...
Are we so cockeyed by race in this country that they’d prefer to embrace lying, cheating frauds simply because they fit neatly into our own racial demographic?
“Remember how it used to be growing up in the black community?” said Cornwell. “Growing up, you didn’t have to just worry about your parents catching you if you were doing something wrong. It was all their friends and all the neighbors. If they caught you, sometimes it was handled right there and then. We don’t have that anymore and we need to get back to that. You don’t excuse bad behavior. You don’t look the other way at bad behavior just because they’re part of your community. You confront it and make them understand that will not be allowed in our community.
“Well we need to get back to that way of thinking again,” said Cornwell. “This goes from ‘Pacman’ Jones all the way to Barry Bonds. We can no longer excuse their bad behavior because they’re black. We can’t defend them by saying, ‘Well the white guy did it, too. What about him?’ That’s not how we were raised. That’s not how our parents and their generation handled their responsibilities of raising all the young men and women in the community.”... ignoring the simple truth that he is guilty of cheating. This is not a court of law. This is the court of common sense. He admitted to a grand jury that he “unknowingly” used designer steroids. He had achieved a ridiculous muscle mass increase at too late an age. His career home run explosion magically coincided with his association with BALCO. But Bonds tells us he did nothing wrong, so who are we’re supposed to believe, him or our lyin’ eyes?
But they see a contradiction in factors that do not contradict each other. For example, it perplexes them that CT would advocate fiscally and legally conservative views, yet in his personal life exhibit a great deal of compassion and afford enormous assistance to others. Yet that is the essence of CT's brand of conservatism: assistance to others should be provided not by The State taking money from all citizens and building big programs, but rather by fellow citizens helping their fellows.
I heartily support the presidential pardon as an executive check on a criminal justice system that we know unjustly convicts many, many people. According to Clinton, he pardoned about 400 people, whereas Bush II has so far pardoned only about 70. These figures both seem low to me compared to all the people languishing in prison who should not be. Clinton and Bush II both in their younger years engaged in activities that harmed no other people (cocaine consumption) but that could have landed them in the clink, with records banning them from many opportunities.
Bush's clemency of Libby does not disgust me, nor would a subsequent pardon, because I think that Libby did nothing wrong or illegal, and the facts against him in court fell far below the "reasonable doubt" standard. But it does disgust me that Bush has failed to use this power to help hundreds or even thousands of even more deserving people with far fewer resources. And as a two-time Bush voter, I am further embarrassed that simply as a matter of political coverage he has not pardoned hundreds of deserving people before and after Libby, just to quell his political opponents.
Just one of a growing number of reasons why I will vote for Ron Paul in the repo primaries, and then the Libertarian candidate in the general election.
A study shows that white folks would give up TV only for a million bucks, but would change their "race" to "black" for merely $1,000. You would think that this shows that white people are not very racist. But then, if you concluded that, you wouldn't be one of those people who sees racism every where. Of course if white people required $100 million to become "black", these "RACISM!" criers would interpret that as racist as well. But instead they're left with an opposite fact: whites don't much care if they got transformed into black folks. This leaves the RACISM! criers to figure out a way to interpret this finding as demonstrating what they already know: honkies are a bunch of racists.
Here's how they interpret the findings showing white ambivalence (read: non-racism) :"white folks don’t understand the Black experience." In other words, if these all-knowing black folks can just fill the heads of these ignorant white folks with a bunch of well-spun facts, those crackers will want more than just a measly $1,000 to turn black! For example, black folks earn less money than whites! They die at younger ages! They make less money! They pay more for insurance! So these data-spinners devise a hypothetical nation, one divided into two groups, one that makes less money, dies earlier, pays more for insurance, etc., and viola! The same crackers when ignorant of "the facts" who would require only $1,000 to become black now, with their heads filled with "the truth", want $1 million! And not only that, this new figure represents white support for "slavery reparations." (**)
Of course black folks in the US die younger on average than white folks; on average they make poorer health choices, regarding diet and exercise. Of course black folks in the US on average make less money than white folks; on average they make poorer economic choices, in terms of decisions to study and stay in school, whether to attend college and what majors to choose, etc. And of course blacks on average pay more for car and house insurance than whites in the US; blacks on average are choosing at a much higher rate than whites to commit the crimes covered by insurance, and thus more likely to reside in areas with elevated rates of these crimes. Black and white folks who make the same health and financial choices reap the same results, and who live in neighborhoods with similar crime rates pay similar insurance rates. This is why so many blacks immigrate here, and so few ever leave.
(*) Plenty of black folks reject this nonsense ("uncle toms", "sellouts"), and plenty of whites embrace it (the nearly half the white population who votes democrat). I am raising my negro daughter to be one of those sell-out aunt jermimas. Her grades in school in the 6th grade were a very high 3.9; in the 7th grade they dropped to 2.1. The white teachers didn't suddenly discover that she was black and start unfairly treating her. Instead, she changed her behavior, in a way that will lead to low income in addition to low grades.
(**) No word on reparations from black African groups whose ancestors enslaved and sold the black ancestors of today's black Americans, or on reparations from Italy, France, and Norway for the successive conquests by their ancestors of the ancestors of today's Britain, or on reparations from Morocco's government for their ancestors' conquest of Spain and Italy, or of reparations from Egpyt for conquering Ethiopia and Nubia some generations ago. Nadir should surely expect reparatrions from Britain for its historical conquest and subjugation of his Irish ancestors as well... though some of Nadir's Irish ancestors enslaved some of his African ancestors... and some of his African ancestors enslaved and otherwise conquered other black Africans... I don't know how all of this will work out. Will my daughter get just half reparations for her African ancestors?
For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."
Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."
Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.