Of cats & meat

Periodically, I come across posts that attempt to shed some light or whitewash (since I’ve never read the Koran I really don’t know which one it is) Koran’s attitude toward women. The beautiful, the poetic, the condescending, the argumentative, all of them seem to agree on one thing: Koran’s view of women is loving, progressive, and respectful. Men?.. I guess it’s a given that the Allah is cool with them, since I’ve never heard a man touting the delights afforded to him by Koran (except for the 70 virgins, who might turn out to be raisins). My view of Islam is shaped entirely by what its holy men preach and practice. The stories from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Islamic states about women being condemned to stoning for being raped are, sadly, commonplace. This voice of feminism comes to us from Australia (The Sydney Morning Herald), hardly an Islamic stronghold:
Sheik al Hilaly's remarks were made during a Ramadan sermon to 500 worshippers in Sydney last month. …
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat," the sheik asked.
"The uncovered meat is the problem."
"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (Muslim headscarf), no problem would have occurred."In this colorful simile, the uncovered meat represents “scantily dressed women”, and carnivorous cats are featured as men. "Who is this man, so utterly ignorant of the humanistic ideal that is real Islam?" you ask. “[Sheik Hilaly is] regarded by much of the Islamic community as the mufti [a Muslim scholar who interprets the sharia] of Australia.” Surely, Muslims of a civilized western nation wouldn’t stand for such vitiating umbrage? Wrong again. They asked the sheik to abstain from preaching for several months, and… nope, nothing else.
Loving, progressive, respectful.

Poor people to poor neighborhoods!

Poor people die sooner when living in higher-income neighborhoods than in poorer ones, a new report concludes. Researchers analyzed 17 years' worth of data on thousands of people from four mid-size northern California cities to determine the death rates among different socioeconomic groups residing in the same neighborhoods.

In neighborhoods with a top median income of $47,000, 19 of every 1,000 poor women had died after 17 years, compared with 11 per 1,000 in neighborhoods that had a top median income of $38,600; men fared similarly. Both groups tended to die from the same chronic diseases, and the pattern remained even after accounting for age, obesity, blood pressure and smoking status, the group reports in a paper to be published in the December American Journal of Public Health.
ScientificAmerican.com, Oct. 31, 2006

In a related story, the Republican leadership has proudly announced that they have heard and heeded the criticism from their liberal colleagues on such topics as healthcare, housing, quality of life for the low-income individuals, and the issue of social fairness in our society. In an attempt to extend the longevity of life for the more vulnerable segment of the population, the proposed legislature will enable landlords not only to refuse housing to applicants attempting to move to better neighborhoods, but also to evict the current tenants if the landlord feels that the tenants are “bringing the place down.” Other causes for refusal include the following:

• funny (or not funny enough) accents
  
• oversized jewelry and/or neon trimming on the automobile
  
• lack of a trust fund
  
• consumption of wine-coolers
  
• possession of a Men’s Warehouse suit
  
• income level lower than the landlord’s cat allowance
  
• scurvy
  
• a discount card from Family Dollar stores

In a closed press conference with the Homeless Herald, and the Newark Times, a spokesman for the White House has said that this community-focused piece of legislature also underscores the administration’s commitment to the scientific theory, which served as an impetus for this groundbreaking social policy.

A curtsy before barbarians

This episode reminded me of the inhabitants of Leningrad during the 900 day blockade in WWII. Shostakovich’s Seventh Symphony was written and performed there. After long days of backbreaking work of erecting the barricades or double shifts at the factories, in the besieged and bombarded city, in unfathomable conditions, literally fainting from starvation, the citizens came to the symphony. In that, they preserved their hope, their humanity, and their pride. It was also a way to send their fecund "Fuck you!" to the enemy.
Compare that to Miss Harms' choice.

Why Bush won't ask Rummy to resign

The wisest elder was dying in a remote Armenian village. Other elders have gathered around his deathbed, and seeing how the end is near, decided to ask him for his final advice to them, “What will you leave us with?” The wise man drew his last breath, said, “Protect the Jews!”, and died. The elders were bewildered by his statement. They sat around trying to decipher what that meant and why he said it, but couldn’t find any meaningful explanation. Finally, they decided to seek counsel of another very old and wise Armenian, who lived far from them. They made their arduous journey to the wise man, and asked him to explain, “Tell, oh wise elder, why did our elder told us to, ‘Protect the Jews!’?” – “Oh, he was wise indeed”, said the elder. “For when they’ll finish with the Jews, they’ll start with us.

Those Wacky Hungarians

In an unsuccessful interview with "Fictitious Daily News" Mr. Gyurcsany, the current president of Hungary, said that he's preparing for a long and prosperous career in politics. "Honesty is the best policy!.. On top of it, do you know of any other president with balls as big as mine?!" At that point he pulled down his zipper and exposed a duplex of enormous testicles. According to our special correspondent, they looked healthy but somewhat unnatural. Just at that moment, a crowd of rioters had broken into his palace, and attempted to enter the room. Panicking, Mr. Gyurcsany had jammed the zipper, and had caught his prized possession on a rusty nail in an unfortunate attempt to flee his residence.

Meat of the Matter

My first reaction to this was to write some acrid remark and remind the rabbi that there are still Darfur, Sudan, and world poverty out there. Hand wringing and agonizing over geese seems misguided at best. Then I got curious about the rabbi and the synagogue. I've actually met the guy, and have been to that shul a few times a number of years ago. Not for me (then again, no shul is). Turns out the rabbi didn't just rally for the rights of overfed geese. They collect funds for Darfur, Sudan, Chad and some other places that I never heard of.

I'm an unapologetic carnivore. Just yesterday I chowed down on some beef tar-tar - one doesn't get more carnivorous than that. I like goose and duck liver. I like sweet breads, kidneys, beef tongue, pig's feet, and other "yucky" things. I grew up in a culture where vegetarians were about as common and normal as nudists. My background and habits don't predispose me to questioning meat consumption (not to mention that my wife would divorce me and my children would never speak to me again if I turned vegetarian). However, those who have ever looked into the general process of meat production, or foie gras in particular, will likely be put off meat products for at least a day. The undeniable truth is - animals suffer (the extent is debatable), and are killed to accommodate our dietary preferences. The site of it is far from appetizing. And while I doubt I'll ever become a vegetarian, I cannot simply dismiss those who urge us to abstain from meat based on their moral convictions either. In the end, I guess it's just another thing swept under the proverbial, and much treaded upon rug.

(I can't believe I just wrote this)

Beware of the Presbyterians!

And another one from WaPo:

However, the group [Council on American-Islamic Relations] said some post-Sept. 11 policy initiatives -- including the "infamous" Patriot Act, as the group described the law in announcing the report on its Web site -- have unfairly focused on Muslims. "Muslims take the brunt of it…"

I wholeheartedly agree! It’s high time we did something about Zoroastrians and Presbyterians. How long will we continue to ignore their explosive violence, and militant aspirations?!

The Great Literator

Our illustrious leader was at a literacy conference in NYC (reported by Washington Post):
"…the goals of this country are to help those who feel hopeless; the goals of this country are to spread liberty; the goals of this country is to enhance prosperity and peace."
"…One way to defeat hopelessness is through literacy, is to giving people the fantastic hope that comes by being able to read and realize dreams."

The president concluded the conference by saying that he too, intends to master the "subject-verb agreement" part of his native tongue, as well as to share with us the techniques he uses to achieve his Zen-like clarity of mind.

From Bad to Worse

And so it goes from bad to worse. Frankly, I didn't think much of the Pope's remarks regarding Islam for a couple of reasons. One, he happened to be right this time. Two, since when does anyone expect tolerance and pluralistic acceptance from the Catholic Pope? No, really, tell me, when was that a hallmark of the Catholic Church? That's right - never. This however, is one of the few issues that can be extended by generalizations without being compromised by inevitable exceptions. This is a religious head talking!.. Talking about another religion! Um… on what acid trip does anyone expect him to be anything but critical? The best one can hope for is "diplomatic". And he wasn't. So? At least it was ballsy. Not too many folks these days dare to speak the truth about Islam and majority of it followers. By sheer lucky accident, the usual religious bigotry yielded two unexpected and fine smelling fruits: truth, and courage. But no, they had to go and squash them in an obsequious (and completely false! - common, everyone knows it) nod to the religious tolerance.

9/11 Reflection and Rage by Dyre

Dyre Portents: 9/11 Reflection and Rage

Well said, Dyre42!
Tip my hat to you.

It's the parents' fault!

The 7-year-old girl died at Lincolnwood's Todd Hall School because the teachers were umm... busy?

They're, of course, only teachers, not doctors; how could they possibly know there was anything wrong with her?

Multiple times that April morning she told teachers she felt bad -- and signs of her illness were glaring, according to a negligence lawsuit her family filed Tuesday.

She couldn't stand up. She was having trouble breathing, suffering chest and stomach pain, and had urinated on herself.

She was shuttled from gym class to her classroom to the office, handed off from teacher to teacher, repeatedly sent down hallways unescorted... left alone in an office bathroom, where she remained for up to 15 minutes, until school officials found she'd collapsed...
Paramedics were then called, but Katina was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Here's the full article.

I've always said that I can't understand this kind of things. I can't understand the teachers who allow their students to graduate from HS without being able to read; and I sure as hell don't understand not giving a flying fuck about the 1st grader on the verge of death! The 1st grader! What the fuck?! I have a few friends whose wives are teachers in Chicago, and they keep telling me, "There's nothing we can do... It's all about the atmosphere at home,.. It's all about the environment..." I have a feeling I'll be enlightened as to how this is not the school's fault either.

I'm no specialist on the early ed (or any ed for that matter), but I remember that when I was in school, and a student felt sick, the teacher would take that student by the hand, and take him to the school nurse, who would call the ambulance if she found it was necessary. My teachers cared, though. Frequently, it seemed that they cared more than the students' parents. Why? They were probably raised that way. You see, it's all about the atmosphere at home.

Regarding the eeeveel, eeeveel oil companies

The Q&A:

Q: Why are the prices so f*cking high?
A: The oil companies don't set the prices that you're seeing at the pump, nor do they set the prices of crude oil. The prices are set by the market, which is not controlled by anyone, just like the rest of the FREE MARKETS aren't.

The factors contributing to such high prices include increased demand (China & India) with limited capacity for production and refining, lack of spare capacity (the reason why even Venezuela and Iran can level threats against the US), unstable Middle East, taxes and government regulations, and perhaps the heaviest of all - speculation. Paper trading accounts for as much as the third of the crude's price these days. So much so, that the usual chain of physical commodity driving the paper trading has been turned upside down, and with companies like Goldman Sachs, Merill Lynch, and other financial giants doing most of the paper trading, the prices on crude oil rise in response to heavy speculation on paper derivatives by these players, and not due to the inherent lack of supply.

Q: You're saying that the oil companies aren't deserving of the blame, but they're the ones responsible for building the refineries, increasing the capacity, and they're the ones posting record profits! Explain that!
A: Yep, they ARE the ones responsible for building the refineries. Here's a question for you: did you leave a tip for Exxon or BP eight years ago, when the price of crude was less than $20/barrel? No? Hm… How odd. I'm sure the news did, mention that they were loosing money in refining and production. Was the $.70 / gallon gasoline acceptable then? Well, guess what, refining wasn't profitable, and they didn't invest in a failing enterprise. Would you have stopped at Exxon's gas station to pay $1.50 if they explained that their gas is more expensive because they're investing in refining, which is loosing money for them at the moment, but it might pay off in the future, while Shell, across the street was selling same exact gas for half the price? No again?!. - Most perplexing.

And regarding the profits - yep, they are making good money now. In case it did not occur to you earlier, they are actually in business in order to make money (no, they're not altruists). So when the return on their investments (let me repeat that - THEIR INVESTMENTS) was negative, that was alright by you, but when the profits have started to roll in, that's not cool anymore; is that right?

Well, look at it this way, for now, building refineries and looking for more oil is a very profitable business. So more likely than not, if the prices remain reasonably high, we'll see more refining capacity and more new accessible oil fields. In time, the prices will level off. And if not, being the entrepreneurial creatures that we are, we'll find other, cheaper sources of energy (All of a sudden, the R&D for alternative fuels has become a good investment too. Then again, you might be disappointed to find out that this research, too, is done by the eeeveel, eeeveel oil companies.)

If you have other questions, objections or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask.

Brits brought it on themselves!

"Yo, Brits, maybe if you considered converting to Islam, following Sharia, enshrining Quran, wearing burkas, breaking it off with the Yankees, and the Jews; who knows, maybe you'd be safer!.. Then again, maybe not. Most of you can't seem to grow decent beards."
The fucking gall! Why the West won't round up these "peacemakers" and airdrop them in Iran is completely beyond me.

Ka-Boom! and no more Basayev

I'll admit, I took some guilt-free pleasure in this news. Alas, it appears that he did not suffer – a pity. Now, if only we could do the same with a few (hundred) more of these fuckers, I'd be elated.

However, for now, let’s be “cautiously optimistic”, and wait for the confirmation from the genetics lab; apparently he was “killed” a few times before

Best, but far from ideal

OK, clearly, I'm not disciplined enough to keep a blog of full-fledged stories going. Then again, I do, have a fulltime job (that requires way more than 40 hours a week), and a family (to which I'm grateful for continuing to put up with my bullshit).
So, I've decided to flog some of my random thoughts (as I originally intended) out there, and see what develops.

Here's one that has been stewing on the backburner (now brace yourself, as you'll undoubtedly recognize the decaying smell of heresy): the unbridled capitalism, much like the lofty ideal of communism, or any other "pure" political system doesn't work. It doesn't work for the same reasons, too. It's the people who are the clogs of this beautifully conceived (and in fairness, best-executed) system. And people tend to fall short of the ideal. Even the best among us. Rand however, makes no provisions for such developments. Her heroes never stumble, her villains are barely human, and the weather forecasters are always right. Her heroes' austere adherence to The Ideal is inspiring alright. But it's the inspiration, whose ugly cousin used to move a son to betray his father in pursuit of the collectivist ideal. Surely, not what she had in mind.

Specifically, Rand assumes that it is the unadulterated pursuit of his/her creative expression that moves the Capitalist. And those who're hounding the money without realizing its essence will fall away on their own, taken care by the inevitably just hand of the free commerce. The reality however, can be seen on the daily news. The nauseating, Kozlowski-style excesses, Lay / Skillings claimed ignorance while bloating fat with money siphoned away from the consumers, and the list goes on and on. "The fact that the list goes on and on, is the proof that the system works! They lied, stole, cheated, pledged allegiance to Marx's ghost, and they got what they deserved!" a true Randian would say. But that's as naïve as to say that there are no crooks in the society. All the crooks are behind the bars. No, the truth of it is - a good number, perhaps even the majority of those who propel our society on its rightful pursuit of wealth, and "self-making" are not seeking the nirvana of self-realization, but a much more prosaic goal - the security and freedom that only large amounts of money can afford. Not all! Luckily, and thankfully, not all.
---

This is a somewhat uncharacteristic thought for me, since I'm generally a very enthusiastic supporter of Rand. But as I think of a society that would be based strictly on Rand's principles of laissez-fair capitalism and Natural Law, I don't see a place that would be much more desirable than the quagmire of communism or the tyranny of a benevolent dictator.

Tell me how I'm (hopefully) wrong.

A Day Without Illegal Immigrants is a good day!

Let's get one thing out of the way first, I'm pro-immigration. I think it's good for the country, and for business. My support however, only extends to legal immigration. I'm vehemently opposed to the illegal one. I'm also unclear as to what's being debated when the issue of illegal immigrants is discussed. It is still against the law to enter or remain in this country without proper authorization, right? (And as laws go, this isn't a bad one, in fact, it's vital) So since when is it that law enforcement became optional?

And regarding this whole boycott thing… Heard a good question from a guy on some news show, "Are they going to boycott our emergency rooms too?" Hey, I don't mind mowing my own lawn (to be honest, I don't have one, but if I did, I wouldn't mind it), or having an American cabdriver (wouldn't it be refreshing if he actually understood what the hell I'm saying?) I have a feeling that most doctors, cops, teachers, and other professionals will be working today. Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying - illegal immigrants don't matter much. This boycott is a good thing. If we as a nation find it painful, and can't do without the illegals, then we need to address it via legislature. Deciding to only legalize them would be a mistake though. It will encourage further influx of illegal immigrants, and will not address absolutely anything. They say that they perform an important role within this society, and hold jobs that most Americans don't want. Well, here's a question, once they become legal here, will they still want to work for the minimum wage or less? And if not, who is going to fill those spots? I know, I know! Other illegal immigrants. Yipppeee! Problem solved. We might have to start paying more for lettuce, and increase the wages of construction workers, but that's a different issue. Caving in to any criminal segment within a society is a stupid, stupid thing to do; but to foreign criminals?! That's just insane.

A Comment on Disclosure of Exec's Comp

I didn’t make it clear that I was advocating a wiser approach for the boards of directors, not legislature. In fact, if anything, I’d get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley and other such idiocy. An entire industry of a special breed of consultants has sprung up in the wake of corporate scandals. What do they consult on? – How to properly navigate the latest round of idiotic legislature that seeks to control the activity of those who actually produce. The legislature that was created by and for the benefit of those who couldn’t make something worthy of human consumption if their lives depended on it. Everyone has heard the cliché that those who can’t do, teach. Well, these good folks do even better. They charge exorbitant amounts of money to advise corporations on how to abide by the regulations, some of which seem to have been lifted directly from Alice in Wonderland. Happy Unbirthday to ya’all!

HAMAS' Victory

Enough commentary has been written on this victory of democracy without my two cents. One however (and unfortunately, I forgot where I read it), had a particularly interesting insight. It tied the results of the Palestinian's democratic elections to Bush's view of democracy. The article highlighted Bush's black-and-white perception of the world, where liberty inevitably leads to democracy (the post-nukes argument for going into Iraq). This election should hammer the last nail into the coffin of that argument, but I'm not holding my breath. (I just came across a quote by Schiller that rang so true: "With stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.") And no, I don't hate saying, "I told you so." - I told you so. And I don't mind repeating myself, for any state to be democratic, and for any people to be free, THEY GOTTA WANT IT! Neither liberty nor democracy can be received as gifts, they can only be won. And neither Iraqis nor the Palestinians wanted them. Why anyone would be surprised by the results of this election is a mystery to me.

Another noteworthy aspect of this election was Kremlin's (official statement from the ministry of foreign affairs) prompt response to the will of Palestinian people. It comes to us by way of gazeta.ru:

«В Москве рассматривают выборы в палестинский законодательный совет как крупное событие на пути дальнейшей демократизации палестинского общества, создания институтов будущего государства. Мы всегда уважали и будем уважать демократический выбор палестинского народа, на основе которого предстоит формирование нового состава палестинской законодательной и исполнительной власти…”

27 ЯНВАРЯ 10:24

Roughly translated:

Moscow sees the elections of Palestinian governing body as a significant event on the path of further democratization of Palestinian society, and creation of institutions for the future state. We have always respected and will always respect the democratic choice of the Palestinian people, which will serve as a basis for creation of new constituency for Palestinian legislative and executive branches.

January 27, 10:24 AM

Kremlin's blatant disregard for the fact that HAMAS is a self-avowed terrorist organization with a clearly stated objective of eliminating Israel from the face of the earth highlights Russian duplicity in dealing with terrorists, as well as their undying commitment to state-sponsored anti-Semitism.

Well, as the saying goes, what's good for the goose… When the Beslan tragedy occurred, like any normal westerner, I unequivocally condemned it as an act of beastly brutality by the group that deserves to be eliminated. I also fully supported Russian efforts in quelling the Chechen rebellion and eliminating the terrorists. In light of Kremlin's statement, I have come to reconsider my position. Perhaps they're not "terrorists" after all, but freedom fighters, which deserve to have democratic elections in their pursuit of autonomy and statehood. And once they elect Basayev and his thugs, um, I mean democratically elected officials; they will be equally entitled to creation of various institutions necessary for the formation of their democratic state.

Kremlin's statement is a spit in the face of the entire western block. Their willingness to embrace an organization that can be seen as a very definition of a terrorist group is indicative of their general indifference to the issue of international terrorism, and their commitment to peace and democracy is nothing more than another cheap slogan

Disclosure Of Executives' Compensation

Suddenly, everyone’s concern with executives’ pay has surfaced. It has always been a fun subject at the water coolers and union-sponsored events, but now it’s making inroads into legislature. Should executives’ compensation packages be publicly disclosed? – No. Why? Because it’s a matter of basic privacy. It is simply nobody’s (except the shareholder’s) business. Executives are entitled to the same level of privacy as anyone else. Luckily, it’s not just my opinion, it’s the law.

Having said all this, I think it’s the wrong question. The reason for this question is the apparent lack of correspondence between their pay and the company’s performance. By no means does this apply to all executives. Ellison, Gates, Jobs are some of the notable exceptions. But what about the likes of Wagoner, Ford Jr. or other executives whose companies have been consistently in the red, show complete lack of strategy, and the only way they know how to narrow the losses is by downsizing or outsourcing? Should their compensation packages be made public? – No. However poor their performance is, they’re still entitled to the same privacy as the rest of us. Additionally though, whatever that package is, it’s too much. There’s no justification for any pay increase to an executive whose company does not consistently outperform the market. Why? – If it’s unclear to you, you should not participate in this discussion.

Furthermore, executive packages should be completely restructured to reflect the difference in job requirements. They’re hired for a single purpose: make the company profitable. Um, if you’ve just agreed with this, and have nothing to add, you’re missing the same key component as the boards of directors of GM and Ford. No, they’re not hired to simply make the company profitable. Their job is to ensure that the company is profitable now AND in the long term. It’s not a subtle difference. The Wall Street is in the business of making money this quarter; next quarter they can invest elsewhere. The executive’s job is to ensure the company’s success LONG TERM (tip my hat to Costco). Their compensation packages should reflect that. I don’t understand how an executive can leave a failing company within a year or two after having stolen, I mean received, millions of dollars (and the board of directors just let them!). There are only two potential reasons for that: utter incompetence or corruption.

Here’s what I would propose: executives should be required to manage the company for a term of at least six years. During this term, their salary should be in the same range as their well-qualified professionals (engineers, accountants, etc.). A part of their salary should be put in an escrow account (let’s say 20%). They should not be allowed to make extra money off the company in any way during the first term. By the end of the first term, the company’s performance, and its strategic position should be evaluated, and based on the findings the executives should receive a percentage of the profits (I don't think anyone is going to argue about their salaries if the company is consistently profitable and growing). If the company’s health is found wanting, their escrowed salary should be reinvested back into the business (since they’re clearly not as well-qualified as they claimed). The numbers might be off, but the basic principle behind this is very sound. Executives are hired for their strategic vision and their ability to implement it. Neither one can be appropriately evaluated in the short term. Thus their compensation should be commensurate with the company’s performance over some reasonable period of time.

Russia’s March toward Freedom

Excerpts translated from www.gazeta.ru:

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, under mysterious circumstances, has signed a scandalous law regarding non-governmental agencies. Although Putin made the decision on January 10, Kremlin has made it public only today - right after the departure of German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, from Russia.
…
In summarizing the new law, Gazeta said the following: Russian Registration (a government institution) will track activities of foreign and Russian non-government organizations. Under this law, chapters and filial offices of foreign organizations will have to register (with RR). Besides the registration, affiliates of the foreign non-commercial organizations will have to disclose to RR their planned activities, as well as the amounts of financing, and other agencies, with which they intend to cooperate on the territory of Russia. The infusions of foreign financing and the goals they seek to achieve, will have to be disclosed by Russian organizations as well as the foreign.

Ah, sweet, sweet, liberty

Palestinians at war as blood feuds follow Israeli pullout

Law and order has collapsed in Gaza ahead of elections this month. Powerful clans, suddenly without a common enemy to unite them, are killing each other and seeking to sweep aside the heirs of Arafat, condemned as weak and corrupt.

It’s a mischaracterization to say that “the law and order has collapsed”. It implies that at some point there was law and order in place. The only law and order that was ever in place there was maintained by some form of a civilized society (Britons or the Israelis). But the zoo-keeper is gone now. They wanted “freedom, independence, and the right for self-determination”. Had they told the Israelis what they wanted it for, they would’ve pulled out earlier.

The clan wars are the most visible sign of the disintegration of the Palestinian political and social order in the narrow, hemmed-in urban crush that is Gaza. As Palestine's politicians prepare to go to the polls on 25 January, their supporting groups are also preparing for a political war. And rival factions of the armed groups that confronted the Israeli army and the Jewish settlers before their withdrawal six months ago are in conflict with each other and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). On top of that, a spate of kidnappings of foreigners, motivated by petty local complaints, has drawn attention to Gaza's slow collapse.

Wait, wait… Till now, they tearfully used to say, that it was the evil Israelis that drove them to terrorism, and therefore, their vile acts were justified. Now what? The neighbor’s stereo is too loud?

It is the family wars that best underline the escalating sense of crisis. Guns and bombs, not the courts and police, have become the medium for restitution. Nasser Shabbat, a community leader in Beit Hanoun, blames the authority for the conditions spawning the violence.

I find absolutely nothing surprising there, except for maybe one thing: they’re not blaming the Israelis (yet). On the other hand, nobody is rushing to take responsibility for any of it either, so I guess the world still makes sense.

But more complex issues are at work. Since the Israeli withdrawal ordered by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the unity of rival groups against the occupation has collapsed, and the young former fighters have turned their violence within. In the Kamal Edwan hospital … one gunman was killed in an intensive care unit by rival fighters.

“… I've told staff, if they think there is a risk of fighting, to leave them to kill each other outside.”

No comment necessary.

'This will never end,' says one who called himself Abu Nahed. 'The weak will be hit by the strong, because there is no one to protect them.'

Hm… I think I recall reading something similar to this before… Oh, yes, in my Biology classes. Darwin! Right, that’s how it works in the animal kingdom.

Respect Australian values or leave: Costello

Generally, I’m not given to just pasting almost entire articles, but in this case, there isn’t much more I can add. Except perhaps, I wish somebody around here would grow some balls (and common sense) like Mr. Howard’s.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1444603.htm
Broadcast: 23/08/2005

Reporter: Tony Jones

TONY JONES: On the morning of the Prime Minister's Islamic summit, Mr Howard was greeted by his Treasurer's surprising contribution to the debate on the front page of The Australian newspaper. The headline read: "Costello tells firebrand clerics to get out of Australia".

Well, early in the day Peter Costello was not suggesting that any of the firebrands be deported. But by the time he spoke to us, that notion appeared to have matured.

His latest intervention into topics of national interest comes only days after his speech to the Australian-American leadership dialogue in which he focussed on growing anti-Americanism in the world. "That phenomenon", he later told the Sunday program, "Can easily morph into anti-Westernism, which picks up and encapsulates Australia and threatens our interests as well."

So was he suggesting that our close relationship with America makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks? I spoke to Peter Costello in our Melbourne studio earlier this evening.

Peter Costello, thanks for joining us.

PETER COSTELLO: Good to be with you, Tony.

TONY JONES: Now, over the past 24 hours you've been repeating the notion that migrants, evidently Islamic migrants, who don't like Australia, or Australian values, should think of packing up and moving to another country. Is that a fair assessment?

PETER COSTELLO: What I've said is that this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you. This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.

TONY JONES: It sounds like you're inviting Muslims who don't want to integrate to go to another country. Is it as simple as that?

PETER COSTELLO: No. I'm saying if you are thinking of coming to Australia, you ought to know what Australian values are.

TONY JONES: But what about if you're already here and you don't want to integrate?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I'll come to that in a moment. But there are some clerics who have been quoted as saying they recognise two laws. They recognise Australian law and Sharia law. There's only one law in Australia, it's the Australian law. For those coming to Australia, I think we ought to be very clear about that. We expect them to recognise only one law and to observe it.

Now, for those who are born in Australia, I'd make the same point. This is a country which has a Constitution. Under its Constitution, the state is secular. Under its constitution, the law is made by the parliament. Under its Constitution, it's enforced by the judiciary. These are Australian values and they're not going to change and we would expect people, when they come to Australia or if they are born in Australia, to respect those values.

TONY JONES: I take it that if you're a dual citizen and you have the opportunity to leave and you don't like Australian values, you're encouraging them to go away; is that right?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, if you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practises it, perhaps then that's a better option.

TONY JONES: But isn't this the sort of thing you hear in pubs, the meaningless populism you hear on talkback radio? Essentially, the argument is if you don't like it here, you should go back home.

PETER COSTELLO: No. Essentially, the argument is Australia expects its citizens to abide by core beliefs - democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary, independent liberty. You see, Tony, when you come to Australia and you go to take out Australian citizenship you either swear on oath or make an affirmation that you respect Australia's democracy and its values. That's what we ask of people that come to Australia and if they don't, then it's very clear that this is not the country - if they can't live with them - whose values they can't share. Well, there might be another country where their values can be shared.

TONY JONES: Who exactly are you aiming this at? Are you aiming it at young Muslims who don't want to integrate or are you aiming it at clerics like Sheikh Omran or Abu Bakr both from Melbourne?

PETER COSTELLO: I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false. It's not the situation in Australia. It's not the situation under our Constitution. There's only one law in Australia. It's the law that's made by the Parliament of Australia and enforced by our courts. There's no second law. There's only one law that applies in Australia and Australia expects its citizens to observe it.

TONY JONES: But you're not moving to the next stage, as they have in Britain, of actively seeking out clerics who teach what they regard as dangerous philosophy to young Muslims and forcing them to leave the country?

PETER COSTELLO: The only thing I would say - and let me say it again - is we can't be ambivalent about this point. Australia has one law, Australia has a secular state and anybody who teaches to the contrary doesn't know Australia and anybody who can't accept that, can't accept something that is fundamental to the nature of our society.

TONY JONES: All right. But the situation now, as far as you're concerned, if they are to leave, it should be completely voluntary.

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I'm just saying if they object to a secular state with parliamentary law, there might be other countries where the system of law is more acceptable to them.

TONY JONES: Alright. Could that situation change? I mean, the voluntary nature of it at least, could you compel people to leave, including radical preachers, if there were a terrorist attack in Australia, as there was in London not so long ago?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, where a person has dual citizenship, Tony, it might be possible to ask them to exercise that other citizenship where they could just as easily exercise a citizenship of another country. That might be a live possibility.

TONY JONES: You mean to force them to leave?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, you could ask them to exercise another citizenship.

TONY JONES: But you would only do that if there were a terrorist attack in the aftermath of it. You wouldn't do it, for example, if there were a thwarted terrorist attack as ASIO has told us there has been in this country?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I am not going into individual circumstances. I just make the point that where people have dual citizenship and they're not comfortable with the way Australia is structured, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship.

TONY JONES: Forcibly?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I said, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship.

TONY JONES: Let's move on. You made a speech at the weekend in which you warned that Australia could be hurt by growing anti-Americanism or Australia's interests at least could be hurt by growing anti-Americanism in the world. How could that happen?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I think there is a lot of anti-Americanism in Australia. It's not just in Australia. It there's anti-Americanism in Europe and other parts of the world and to some degree it may be less in Australia than in countries like France or in parts of the Arab world. But I don't believe we can be complacent about it. It is a real strand of public opinion and I think we ought to engage it and discuss it. The point I'm trying to make is we in Australia have no reason to be anti-American; that where American power has been exercised, such as in the World War II, it was exercised in the defence of Australia, not the attack of Australia. By and large, American power, which is exercised in defence of democracy and in individual liberty, is supportive of Australia in its interests and not a threat to it.

TONY JONES: You said to Laurie Oakes on Sunday that anti-Americanism can easily morph into anti-Westernism and effectively that could threaten our interests. How could that happen?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, we've seen with some terrorist attacks already that Western places are targets. Not necessarily because there are Australians present, but because in the terrorist mind there are Westerners present, whether they be Americans or Britons or Australians.

TONY JONES: This is to do with anti-Americanism?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I said, anti-Westernism, and terrorists don't particularly distinguish when they're setting off bombs, can hit Australians as much as it can hit Americans or it can hit Britons.

TONY JONES: But this is anti-Americanism morphing into a broader anti-Western feeling which could affect Australian interests. Is that what you are saying?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, there have been occasions when Australians have been hit by terrorist incidents where people haven't distinguished between whether it's Americans or Britons or Australians. There is a strand of terrorist thinking that says that anybody who is a Westerner is a legitimate target.

TONY JONES: But the core of it is anti-American from what you are saying? The logic of what you are saying is pretty clear.

PETER COSTELLO: In some terrorist minds, if you're hitting a Westerner, you're hitting a legitimate target. The point I want to make is that because we're Westerners, in the minds of some terrorists we can be targets. So it's in our interests to defend the values of the West and it's in our interests to explain our policy. It's in America's interests to defend its own image and I would urge it to do so and I would also say to Australia's security -

TONY JONES: You seem to be suggesting that anti-Americanism is in fact a dangerous thing for Australians.

PETER COSTELLO: Well, it is in a security sense because the US is Australia's principal defence partner. When I say there is a danger of anti-Americanism in Australia amongst Australians, what I'm saying is, particularly amongst younger Australians, if they don't understand the events of 1942 when the US was the principal ally defending Australia and without which we wouldn't have been able to defend the islands to our near north, if they don't understand that, they may not understand what the importance of the American alliance is to the defence of Australia and our strategic interests.

TONY JONES: I don't want to keep coming back to this necessarily, but you've made the point quite clearly that anti-Americanism can morph into anti-Westernism and that threatens our interests. It threatens our interest, does it, because we could, like Americans, as a result of anti-Americanism become terrorist targets?

PETER COSTELLO: We have become terrorist targets because we are perceived to be Western. We've become terrorist targets because we are perceived to stand for a whole lot of values, which in the terrorist mind they oppose. Australians became terrorists in Bali not because of anything Australia did, but because in Bali they were perceived to be Westerners and in a sick terrorist mind that makes you a target.

TONY JONES: Right. Given that the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq is probably the leading cause of anti-Americanism in the Arab world, does that make us, as an ally of the Americans, a greater target for terrorists?

PETER COSTELLO: I don't think it's the principle cause at all. I think if you want to look for perceived areas of anti-Americanism in the Arab world, it was around a lot before Iraq. It's been around for a very long time, Tony, and most of it, I believe -

TONY JONES: I'm talking about what's happening right now. We're seeing it even in the lead-up to the Islamic summit we've been having in Canberra. What we are hearing is young Australian Muslims are particularly angry with the
American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

PETER COSTELLO: No, I couldn't disagree with you more profoundly. There was substantial hostility to the US in the Arab world long before Iraq. Whether it's over perceived injustices to Islam, whether it's over the Palestinian issue, whether it's over support for Israel. Most of these things, and I don't believe justify hostility at all, but it's been there long before Iraq. Let me tell you this, Tony - you are profoundly wrong if you thought hostility to the United States started in 2003. It was around a long before that.
...

Alito

I'll admit right off the bat, I haven't been following it too closely; that is to say, I've seen less than two hours of the hearings and read a few articles on the subject. So far, the most controversial subjects seem to be his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, his view of Roe vs. Wade, and his support of anauthorized wiretaps.

Whether or not he was an active member of C.A.P., one thing is certain: his views today are different from those expressed by C.A.P. members 25 years ago. It would've been better if he belonged to the Habitat for Humanity, but as "sins" go, it's not a mortal one. Nobody is going to mistake him for a flaming liberal, but it doesn't look like he's got a white hooded robe in the closet either. If however, more recent evidence of him espousing such views should surface, it would be a whole different matter. I certainly wouldn't want to be judged by my memberships in some organizations over the last 25 years (if nothing else, I'd have to be committed for a severe bi-polar disorder with equally severe delusions). My current views would be misrepresented 100% by that information. (Those who know me will know exactly what I mean.)

According to usatoday.com, "Alito, then 35, said he was especially 'proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.'"
Roe vs. Wade is a legitimate concern, though. Alito refuses to say whether he would recognize it as an established law of the land. And treating it "with respect" is a far cry from recognizing it as a law. Clearly, there are other, more important, considerations for the Supreme Court nominee, but as issues go, this is pivotal for a lot of people in this country. Its importance stems not only from the subject it addresses, but from the symbolic value it has acquired over time. It has come to represent liberal and humanist advancements in this country, along with the abolition of slavery, and equal rights. Judge Alito's track record on opposing abortions by overturning Roe is a considerably greater detractor from his qualifications, in my opinion. (Then again, I'm unequivocally pro-choice.)

Alito also supported unauthorized wiretaps on Americans, and blanket immunity for attorney general when he acts in the interests of national security. (AP 12/23/05 16:47 PST Washington)

While I support his stance on racial and ethnic quotas, his views do, seem to create a very conservative and statist pattern. A pattern that would undoubtedly further the erosion of American civil liberties while strengthening the Office of the President, and the government in general. Personally, I would prefer to see a candidate with a more centrist set of views, and one not as eager to step over the Constitution.

“Cleanliness” advocate

Hamza wanted "caliph in the White House": UK court

Me? Dirty?! Hey! I shower at least once a day, damn it! Blasphemous? I'll give you that. But that's not even my worst offense against the Allah, and already I'm good to go? Awww. At least give me a chance to fully implicate myself. Wouldn't it make my death even more enjoyable to Allah? I guess his followers are benevolent like that, and are willing to overlook the rest.
On a slightly different topic, I have to say, I disagree with the Brits' decision to try the venerable sheik, Hamza, in court. Why cast the pearls before… the sheik? (not like he can pick 'em up, anyway. ha-ha. I'm a cruel bustard, too.) Deport him, instead (it's cheaper), and have him knocked off shortly thereafter (still cheaper). He'll be enjoying his virgins, and I won't have to be so self-conscious about my hygiene.

Afghanistan's Progress

"Yes, yes, education IS a terrible thing. Next thing you know, Allah has to make room for astronomy. And to top it off, for women (of all creatures)! Tsk-tsk-tsk. More beheadings, definitely more beheadings. Yep, that's the way to go. Lemme get my mule and my yataghan, and let's go behead someone smart."

Meanwhile, back at the farm… "People of Afghanistan are entering the new age of Democracy!.."