14th Amendment scare tactics

Recently there has been quite a bit of buzz in the USA on revising the 14th Amendment (which allows anyone born on US soil to automatically become a citizen), or somehow writing to law to prevent abuses of this policy. Right now, illegal immigrants are actually rewarded having children on US soil, and many pregnant tourists come to the USA for the very purpose of gaining US citizenship benefits for their children. The children are frequently called "anchor babies" because they give the entire family an anchor in the US. In some areas, it makes the family eligible to collect welfare, makes the family more difficult to deport, and when the child turns 21, he/she can legally sponsor the rest of the immediate family to immigrate.

The problem is, the 14th was never intended to be used this way. It was written in 1868, before there were any immigration laws. The point of it was to make certain that after the Civil War, freed slaves would be considered full citizens. There are no more slaves alive today, and it was never intended to be a loophole to abuse our laws. The writers could not have predicted the changing role of immigration, as well as the explosion of cheap travel and the growth of world tourism.

Just a few key facts on the issue:

* 1 in 12 babies born in the US are born to illegal immigrants. That's about 340,000 a year.

* An overwhelming number of Americans (67%) disagree with granting birthright citizenship to people in the country illegally.

* "Birth tourism", in which pregnant women travel to the US with the specific intention of having a US citizen baby, is a booming business and rapidly expanding.

When Sen. Lindsey Graham brought up the possibility of revising the 14th recently, he was vilified for it from all the usual corners. Senator Harry Reid said: “They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles” (however, hypocritically, Reid himself introduced a bill with that very same purpose back in 1993, apologizing for it later).

I have read a lot of debate on this topic back and forth in the last couple weeks. It really is difficult to defend the way the law is being abused. Essentially, all the defenders of the status quo revert to these arguments, which are easily refuted:

1. "It's racist" (the standard response when you don't have a real argument). ANSWER: Then why did the rest of the developed world, including the entire European Union, ditch their birthright citizenship laws years ago? Are they all racist? Among developed nations, the US stands alone in this regard.

Incidentally, constantly making false cries of "racism" have horribly backfired in Britain. I see the same thing happening in the US soon enough.

2. "It will require immigration agents in delivery rooms". This is not a straw man argument; this is what Senator John Kerry actually said recently, and other pundits have followed suit. ANSWER: Once again, Europe does not allow birthright citizenship, and there are no "immigration agents in delivery rooms".

Every baby born in Europe gets a birth certificate (like I got mine from Germany). What parents do not automatically get for their child is a document verifying citizenship. That they can get later from a records office if they can show that at least one parent is a citizen, or that they are legal residents (not tourists or illegal immigrants). There are some other exceptions, for example, children born to US servicemembers stationed in Germany are not automatically citizens (unless they have a German parent).

3. "It's un-American". ANSWER: this is an emotional statement that can't really be proved or refuted. However, it's ironic that accusations of being "un-American" don't fly with the political left in other areas (like when directed toward war critics or universal health care). It's also pretty plain that the lawmakers who wrote the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to be used the way it is being used, so I would consider the status quo to be "un-American" instead.

Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school argued this very point in a recent law review:

"It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry"

4. "It will result in 'stateless' people living in the US". ANSWER: I hear this talking point too, and it's a complete canard. It doesn't happen in Europe either, and it wouldn't happen here. Virtually every nation on Earth, including Mexico, practice "jus sanguinis" which means that children are citizens of their parents country even if born in another country. That is why right now, children born in the USA to Mexican parents have dual US/Mexican citizenship.

Bottom line is that it's a very bad policy that is completely archaic in this age of mass immigration, worldwide tourism, and cheap travel.

Click here to continue reading...

Off and On

I have had very little heart to write for this blog recently - and now I think I understand why.

I am currently a full-time student back in graduate school (I go back to the Army next Summer). Since my major is International Affairs, I already study current issues in depth. I obviously have to write papers, give opinions, analyze current topics in my classes. It's difficult for me to repeat that on this weblog. But now that Summer classes are over, I have a break, and will return for a bit.

Click here to continue reading...

Captain Pete Hegseth speaks out to congress about Elena Kagan

You may have noticed I have been offline for quite awhile. This is the result of a vacation, schoolwork, family concerns, and other distractions. But I am still alive.

Given that the Kagan appointment to the US Supreme Court is basically a forgone conclusion, here is something I feels needs maximum publicity. A Massachusetts National Guard (and Harvard student) speaks out against Kagan, offering one of the most eloquent rebuttals to her nomination yet. His focus is Kagan's refusal (in violation of Federal law) to allow military recruiters at Harvard during her tenure as dean. Obstensibly her reason was in protest of the miltiary's "don't ask, don't tell" policy (which excludes openly homosexual people from military service).

A couple highlights from his testimony:

1. Not only has Ms. Kagan has shown hostility toward recruitment, she is replacing the only remaining veteran on the court.

2. Ms. Kagan continuously claims that military recruitment went up during her tenure. Even if true (and I have doubts about that), it happened in spite of her efforts, not because of anything she did.

3. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was not written by the military anyway, but in fact by President Clinton, whom Ms. Kagan went to work for.

4. Ms. Kagan allowed Harvard to accept several endowments from Saudi Arabia, a country that executes homosexuals, yet she considered "don't ask, don't tell" to be an "injustice of the highest order".

Click here to continue reading...

Ethan McCord

Ethan McCord is a former US soldier who served in Iraq, and is one of the soldiers who appear on the wikileaks video that I discussed earlier.

He was interviewed recently, and claims, among other things, that:

Our rules of engagement were changing on an almost daily basis. But we had a pretty gung-ho commander, who decided that because we were getting hit by IEDs a lot, there would be a new battalion SOP [standard operating procedure].

He goes, “If someone in your line gets hit with an IED, 360 rotational fire. You kill every motherfucker on the street.” Myself and Josh and a lot of other soldiers were just sitting there looking at each other like, “Are you kidding me? You want us to kill women and children on the street?”

And you couldn’t just disobey orders to shoot, because they could just make your life hell in Iraq. So like with myself, I would shoot up into the roof of a building instead of down on the ground toward civilians. But I’ve seen it many times, where people are just walking down the street and an IED goes off and the troops open fire and kill them.

I strongly suspect this isn't true, and although he admits to emotional problems from his time in service, this would not excuse lying. I'll explain.

I'm also in the Army. Unlike McCord, I'm still in the Army. I've been to Iraq - twice, including just before McCord was there. I've also been in a convoy hit by an IED. Not only have I not seen it, I've never even heard of any unit with such a ridiculous "policy".

If an officer actually gave an order like that, it would be illegal, and would end his career (or send him to jail) if anyone found out. It's very unlikely he would announce it so openly, and even more unlikely that the Battalion commander wouldn't do anything to stop it, since he could be held liable also (remember that every commander in the Army has a commander himself). Anyone following it could also be prosecuted.

I'm not defending the wikileaks incident, but - here's what bothers me. Former soldiers like McCord, who are against the war, get star-studded media attention, while the 99.99% who claim they didn't commit atrocities (like me) are ignored.

I would also like to respond to this. McCord wrote a letter of apology of sorts, for the incident, because:

We wanted the Iraqi people to know that not everybody sees them as being dehumanized and that there are plenty of Americans and other people who care for them as human beings and wish for them to live long and happy lives and don’t agree with the war and the policies behind it.

I do support the war, but I also care very deeply for Iraqis as human beings, and consider many of them my good friends. I still correspond with them today. McCord is just saying the things the anti-war protestors want to hear, and the interviewer is eating it up.

I tried to find McCord through the Army's email database, but he is not listed, most likely since he's no longer in the service. If he would contact me, I would love to interview him myself.

Share|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

Click here to continue reading...

Lawsuits for All

City Museum, wire tunnel, by Daniel Ramirez

Justice means, among many other things, equal protection for all. People tend to forget that this applies to tort actions as well.

In the United States, whenever someone sues a large business or a government agency, the first thing you normally hear in the press is the accusations by the Plaintiff's attorney. You rarely hear the defendant's side until much later (if at all), because they are afraid of saying anything that could hurt their case. The "no comment" usually comes in the form of: "Mr. [blank], a spokesman for [blank agency/company] claims they cannot comment on pending litigation".

Well, the thing is, it turns out that the United States has a 1st Amendment, and you can comment on it.

The City Museum in Saint Louis, (which has several interactive sections) got tired of this policy and has started naming and shaming people who are suing it. It's about time. Legitimate suits are one thing, but frivolous suits only serve to drive up costs for everyone else. Money Quote:

“Just to give you a quick glimpse into what we go through at the City Museum, a couple of years ago our rock fell 4 feet. The next day we had over 12 people call and tell us they were injured when the rock fell. To investigate these claims, we reviewed the video of the rock falling and we posted the video clearly showing that there was no one next to the rock when it fell on our website. When this was brought to several of the caller’s attention they either hung up or changed their stories.”

So the real issue here is, what has happened in similar incidents where the plaintiff in question didn't have happen to have video to protect itself?

Personally, I think the museum should have waited to announce the existence of the video only after people had officially filed their paperwork, so that they could then be prosecuted for filing false claims.

I'm very curious to see what affect this new policy has on future litigation at the museum.

Click here to continue reading...

Arizona illegal immigration bill controversy

The Arizona governor signs a new bill to crack down on illegal immigration, and predictably, the usual suspects file lawsuits to prevent it from taking effect.

I have a question for Mexico, MALDEF, the ACLU, and others: Tell us then, is it ever legal to enforce immigration laws???

I understand concerns about racial profiling, but let's get real. When police encounter an individual who doesn't speak English, yet his clothes are in very poor condition so it's unlikely he's a foreign tourist, then it's just common sense that they should be allowed to ask questions.

Predictably, President Obama condemned the bill, and tried to twist it into another reason why we need to grant a general amnesty:

"Indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.

"In fact, I've instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country."

Arizona Senator John McCain responded thus:

“If the president doesn’t like what the Arizona Legislature and governor may be doing, then I call on the president to immediately call for the dispatch of 3,000 National Guard troops to our border and mandate that 3,000 additional Border Patrol [officers] be sent to our border as well...

And that way, then the state of Arizona will not have to enact legislation which they have to do because of the federal government’s failure to carry out its responsibilities, which is to secure the borders.”

But as Bill S. at Red State asks, where was this McCain during the 2008 election?

Gov. Bill Richardson from neighboring New Mexico, who is Hispanic himself, loudly complained about the bill. Probably because he knows it will drive more illegal immigrants into his state, forcing him to have to do actually do something himself.

Incidentally, I give President Obama and the Democrats a hard time on this issue, but the truth is, President Bush did little to secure the border as well. The border hasn't been effectively patrolled since the days of President Eisenhower (who deported as many as 1 million illegal immigrants during his term).

Click here to continue reading...

Lightning + Volcano

Wow! This is one hell of a photo - Lightning bolts captured around the plume of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Southern Iceland! This embedded image doesn't do it justice - click on it to see the full picture. It comes through NASA's "astronomy picture of the day", so I'm reasonably certain it's genuine. This photo was taken by Marco Fulle.

Click here to continue reading...

April Round up

Spring in Amsterdam, by Claudio Mufarrege

Not the most noteworthy headlines, but things you may have missed:

USA: Here we go again. Former President Clinton warns of violence due to "right wing blogosphere and media", and references the Oklahoma City bombing. Left-wing threats are never mentioned, of course. Nor is Clinton even challenged on this point by interviewers.

World: It's about time. The first mass produced, affordable electric car, the Nissan Leaf, is coming later this year. More here.

USA: An Army doctor questions Obama's citizenship and refuses to deploy. Strangely, on left wing web sites, the comments are nearly unanimous in declaring him a traitor and calling for his head. Strange... these are the same folks who were so sympathetic toward other officers refusing to deploy, such at Lt. Watada. In any case, both these types of objectors are wrong. You don't refuse to serve because of who the commander-in-chief is. After all, you are not part of his private army; you belong to the country as a whole (anti-Bush protestors also often didn't understand this distinction). When you sign up, you also don't get to pick and choose where you serve, which is what Watada didn't understand.

USA: A US Marine has been warned about posting statements supportive of the Tea Party protests. The article says: "military personnel are prohibited from sponsoring a political club, writing anything that solicits votes for a political cause or speaking at any event that promotes a political movement". That's not true. Servicemembers are not allowed to do those things while in uniform - there's a huge difference. Otherwise, we are free to support any cause we want. After all, we are Americans too. However, to avoid misunderstandings like this is one reason why I write under a pen name.

USA: Speaking of Marines, a blind, double-amputee Marine, Cpl. Matthew Bradford, just re-enlisted for four more years. He plans to work with other servicemembers who are recovering from the effects of war. While I absolutely admire his spirit, I just don't think this is a good idea. Anyone who enlists in the military must be prepared to go to war. Obviously, Cpl Bradford cannot. It makes more sense to medically retire him (with disability pay), and then allow him to work this job as a civilian employee. But if keeping him in uniform inspires others, then more power to him. He's also one of the best examples of an American that I can find.

Australia: Reason #113 not to wear a burkha: Woman strangled to death by burkha in freak go-kart accident.

Maine: Commission on Human Rights wants to ban male and female restrooms in schools as "discriminatory".

Canada: A lesbian takes offense at humor at a comedy club, so she files an official criminal human rights complaint. Humor always offends someone, so one day, it will all be banned. Ridiculously, there has been an explosion in such cases in Canada, even though there aren't any reports of mass killings, concentration camps, or hate crime victims fleeing south to the United States.

UK: Manga and Anime, among other forms of comics, stand to be banned in the UK altogether under a misguided attempt to prevent the depiction of abuse of children.

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

Click here to continue reading...

Email address book was hacked

Somehow the address book for my email address (johnrohan ~at~ hotmail . com) was hacked into, and some spam messages were sent out to everyone in the book appearing to be from my address. Not surprisingly, the email was pitching for a pharmaceutical web site dealing in viagra. Ironically, the web site had a link to complain about spam email. I started filling it out, but it asked for my email address. Sorry, but no way was I going to let them scam me again.

Anyway, if you got a strange email from me, that is the reason. I have deleted my address book, and taken some extra precautions. If this happens again, I may have to change my address.

Click here to continue reading...

Richard Dawkins and Chrisopher Hitchens will "arrest" the Pope [Updated]

Disclaimer: I am a Catholic. The truth is, small men usually hide behind their keyboards:

Richard Dawkins, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.

Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

Isn't it strange how prominent atheists always prefer to attack Christian leaders? Would it ever have occurred to them to have similarly call for the arrest of people like Yasser Arafat or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during their visits to the UN?

In any case, the alleged "cover up" is the fact that in 1985, the Pope, then a Cardinal, recommended carefully studying the case of a pedophile priest rather than immediately defrocking him. That's a rather weak claim for "crimes against humanity".

Additionally, exactly what qualifies Dawkins and Hitchens to be the point men here? Are they international lawyers? Are they victims of abuse? Are they even members of the Catholic Church??

The answer is "No" to all the above - they're just two guys with opinions about the Pope (like anyone else). In fact, they were both extremely hostile to the Church even before this "scandal" broke.

Moreover, this part is really obtuse:

Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.

Irrelevant. He's the head of state of a nation recognized by virtually every country on Earth, including the United Kingdom. The fact that the Vatican is not a member of the UN doesn't make any difference. Under international law, nations aren't required to join the UN.

One other odd thing about the Times Online article - many of the comments there support Dawkin's view of evolution and denounce Creationism, as if this somehow refutes the Pope. Their ignorance is evidence to all: the Catholic Church embraced the idea of evolution a long time ago, and has long rejected literal Creationism.

Incidentally, for two other examples of Chris Hitchen's inane hyperbole, look here and here.

Update 1: Richard Dawkins now claims that he was misquoted, and is not seeking to "arrest" Pope Benedict. He does claim he supports legal action against the Pope however:

I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain.

Click here to continue reading...

The Un-Truthout [Updated]

There's a very disturbing article at Truthout.org that I will respond to. It claims that the killings in the wikileaks video were a common occurrence. It's basically recycled propaganda that's been refuted before, and features such Iraqi vets such as Garett Repenhagen, Jason Hurd, and Adam Kokesh, and Scott Ewing. Notice a pattern here? They all come from the group Iraq Veterans against the War, a wildly anti-military organization that openly supports deserters.

Scott Ewing, who served in Iraq from 2005-2006, admitted on one panel that units intentionally gave candy to Iraqi children for reasons other than "winning hearts and minds.

"There was also another motive," Ewing said. "If the kids were around our vehicles, the bad guys wouldn't attack. We used the kids as human shields."

This statement is so specious I hardly know where to start. There was no tactic, written or otherwise, to use children as "human shields" and that wouldn't matter to most insurgents anyway. He's likely mistaking a joke a fellow soldier made and turning it into some kind of policy.

Garret Reppenhagen served in Iraq from February 2004-2005 in the city of Baquba, 40 kilometers (about 25 miles) northeast of Baghdad. He said his first experience in Iraq was being on a patrol that killed two Iraqi farmers as they worked in their field at night.

"I was told they were out in the fields farming because their pumps only operated with electricity, which meant they had to go out in the dark when there was electricity," he explained, "I asked the sergeant, if he knew this, why did he fire on the men. He told me because the men were out after curfew. I was never given another ROE during my time in Iraq."

Really? Well, here's the problem with that: It was a theater-wide policy for all soldiers to have a printed copy of the ROE (rules of engagement) on their persons at all times. These were printed out as wallet cards and handed out to everyone. It's possible that Reppenhagen's immediate leadership failed to obtain any, but that would be a reflection on them, not on the national policy. In any case, I doubt that Reppenhagen was lacking a copy. On any base you could see stacks of them lying around in every unit headquarters. It's more likely that he's forgetting to mention it because it would weaken his story. Incidentally, there was never any policy to shoot people merely for being out after curfew.

When this Truthout reporter was in Baghdad in November 2004, my Iraqi interpreter was in the Abu Hanifa mosque that was raided by US and Iraqi soldiers during Friday prayers.

"Everyone was there for Friday prayers, when five Humvees and several trucks carrying [US soldiers and] Iraqi National Guards entered," Abu Talat told Truthout on the phone from within the mosque while the raid was in progress. "Everyone starting yelling 'Allahu Akbar' (God is the greatest) because they were frightened. Then the soldiers started shooting the people praying!"

Here he's neglecting to give any context, such as the history around that mosque, or that the Imam had just called for a holy war against the Americans. Supposedly, between 2-4 people were killed, most likely by Iraqi soldiers (US soldiers never entered mosques except in very unusual circumstances). I know that the US soldiers didn't just jump in "shooting the people praying", because then there would have been a hell of a lot more than four people killed.

Cliff Hicks served in Iraq from October 2003 to August 2004.

"There was a tall apartment complex, the only spot from where people could see over our perimeter," Hicks told Truthout, "There would be laundry hanging off the balconies, and people hanging out on the roof for fresh air. The place was full of kids and families. On rare occasions, a fighter would get atop the building and shoot at our passing vehicles. They never really hit anybody. We just knew to be careful when we were over by that part of the wall, and nobody did shit about it until one day a lieutenant colonel was driving down and they shot at his vehicle and he got scared. So he jumped through a bunch of hoops and cut through some red tape and got a C-130 to come out the next night and all but leveled the place. Earlier that evening when I was returning from a patrol the apartment had been packed full of people."

I don't know what unit "Cliff Hicks" served in, but this seems too much coincidence to be a different incident; I'm strongly certain I was there. In late 2003, a large building overlooking the main gate to Camp Slayer was destroyed by an AC-130 gunship. Unlike what Mr. Hicks said, the building was mostly gutted, structurally unsound, and only occupied by a few people. More importantly, they had been warned more than once to get out (I know because I was told to give one of these warnings myself, and informed the Iraqis that the building would be destroyed from the air that night). Moreover, it was more than just the scene of random sniper fire; the building was ordered destroyed after a night attack in which three french-made 68mm rockets were set to a timer and fired from this building into our camp.

To this day, I still have one of the rocket transport tubes that I found in the building afterwards.

Update Apr 8: This article also appears at Political Theatrics, a rabidly Anti-American site. The author, Dahr Jamail, runs his own blog, and yesterday I contacted him with my concerns (no response so far). Incidentally, one of his articles claims that the Baghdad Museum lootings were a deliberate US policy, apparently not realizing that this was exposed as a hoax several years ago.

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

Click here to continue reading...

"Collateral Murder"

The above is an Apache helicopter video which was released by Wikileaks after accessing it from the US government under the Freedom of Information Act. The entire video is rather disturbing; it shows a scene on the Eastern side of Baghdad on July 12, 2007 (I was not in Iraq at that time), in which several people, likely innocent, were killed by the gunship's 30mm cannons. These include a Namir Noor-Eldeen and a Saeed Chmagh, who were working for Reuters.

At first glance, it looks like the pilots mistook the camera equipment and tripods the men were carrying for AK-47 weapons and RPGs (although at least one of them did have an actual weapon). A short while after the initial salvo, a van pulls up to load one wounded person inside. This van has two children in it (what in God's name that driver was thinking in doing this, I'll never know!). The pilots believe that insurgents are arriving help their buddies escape and so they destroy the van. The children were wounded and they were taken to an Iraqi hospital. What happened after that is unknown.

It's very easy to condemn this and hindsight is always 20/20. The usual talking heads are all over this already. But without knowing the full context of the situation in that neighborhood at that time, it's really impossible to make an informed judgment. Had there been incidents on that street for the last several days? Who knows? Unfortunately, making this problem even worse, a shorter and edited version, titled Collateral Murder (a less than objective title) is making the rounds of the liberal blogosphere. It adds in it's own narrative, making it even less reliable. One innocent death is too many. But we should be careful; I've seen too many incidents such as this distorted and spun out of control.

It may behoove the Pentagon to release the intelligence reports prior to the incident and the investigation afterwards to give us a more complete picture. The Jawa Report has some thoughts that echo my own.

Update: The mainstream media are now reporting this as a front page story.

Click here to continue reading...

"US and Israel in last-minute talks to resolve row"

This is concerning US and UN opposition to continued Israeli settlements in Jerusalem.

I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again: How can Obama, and most of his supporters, oppose the Jewish settlements, yet at the same time they think it's OK to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in the US?

This is not rocket science. If one is wrong, then so is the other. Why is there this double standard? And while I don't support Israel's actions here, at least they have a stronger excuse for what they are doing. Jerusalem is historically a Jewish city, and Israel, unlike Mexico, is so tiny that people are willing to go out and settle in some of the most hostile neighborhoods on Earth.

Click here to continue reading...

"Green Zone"

Still from Green Zone. The uniform is a little off...

I was in Baghdad in 2003-2004, the same time/place as the setting for this film.

No, I'm not reviewing the movie. I haven't seen it, nor do I intend to. And it has nothing to do with its politics; I just haven't intentionally seen any movies concerning the current War on Terror, with the exception of Shooter and Body of Lies, because I didn't know what they were about beforehand (and they were mostly awful).

Frankly, I just don't want to see these films. I know I'm just going to see one mistake after another and get upset. Besides, some memories are a bit too fresh.

During my first tour, I was bunking down in a former palace building in Baghdad, along with a large group of enlisted soldiers. One night, they were all crowded around a laptop, watching Blackhawk Down. I told them straight up, only half-jokingly: "why would you want to watch that here of all places? If you want to see burned out buildings, crazy Islamic gangs, and AK fire, just look right outside the walls!". I'm not ashamed to say that I very much preferred watching several seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer on DVD. My job consumed all of my life at that time. I just needed to get away as far as possible for an hour or so a day.

But back to the subject, Green Zone. After just watching the trailer and synopsis at the film's web site, I can already point out a couple problems:

1. The hero is charged with finding WMDs in Iraq. Well the group responsible for that, the 75th XTF (later the Iraqi Survey Group), were based at Camp Slayer, near the airport on the West end of the city. They were not in the "Green Zone". I know, because I was also living at Camp Slayer and worked with these guys. So the title is catchy, but a little misleading.

2. Every single anti-war film based on Iraq or Afghanistan has failed miserably at the box office. Every one.
Hurt Locker did well, but it was politically neutral. Body of Lies cost $70 mil and was beat out by Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Redacted by Brian de Palma, was unabashedly anti-war and anti-military, and was a spectacular failure. Battle for Haditha, In the Valley of Elah, Stop Loss, have all had similar results. Lions for Lambs was probably Tom Cruise's least successful film ever. Valley of the Wolves Iraq did pretty well, but it was made for Turkish audiences; it was a complete failure in Western countries. I'm sure that most of you have either never heard of, or already forgotten about most of these films.

The point here is not that an anti-war film cannot be successful; Apocalypse Now and Platoon took a very critical look at the Vietnam War, yet both were fine films and did pretty well at the box office. But these were made years after Vietnam; and had a better historical perspective. Movies made today look too much like political shots at the former administration. More importantly, we still have soldiers in harms way in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Anti-war films are not very helpful. In fact, what we do need are more films like Sands of Iwo Jima (more about that here).

Now, Green Zone is accused of being "appallingly anti-American", and as I predicted, it's also a huge failure already. The movie's chief technical advisor, Monty Gonzales, an Iraq Vet himself, vehemently denies the movie is political, and claims its just an action thriller. But it's not just right-wing politicos that see it that way. Look at this wildly leftist movie review from a local Saint Louis newspaper. I think it says it all:

Better late than never...Had the movie been released during the 2008 election season, it might have been something more than entertainment. Still, Green Zone, which could have more accurately been titled Told You So, Jerk-Off!, does gain some coincidental topicality for opening just days after the Iraqi elections and the release of Karl Rove's new book, Courage and Consequence, even if the zeitgeist has moved on, with the unwinnable war now in Afghanistan and the Bush disaster barely a memory.

Liberals, take such solace as you can. Green Zone is at least a credible piece of movie-making...

Paul Greengrass, who directed Green Zone, also directed United 93, a much better movie, without any divisive political slant. I hope he learned something from that. Let's have Iraq war movies in about 10 years. Not now. Even I'll probably be able to watch them then.

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

Click here to continue reading...

Week Roundup

Female Israeli soldiers on a break. Photo source unknown, but was featured here

Los Angeles: Absolute incompetence. Craig and Wendy Humphries are a couple who were falsely accused of child abuse nine years ago. They have since been cleared of all charges, but remain on the state's child abuse registry. Despite several court rulings in their favor, LA County claims they can't take take their names off, and points fingers at the state, which points fingers right back. So the Humphries are now suing the County, but the County claims its not at fault and the State should be sued instead. The US Supreme Court is set to review the case. So LA County and the State of California are dragging this out, racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in court expenses, and will likely face a multi-million dollar lawsuit in the end. Or they could just take their names off the list instead, but I guess that would be too easy. Californians, this is your tax dollars at work (in a state on the verge of bankruptcy, no less).

UK: Home Office Minister Phil Woolas, a Labour party member, made an unusual admission that the number of foreigners enrolled in public schools was having a negative impact on British children - including his own. Still, who can he blame? Immigration has soared under Labour's government.

Indiana: Zero-tolerance run amok (again). A seventh grade student is suspended from school for refusing drugs. Another student handed her a pill, she got rid of it, and now is accused of "possession" since she touched it. I have a question: shouldn't the police and school administrators be suspended too? After all, they also "touched" the pill in question.

North Korea: A North Korean man was executed for reporting news out of the country. Apparently, the price of rice is such a sensitive subject that it warrants the death penalty.

Japan: Japan says it won't comply with any worldwide Bluefin Tuna ban. Since the animal is on the verge of disappearing entirely, I hope Japan has another fish they can use for sushi (until those are all gone too).

USA: Actor Sean Penn calls for prosecution against people who call Hugo Chavez a "dictator". Did it ever upset him when people accused George Bush of being a dictator?

USA (and everywhere): One of the best discussions about free-range kids ever is right here. Frankly, this topic just isn't discussed often enough.

California: Jackpot juries. A father, who was a truck driver on a long haul, brought his daughter with him on the trip, against company rules. He accidentally ran over her and she was seriously injured. Who is at fault here? A judge and jury in Sacramento seem to think that the trucking company is liable, to the tune of $24.3 million. Good discussion at Overlawyered. I guess what really bothers me the most, is that as the girl's legal guardian, the father stands to rake in millions off of his own negligence. Only in America.

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

Click here to continue reading...

CHC: Let's insure those who are not even legally supposed to be in the USA

Late in the game, a new battle is forming over the health care reform bill in Congress, this time by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus:

“The Caucus didn’t want to raise it as an issue too early,” one Hispanic Democrat said Wednesday. “But it’s real. It’s a problem.”

Those alarm bells have apparently been heard. CHC Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said she and others have, on behalf of two dozen Hispanic Democrats, been in discussions with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other leaders about how to resolve the matter.

What issue is so important? They want undocumented illegal immigrants to be included, of course!

Rep. Luiz Gutierrez, D-Illinois,said:

"It's no secret that I have been critical of proposals that would exclude our nation's hardworking immigrants from the health care exchange, and I would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to vote for any measure that denies undocumented workers health care purchased with their own dollars."

This is flat-out deceitful. Illegal immigrants, or anyone else, can buy private health insurance with their own dollars right now. The issue is to buy into public health exchanges (or even a public option, if that is included in the bill), which will be underwritten, regulated, subsidized, and guaranteed by the US government.

And if they do include illegals, how will Pres. Obama deal with the fallout? After, all, those who claim that Sen Joe Wilson lied when he said Obama's plan would include illegals would have to eat their words. But the remedy is simple, Obama will just legalize them all!

Click here to continue reading...

Another immigration rally coming to Washington D.C.

Illegal immigrant crossing sign, in Southern California

On March 21st, in Washington D.C., there is going to be yet another rally by illegal immigrants and their supporters to demand another amnesty.

They actually have quite an uphill battle, in a year when unemployment is so high. Poll after poll (even when the economy was strong) have consistently showed strong support for cracking down illegal immigration. One CNN/ORC poll show an overwhelming 73% of Americans want illegal immigration decreased, while only 3% want to increase it.

The rally is sponsored by the National Council of Churches (NCC). Don't let the name fool you - they are a group of Christian Churches, but the council is very left-leaning. Nothing wrong with that per se; the NCC pushed hard for the Civil Rights Movement, for example. But their tone in recent years has become far more political, specifically against "right-wingers", causing at least one national Church to withdraw from the organization. Three years ago they also heaped praise upon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leading some to question their motives, if not their sanity.

"What would Jesus do?" is a frequent expression. I realize the Lord asked us to help our neighbors; I do feel compassion toward the plight of all immigrants. But I just can't endorse bringing another amnesty to this country. Some of my arguments I already pointed out earlier here. To these I would ask this question: when does it end? I could even support an amnesty if I knew it really would be the last one. But it won't be. The last general amnesty in 1986 (followed by seven minor ones) was supposed to solve the problem for good. Not only did it fail to achieve that result, but illegal immigration actually soared to heights it had never seen before (look at graph III at that link). Sometimes it's not compassionate to be an enabler. It just isn't. I can give a homeless man $50 every day, but at some point I think it's more beneficial if I stop giving him money and force him to start pulling his own weight.

I much prefer to hold nations (such as Mexico) accountable for their corruption, and install real reforms and a much stronger judicial system (I pointed out some concrete steps here). Moreover, maybe some of these countries need to be shocked into getting a grip on their birth rates. Mexico's population increased a staggering 400% between 1950-2000, and it's still climbing! I think it would be better for them to learn sooner rather than later that they can't indefinitely continue to use the USA as a runoff valve for excess population.

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

Click here to continue reading...

American black women and obesity

Gabourey Sidibe on Oscar night, photo source unknown

I have to tread this subject gingerly, since it's so easy to offend someone these days. But I don't know how else to say it. American black women have a problem. A huge problem. Or you could say, a problem with hugeness. It's something I've noticed since I came back to live in America.

I guess I've been in the military so long, I tend to think that most everyone in the outside world is thin. But that's definitely not the case.

This week, Gabourey Sidibe (photo above) was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in "Precious". Frankly, she's actually pretty typical of black women I see in Saint Louis these days. Oprah Winfrey fawned over the woman, but Howard Stern very impolitely disagreed:

Howard accused Oprah Winfrey, who introduced Sidibe at the Oscars when the best actress nominees were announced, of lying to Sidibe. “When we look at you,” Winfrey told the 26-year-old from the Oscars stage, “we see a true, American Cinderella who’s on the threshold of a brilliant new career.”

Stern disagreed. “She told an enormous woman the size of a planet that she’s going to have a career,” he said during his broadcast. “Oprah should’ve said, ‘you need to get help, we don’t want to lose you.’"

This subject is so polarizing (as is Stern himself), that the above site had over 1000 comments, both passionately pro and con.

Yesterday, I did a test of my own, which was not very scientific but was enlightening nonetheless. I shopped at the local Target and Sam's Club, and counted every black woman that I saw. Out of the 51 that I saw that day, 37 were obese (about 72.5%). Not just big, but truly obese. Two of these women were so huge that they were using motorized chairs to get around, with their waists at least twice as wide as the chair. I saw families together, and the crazy thing is, most of the men were not nearly as obese. At least twice I saw a black mother with her children - the mother was huge, the daughter was huge, but the son was muscled and fit as a fiddle.

After my admittedly flawed study, I decided to check the official numbers. Turns out, I wasn't very far off. According to the Center for Disease Control, an astounding 79.8% of African-American women are either overweight or obese (compared with 57% of non-hispanic white women).


And such women wonder why their diabetes rates are so high (twice as likely as whites). They wonder why they are discriminated against. They wonder why they are lowest on the socio-economic ladder. They wonder why black men frequently show a preference for white women. It all really shouldn't be that much of a mystery.

And this is not a racial thing; it's cultural. Gabourey Sidibe's father was from Senegal. But your typical Senegalese woman doesn't look anything like Ms. Sidibe. It also seems to be a recent phenomenon - black women look very different in photos from 1965, for example.

My advice to Ms. Sidibe is a little more polite than Howard Stern's, but the gist is the same. Get professional help now, lose weight, and make yourself an example to black America.

Edit: Some have emailed me and commented that I'm encouraging discrimination against obese people, and that it isn't any of my business what other people do anyway. My response is thus:
1. Please put your comments on my blog! I could use the buzz!
2. Under the health care reforms running through the US Congress right now, it could very well become everybody's business very soon, when the average taxpayer will have to subsidize everyone else's obesity, among other health problems. This is already happening in most developed countries.

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

Click here to continue reading...

Hundreds killed in Nigeria massacre

Burned out vehicle in Jos, from CNN

In a scene that has echoes of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, as many as 500 people have been killed by machete-wielding attackers in Nigeria, in and around the city of Jos. The victims are mainly Christians, and the attackers are mostly Muslims, although the dispute is likely more over land control than religion.

From the BBC:

Already this is being described as retaliation for the outburst of killing in January in which hundreds more people were killed.

Back then the largest losses were suffered by the Hausa Fulani community. In the village of Kuru Karama more than 100 people were killed and their bodies thrown into wells and sewers. Grave accusations were made that the local government had stoked the violence. This time it is clear that the targets were Berom Christians.

500 Nigerians dead? Who cares? Keep in mind that the mainstream media was taken by surprise at the full scope and planning of the Rwandan genocide. Also keep in mind that Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, and the legitimacy of it's current government (indeed, every government it's ever had) is highly suspect.

But the blogosphere doesn't seem to care much. Let's look at some of the top sites on the web:

Out of the major news services, only the BBC headlines the event prominently on it's front page. CNN and Fox News practically bury it. At Little Green Footballs, Charles Johnson raves on about Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (as usual). Both Reddit and Digg headline the story that Sarah Palin's family once got health care in Canada. Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish is currently obsessed with Liz Cheney. The Huffington Post's Ariana Huffington writes: "Is Undercover Boss the Most Subversive Show on Television?". The Daily Kos is fuming over Liz Cheney, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party movement. See a pattern here? Obsession over right-wing political figures and celebrities? (No links this time, out of disgust) And these are ostensibly progressive sites, no less!

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

Click here to continue reading...

Paul Krugman vs. Paul Krugman

Columnist Paul Krugman has become so hyper-partisan that he can't even keep his own opinions straight any more. James Taranto takes him to task, and it's actually pretty funny; it's very rare to see anyone put their foot in their mouth so deep. I'll try to spell it out a little more simply below.

In a column about the vote to extend unemployment benefits, it doesn't take long for Krugman to lay in to the partisan sniping right away:

Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally... What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says...

He then criticises Sen. Jon Kyl, Republican-Arizona, for opposing extensions:

Jon Kyl of Arizona... [said] unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”...To me, that’s a bizarre point of view — but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.

So what does "textbook economics" say? It would seem to me that putting people on unemployment benefits even longer tends to encourage them to remain unemployed even longer (Incidentally, unlike Krugman, I have collected unemployment compensation myself in the past, and I know how some people game the system). But let's actually look at an economic text:

Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job.

As Taranto points out, that particular textbook, Macroeconomics, was authored by none other than Paul Krugman and his wife, Robin Wells!

It may or may not be a good idea to extend unemployment relief right now, but it's impossible to take "economists" like Krugman seriously on this issue when he just gives us his own axe to grind and doesn't even follow the most basic economics anymore.

Edit: Apparently Taranto's column upset Krugman enough that he provided a response. He's attempting to smokescreen his flip-flop by claiming that the rules are different because we're in a different situation right now.

But here's the problem with that. He didn't say that Sen Kyl was wrong in this instance. He said he was so wrong that he wasn't even in the same universe. Literal quote:

I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.

I take that to mean (as I believe any rational person would) that Kyl was completely wrong, so wildly off course, he simply could not be correct under any circumstances whatsoever. So nice try, Krugman.

You know, he could have just apologized - but naaaw, that would be too simple for him.

2nd Edit:
If you want to dig into this issue further, Justoneminute points out how Krugman also grossly misrepresented Jon Kyl to begin with. Not a pretty sight.

Click here to continue reading...

Ionia kindergartner suspended for having a "gun" at school

I have two children in school, and this story does not surprise me. US schools have gone overboard with safety concerns, and common sense is becoming a very rare commodity.

A six year old boy in Michigan was suspended for gun-related antics. No, he didn't bring a gun to school. He didn't even have one actually. You see, he made a gun with his fingers. You know, he did the same thing that every six year old boy in history has ever done. And was suspended for it.

I remember playing "cops and robbers" during recess. I don't remember anyone ever actually getting shot.

The comments on this story are as amusing as the story itself. One in particular, by "Gregd548" was priceless:

This "zero-tolerance, politically correct CRAP" has turned this country into a whiny, crying, overly-sensitive, thin-skinned, humorless, and intolerant population. Kids are kids (at least SOME of us got to BE kids growing up), not adults with short bodies. Let them be kids, they've got the rest of their lives to be the proper little 'jerks' society seems to want them to be.

Click here to continue reading...

Alexander Haig (RIP) vs. Christopher Hitchens

Haig in 1981, photo from the Reagan Presidential Library

Originally I wasn't planning on saying much about the death of former General and Secretary of State Alexander Haig, since I never met the man and wasn't familiar with much of his life. But I do know that anyone who gave his lifetime to public service, saw combat in Korea and Vietnam (with a Purple Heart) deserves my greatest respect.

But one piece I read prompted me to write. For some people, driving up site traffic trumps all else. Over at Slate, in true tabloid fashion, Christopher Hitchens puts out this headline:

Death of a Banana Republican - Al Haig was a neurotic narcissist with an unquenchable craving for power.

A little background: President Reagan was shot and briefly incapacitated in 1981. Alexander Haig, then Secretary of State, briefed reporters at the White House. In response to a question from a reporter about succession (the Vice President was in Texas at that moment), Haig said:

Constitutionally, gentlemen, you have the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State in that order, and should the President decide he wants to transfer the helm to the Vice President, he will do so. He has not done that. As of now, I am in control here, in the White House, pending return of the Vice President and in close touch with him.

He was technically incorrect; the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate actually come before the Secretary of State. But certainly he knew this, having served in the White House when Nixon resigned. What he meant (as he claimed later) was that he was simply trying to reassure the media that everything was under control, that someone was in charge, and that he was the highest ranking individual in the White House at that moment. Certainly he wasn't staging a coup, nor did do anything to even suggest that.

But that's not how Hitchens saw it:

March 30, 1981, to be exact, this neurotic narcissist seized the microphone and made a clumsy attempt to seize power. With Reagan lying critically injured in the hospital, Haig announced in the Situation Room that "the helm is right here, and that means right in this chair for now, constitutionally, until the vice president gets here."

Hyperbole much? Then, unbelievably, this 60-year-old Oxford graduate resorts lowers himself to kindergarten level ad-hominems, insulting Haig's appearance:

I saw that "demeanor" up close more than once and was coldly appalled by the pig-nostriled and also piggy-eyed form that it took. But nothing could equal that day's performance, which evinced all the sweaty, pasty-faced, trembling symptoms of a weak king or of a slobbering dauphin who could not wait to try on the crown.

This is coming from same man who also wrote a hit-piece on Mother Theresa. Does he even believe his own nonsense?

Well you know what, Mr. Hitchens? I'll take Mr. Haig's years of military action over your decades of armchair opinion writing any day. The truth is, attacking Mr. Haig's role in the White House during the Watergate scandal would be a much more legitimate issue. But I doubt the man even thinks about these things - he just writes what sells.

Edit - Let's play a game:
Compare these two statements:

First, Hitchens, 2010:

the bulk of Haig's awful political career was an example of banana-republic principles and the related phenomenon of an overambitious man in uniform who mastered the essential art of licking the derrières of those above him while simultaneously (see above) bullying and menacing those below...Without any further battlefield experience, except for propaganda trips to Vietnam to support a war that his bosses had artificially prolonged, he moved up the ladder from colonel to four-star general—not bad even for a man who had gotten started by marrying his commanding general's daughter.

Then, Headquarters, US Army Vietnam, 1967:

The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Distinguished Service Cross to Alexander M. Haig, Jr. (0-50790), Lieutenant Colonel (Armor), U.S. Army, for extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam, while serving with while serving with Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division. Lieutenant Colonel Haig distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous actions on 31 March and 1 April 1967 while serving as battalion commander during an attack by a numerically superior Viet Cong force near Ap Gu. When two of his companies were engaged by a large hostile force, Colonel Haig landed amid a hail of fire, personally took charge of the units, called for artillery and air fire support, and succeeded in soundly defeating the insurgent force. Before dawn the nest day, when a single mortar round fell near the perimeter, Colonel Haig recognized it as the registering round prior to a massive attack and immediately alerted his entire unit. Within five minutes a barrage of 400 rounds was fired by the Viet Cong, but it was ineffective because of the warning and preparations by Colonel Haig. As the barrage subsided, a force three times larger than his began a series of human wave assaults on the camp. Heedless of the danger to himself, Colonel Haig repeatedly braved intense hostile fire to survey the battlefield. His personal courage and determination, and his skillful employment of every defense and support tactic possible, inspired his men to fight with previously unimagined power. Although his force was outnumbered three to one, Colonel Haig succeeded in inflicting 592 casualties on the Viet Cong. Lieutenant Colonel Haig's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.
Orders No. 2318 (May 22, 1967)

Enough Said.

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

Click here to continue reading...

"How to leave a soldier"

If you want to read an article from one of the most self-centered narcissistic people you will ever find, look no further than here. Not surprisingly, it's on Salon.com.

To summarize, a woman named Courteney Cook rationalizes why she left her military husband while he was away in Iraq, for an anti-war "blue-eyed Marxist". She also describes how she met other men, and actually goes through agonizing contortions to rationalize her behavior. It's both disgusting and painful to watch. She also gives her advice for others on how to leave your husband while he's away at war:

You'd be surprised how easy it is to leave a soldier on deployment. You can do it with a letter. (He can't argue with you. He doesn't have a phone.) If you lay the groundwork early, saying to the soldier before he leaves, "This will be the end of us, we might as well admit it," it's that much easier. The letter won't even come as a shock.

And if you have children with that soldier? You can handle all that with a letter, too. He'll write it -- because he cares about the kids, because he wants to work with you to do what's best for them even though you're leaving him -- and you'll give it to them. Here again, you will avoid a nasty confrontation. Who will they cry to? You? You're just the teary-eyed bearer of the letter. Him? The one who's sweating it out in the desert?

There will be no moving truck, no boxes, no house torn asunder. The soldier is peeing in a bucket as you pack. He doesn't care who gets the couch.

The only real consolation is that he's better off without her. Cassy Fiano does a great job in taking her down at Hot Air so I don't have that much to add, except a comment on Cook's conclusion. She described a painful scene, when her son joined the military also:

At the end of the day, my children's father called me to tell me that our son was already standing straighter and taller in his new uniform, that he'd handled the equipment issue, medical tests, immunizations and drills without any trouble.

"He will be OK," his Dad said. "It will be the making of him."

I believe my former soldier, but I'm afraid of what it's going to feel like to love my new one.

So are you going to abandon him as well?

Click here to continue reading...

Week Roundup

An Arctic Least Weasel. Photographer unknown, but origin is here

I've been busy, yadda yadda yadda. Here's some old, some new:

SWEDEN: Jews are fleeing the city of Malmö (which has the country's largest Muslim immigrant population) in droves, due to threats of violence and actual violence. I just can't help but think that if this story were the other way around, the mainstream media might actually mention it. This story comes from The Local, Sweden's Daily news in English. Note that comments were inexplicably disabled for this story.


UNITED KINGDOM: The Daily Mail reported that a staggering 1 in 7 inmates in the country is a foreign national. The number is even more shocking when you consider that does not include naturalized citizens. The largest groups are from Jamaica, Nigeria, and Ireland, in that order (I wonder if many of those are from their previous conflicts with the IRA?). When a country like the UK can't even deport a admitted murderer of two doctors, it's no wonder their facilities are a little crowded.

FRANCE: Some sanity here. France has refused to grant citizenship to a Moroccan man who forced his wife to wear the burqa.

BANGLADESH: Rape victim received 101 lashes for becoming pregnant. "Muslim elders" had issued a fatwa demanding the punishment. To add insult to injury, her father was fined as well. This being Islamic justice, naturally the rapist was not punished.

USA: Sheer insanity. Boy disciplined for bringing a toy gun to school. A two-inch toy gun (if that). It belonged to one of his Lego figures. Is it too late now to simply go back to the era of common sense?

USA: Bicycle helmet laws significantly reduce bicycling. The article blames it on cost and stigma. I know that when I was a kid, the only children who would wear bicycle helmets were ones with epilepsy, so there was definitely a stigma there. These laws are well-intentioned, but like many other things, they do more harm than good. Not only do these laws expand the nanny state even further, but they are another in a long list of reasons why children are so obese these days. In Europe, unlike America, you see elderly people (slowly) riding bicycles all the time. They would never wear a helmet, and it's silly anyway when you are never going over 10 mph.

BELGIUM: A 26 year old woman is the latest victim of the First World War. As in that war in 1914-1918. No joke.

USA: Some people are making political hay over this non-issue of Sarah Palin using crib notes written on her hand during an interview. But she wasn't taking a test, so what is the problem? Would anyone really mention this if she had simply wrote them in a small notepad instead?

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

Click here to continue reading...