Another roundup

The woman at right is actress Helen Mirren, who still looks fantastic at 63 years old. Wow! More here

Still very, very busy these days, so here's an attempt at catchup:

AFGHANISTAN: An AP photographer, Rahmatullah Naikzad, stands by and watches, doing nothing (except making photos and video), while two women are executed by the Taliban, accused of prostitution. Doesn't that make him an accomplice? Many more details at Jawa Report.

AFGHANISTAN/ITALY: An Afghani female athlete, who was supposed to be a poster child for woman's right and freedom in her country, has now run away from her training came in Italy and is claiming asylum. I understand her situation, but still, how is change ever going to come to countries like Afghanistan when all the reformers flee?

NEVADA: The tide is turning. An owner of a chain of McDonald's restaurants in the Las Vegas area is fined one million dollars for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Maybe that will get someone's attention.

MISSOURI: A new law mandates English driving tests and forbids "sanctuary cities" (cities that are circumventing federal law). I would think this was only common sense, but look for someone to find an excuse to fight it in court.

DUBAI: After years of laxity, undercover police are arresting foreign tourists/residents for "indecent behavior" on the beaches. Just one more reason why the popular destination is not really such a good deal. 17 were apprehended just today. Also, see here for more.

UK: In a horrible event, a man's head is cut off with a chainsaw. Incredibly, police are very quick to announce they think the man did it to himself, and "are not treating his death as suspicious". Hmmmm. Aren't there any skeptics at all?

ARIZONA: Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a hero to some, a villain to others, all because he dares to take action against illegal immigration. Many Arizona officials have publicly tried to undermine him, but rarely so blatantly as this. A local official from the Pima County legal defender’s office joins in a protest where an effigy of him (piñata style, of course) is beaten and decapitated. Absolutely disgusting. If he was Hispanic, you can bet the media would have been all over it. Lots of coverage and video at Michelle Malkin's site.

ISRAEL: In one of the most bizarre capitulations anywhere, Israel trades four prisoners to cheering Hizbollah supporters in exchange for two Israelis in Lebanon. Personally, I don't think terrorists should be bargained with at all, but that's not the biggest problem. You see, the two Israelis were already dead, and traded for four live terrorists, including one who brutally killed a four year-old girl. Is this supposed to be an equitable exchange? Moreover, it shows what kind of people run Hizbollah, when they spitefully won't even release a person's remains. In an apt description, Stern magazine says: "Israel trauert, die Hisbollah feiert" ("Israel cries, Hizbollah celebrates"). Not surprisingly, Hizbollah defenders like Juan Cole have nothing to say.

UK: However you feel about abortion, stories like this just don't get enough attention. A career working woman in the UK has had seven abortions (not as uncommon as you might think), and is paying a huge emotional price. Worth reading.

UK: The UK is soon going to require that employers offer a woman a full one-year paid vacation for every woman after she has a child. One feminist is not happy and explains how that would bankrupt her farming business. If government mandates benefits, then the government should pay them. I don't see this lasting very long.



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

Click here for more...

"Generation Kill"

I just saw the first episode of HBO's miniseries "Generation Kill" tonight. It follows the story of a Marine reconnaissance unit during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003.

All I can say is...holy crap!!!

Every other attempt I've seen to dramatize the war was a dismal failure, and so full of absurdities that I lost count. This one is different. I don't know how they did it. Every uniform, every weapon, every tent, every piece of equipment is authentic to the Spring of 2003 when the events took place. I really, really, looked for mistakes and couldn't find a single one. There was even a blue force tracker in the lead character's Humvee!! I couldn't believe it! (The blue force tracker is a device with many uses, but primarily shows where other friendly forces are on the ground). The marines passed around their dip (chewing tobacco) cans inside the vehicles and spit out the window. 100% authentic.

The show seemed relatively even handed as well, simply showing what the marines were doing, rather than giving us some heavy Hollywood preaching over how evil the war is (or just as bad, going the other way - exaggerating and glorifying each and every thing that they do). The soldiers who fought in the war are/were human beings; some good, some bad, some stupid, some thoughtful. They complained, they whined, they hurt, they felt fear, and they did some incredibly heroic things.

However, this was only the first episode. I am rather guarded about what comes next. But it is an excellent start.

Click here for more...

Weekly roundup

Paul, a European red squirrel, das kleine Eichhörnchen, by Sven P

Very busy with classes and other obligations, so playing a little catch-up here:

AFGHANISTAN: Nine US soldiers die in the largest attack in several years. I am looking very closely for more information. Stay tuned. It still doesn't even get one-tenth of the attention of inane things like celebrity divorces.

GERMANY: While just about every other nation on Earth is taking a good look a expanding nuclear power, Germany has gone the opposite route. In 2000, Germany's leftist coalition government made a wildly optimistic prediction that renewable energy (wind, solar, etc) would rapidly grow in the next ten years, and passed a law mandating the closing of all Germany's nuclear plants by the year 2012. In turns out this was a very bad idea, and now they are facing a real power crisis in just a few years.

FRANCE: A Muslim woman has her application for citizenship rejected because her "radical practice of her religion is incompatible with French values". She has lived in France for several years, but has no concept of her rights, including the right to vote, and wears a full body garment when out in public. It's about time. Many will certainly protest the decision, but if a nation doesn't have the right to decide who will be citizens, then what can it ever decide? They aren't going to kick out the woman, just keep her from becoming a French citizen, with consequent right of residency, voting rights, etc. Since she doesn't resemble a Frenchwoman by any stretch of the imagination, this is only common sense. UPDATE: More complete coverage at Truth Be Known News.

SPAIN: Six African migrants die at sea attempting to reach the Canary Islands. This comes just a week after at least 14 Nigerians were lost at sea making the same attempt. The main problem is the asylum process; Spain will take most, if not all, of these asylum seekers to the mainland, where most of them will simply disappear. That's one hell of an incentive to risk their lives at sea - what really unfair is that the children are too young to make that decision for themselves, yet the boat people bring them anyway.

UK: Six people stabbed to death in just one day. Britain's "knife culture" is out of control. Strangely, the Daily Mail readily identifies the victims, but not the perpetrators. Can't help wondering - is that because they are immigrants? Certainly a booming drug culture and a ban on guns plays a part as well.

FRANCE: Palestinian and Israeli leaders claim they are on the verge of a breakthrough on a Middle East peace deal. But given the past track record, I'm not nearly as optimistic.

UNITED NATIONS: Unbelievably, Russia and China just vetoed sanctions against a murderous regime that recently held a sham election. Just what would qualify a nation for sanctions then?

UK: Al-Qaeda member and financier Abu Qatada is enjoying himself openly shopping in London. Also see here, for more about this lunatic.

Click here for more...

New kid on the block

A few dissident writers from Right Thinking, Left Coast have broken away to start their own brand new web site, with a great name: Victorious Opposition. I've been invited to become a contributor when I have more time. Go check it out.

Click here for more...

More media irresponsibility

AOL's web site posted this teaser:

See What We Sell to Iran
Cigarettes, Bras, Even Weapons Exports Surge During Bush Years

We've been selling weapons to Iran? Isn't that illegal? Read on in the actual article:

Sanctions are intended in part to frustrate Iran's efforts to build its military, but the U.S. government's own figures showed at least $148,000 worth of unspecified weapons and other military gear were exported from the United States to Iran during Bush's time in office. That included $106,635 in military rifles and $8,760 in rifle parts and accessories shipped in 2004.

Over $106,000 in rifles and accessories? Is this like another Iran Contra scandal? No, it turns out to be just an error:

The Bush administration looked into those shipments after AP questioned whether the U.S. really approved the export of military rifles to Iran. A review found the rifles and parts actually went to Iraq; the wrong country was entered on the shipping record, Treasury Department spokesman John Rankin said. The government will correct the data, he said.

So why did they go with the misleading headline? Geez, don't you think they might have read their own article before telling us that the USA was selling weapons to Iran?

Or, more likely, was this a deliberate bait and switch?

Click here for more...

Sins of media omission

Ret Colonel George E. "Bud" Day

I often think Michelle Malkin's columns go over the top, but sometimes she really hits the nail on the head.

This CNN article for example, was so blatantly partisan it might as well have been written by the Democratic National Committee:

(CNN) — One of the members of John McCain’s new Truth Squad — which his campaign says was launched to respond to unfair attacks on his record of military service –- was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and appeared in an attack ad for the group in 2004.

The group was created to attack 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry’s military service record.

The article crudely tries to dismiss Col Day's endorsement of McCain by painting him as a "swift boat member", a term that has been so distorted by the media that it's considered an indelible stain on anyone it touches.

Problem is, Col Day appeared in a Swift Boat ad, but he wasn't a member of the group (see here). But the more troubling part is that no background of Col Day is mentioned whatsoever, except that he was a POW with McCain in Vietnam, as if he's only supporting McCain because they used to be roommates or something.

They don't have to go over his bio in full detail, but they might have mentioned just a little more. Like that he's a Medal of Honor recipient (although does appear in fuzzy text in the picture). Or that he's one of the most decorated veterans ever. Or that he has more than 35 years of military service in the Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force, seeing combat in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. In Vietnam, he survived imprisonment as a POW for more than five years, even though he was shot during an escape attempt, and tortured afterward. And that's only a small part of his story. He is, quite literally, a living legend.

One big clue that something is wrong is that John Cole thinks the article is just fine.

Incidentally, the piece was written by Rebecca Sinderbrand, who used to write for the left-leaning Washington Monthly, with articles such as "Rove 2.0: Dick Wadhams is the next Republican maestro of cutthroat campaigning. Can Democrats figure out how to stop him?" and "Unsettling: How self-delusion led Israel and America to disastrous occupations of Arab lands".

Click here for more...

The ransom rumor

If you've been watching the news at all, certainly you heard all about the dramatic release of 15 hostages (including 3 Americans, and Ingrid Betancourt, a former Columbian Presidential candidate) that were held for many years by FARC, a communist rebel group that is also involved in drug trafficking.

The Columbians claim that the hostages were freed by infiltrating the group and tricking the kidnappers that they were being moved to a new location. They boarded a helicopter and flew to freedom.

But something doesn't quite sound right with that. If the Columbians knew where the hostages were, why not raid the compound? Freeing the hostages is only half the victory. The other half is capturing/killing the kidnappers. Also, wasn't using a helicopter rather suspicious? FARC doesn't operate aircraft.

There are rumors that they were actually freed by paying ransom demands, which does sound a bit more credible. So what's the difference? Either way they were freed, right? Betancourt's reaction:

a report by a Swiss radio station that a ransom of US$20 million had been paid has prompted reporters to ask Betancourt what she thinks.

She dismisses the suggestion. However, her first reaction Saturday was: "If it were true, so much the better. Why not?"..."I suffered terribly,"

The "why not" is that $20 million rewards the kidnappers for the crime. It also gives them millions of dollars for weapons and equipment so they can plan their next kidnapping or terrorist act. Paying ransoms only fuels more kidnappings, which is why they are abhorrent and should be banned by international law. The world needs to unite to demonstrate that the paying ransoms is counterproductive and immoral.

For more info on this topic, read here.

Click here for more...

Another "wedding party" bombing

Cries of "wedding party" come up so often whenever the coalition bombs anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan, that it's becoming a cliché. Here is another one:

At least 20 people have been killed in a missile strike by coalition forces in Afghan's eastern Nangarhar province.

Local people say that the group was a wedding party and that most of the dead were women and children.

But the US has denied this, saying those killed were militants involved in previous mortar attacks on a Nato base.

The link above has accompanying video (sound doesn't seem to work). It does show a couple of younger boys, around 13-14 years old, but no women or small children. Pardon me for being skeptical; there were also previous claims of "wedding party massacres" in Iraq 2004, and Afghanistan in 2002. The former is highly suspect for many reasons, the latter was, at worst, anti-aircraft fire, and at best, a genuine wedding party but whose participants fired their weapons into the air in celebration (not a smart thing to do, particularly in wartime). There have also been other accusations by rumor.

Good commentary at Blackfive.net

Click here for more...

Happy 4th - Some not so happy

If you are an American, then you already know exactly what the 4th of July is. If you are not, go ahead and click on the photo above and read the document.

It's ironic that a nation that we fought such a bitter war against 232 years ago, is now the closest ally we have on the planet. There are even British Army instructors in my military course here in Arizona, brought here on a regular exchange program. Just one small illustration of how deep our alliance goes.

Anyway, I hope everyone is enjoying the day. Unfortunately, as always, there are a few that are not enjoying it so much (warning - foul language):

Juan Cole writes an open poem/letter (presumably to President Bush). Here is a sample:

Your Fourth of July is blood for oil.

My Fourth of July is the pure sunbeam of peace.

It doesn't really improve from there. I am curious though - where is there any evidence that the current wars are for oil? I wish we were stealing oil - might be a bit cheaper for us then. I like his "sunbeam for peace" lyric. although I'm finding it hard to understand how a sunbeam has anything to do with it other than some neo-1960s LSD imagery; a true relic from the Woodstock era.

The People's Voice writes a "declaration of independence from the United States of America", complete with a doctored photo of dead children in front of Capitol Hill. Is it OK for me to question their patriotism?

Ken Layne at Wonkette shows his classy side:

We interrupt your Fourth of July with some Breaking News: Jesse Helms was apparently still alive, and now he’s dead, hooray! He was a sour troll and a bigot, and it’s a testament to every rotten thing about this country that for a quarter century, he was one of the most powerful people in American politics.

The tags for this post include "motherfuckers", "see you in hell", "sack of shit", and "trash".

Note: I wasn't a fan of Republican Jesse Helms either, but he was a US Senator, and this kind of language is despicable. Especially when you consider that Wonkette (like most liberal bloggers) didn't react this way even at the death of truly evil men like Saddam Hussein, and even joked about mourning for him.



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

Click here for more...

"How Conservatism Came To Copy Communism" [Updated]

No joke - more dishonest hyperbole by Andrew Sullivan (featuring the same Abu Gharaib photo he's posted about 100 times now) and Scott Shane at the New York Times.

Sullivan even dares any "right of center" blogger to write about it. How could I resist another chance to prove him wrong?

If you take their headlines at face value, the shocker is supposed to be that there's a document that proves that at Gitmo prison, the US used torture techniques taken directly from Communist China's instruction book in the 1950s. They include sleep-deprivation, restraints, and exposure.

There are so many things wrong with these assertions that I hardly know where to start. There isn't even a copy or a photo of the "infamous" publication provided, but for the moment I'll assume it exists.

1) The paper wasn't written by the Chinese, but in 1957 by an American sociologist who drew it from his interviews with POWs returning from the Korean War.

2) The techniques were hardly invented by China - making prisoners uncomfortable is a well-known method that goes back centuries. Does Sullivan and Shane really think we needed the Chinese to figure this out?

3) It was used by the military's SERE school (survival, evasion, resistance, escape), in order to help prepare servicemembers to resist enemy interrogations during times of capture. In other words, we are allowed to use these techniques on our own soldiers, but not on the enemy. A great irony - but that's another subject.

4) There is no evidence that it was actually used as a blueprint for techniques at Guantanomo anyway.

Make no mistake; I don't condone torture of any kind whatsoever. But Sullivan's additional assertion that "if China did it, it must be bad" is also rather childish. China used iron bars to hold it's prisoners too - should we get rid of those as well?

Finally, one line in the article is an outright lie:

The C.I.A. is still authorized by President Bush to use a number of secret “alternative” interrogation methods.

Wrong. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 limits all agencies, including the CIA, to using only the interrogation techniques listed in the US Army field manual. And there is nothing secret about it, since anyone can download and read a copy. I don't support that law, since it shoehorns the Army's techniques on everyone else; the Army field manual was intended for enemy prisoners of war during conventional warfare, not for civilian combatants in the current war on terror. But whether you support it or not, it is the law.

Incidentally, this isn't the first time Sullivan has dishonestly tried to link Americans to Communists.

In the NYT's article comments section, I also find it amusing (and a little sad) that most of those who object to the article, do so because it's offensive to China! For example, Billy from New York:

You have got to be kidding me. I can't believe how low the New York times has gotten. It's anti-China bias can not be ever more obvious. Every day there are articles about how bad China is, how China kills babies, deers, dogs, etc etc. C'mon. NYTimes has got to back to 1950s to dig up dirt on china now?

Poor, misunderstood China! Hey, how about someone at the NYT defending their own country for a change? Or is that just not cool enough anymore?

UPDATE 08/07/2008 04:36:00 PM:
Apparently I was partially wrong about one thing above. Section 1002 of the The Detainee Treatment Act does limit only military services to using the Army's field manual, so the CIA may have a loophole. However, section 1003 limits what all other government agencies, including the CIA can do. In other words, the CIA still can't interrogate however they want. The specific wording:

No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
...
In this section, the term `cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

How much more complete can you get?



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

Click here for more...

A different war on Iran? [Updated]

Iran nuclear map, from the BBC

Once again, author Seymour M. Hersh claims we are planning to attack Iran. He gets an awful lot of press every time he writes about this but his track record is not very good (he's 0 for 5 now). He has also previously admitted to making things up. Still, his word is gospel to the anti-war crowd, who bring up the hue and cry every time the New Yorker publishes another of his articles.

Since his predictions of an overt attack haven't panned out yet, he now claims we are going the covert route, using special ops on the ground in preparation for an invasion, and inciting certain ethnic minorities against the government. He may be partially correct here; there are several nations worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions, and I wouldn't be surprised if all of them have spies in the country. However, let's be realistic; it's unlikely that US special forces could operate there for very long without detection.

And there are a couple more big problems with Hersh's version. Once again, all of his sources are 100% anonymous. The other problem is, like many other "useful idiots" in the media, he casts doubts on Iran's nuclear ambitions and their involvement in Iraq. I always wondered why some people are always quick to believe that the United States is involved in conspiracies around the world, but they always give the benefit of the doubt to nations like Iran. Why is that?

I do have one big disadvantage as a blogger. I have a Top Secret security clearance (with SCI/TK access), and come across all kinds of classified information. So there are certain stories I deliberately do not write about. Even if they also appear in the media, I don't need to take the chance that I might inadvertently divulge any classified information.

This is one story that is safe, however, because I honestly have no knowledge of any covert activities in Iran whatsoever. But I wouldn't be terribly surprised; in fact, it would be very irresponsible not to engage in espionage here, since Iran's Mullahs have supported insurgents and interfered in Iraq for several years, unnecessarily prolonging the conflict there. Additionally, of course, there is the nuclear issue.

So what could covert operations do in Iran? Here is a possible list:

1) Per Hersh, enticing minority and dissident groups to make an open break with Iran, possibly committing acts of terrorism. This tactic would be unlikely to yield appreciable results, but it could be a painful distraction for Iran.

2) Scouting out nuclear structures, so that Iran doesn't lure the West to decoy facilities in a future strike.

3) Contacting Iranian scientists, and enticing them to leave the country, or even kidnapping/killing them if that fails.

4) Contact Iranian military leaders, for information about air defenses of their sensitive sites

5) Set up safe houses for future covert ops

6) Preparations for sabotage of sensitive facilities

7) Set up an informant network to find the IED factories in Iran and shut them down

The above are entirely guesses on my part; certainly, there are dozens more possibilities.

Israel has the advantage of having a sizable minority in the country already. Other gulf nations might even be involved. But US operators would stand out like a sore thumb; any activity the US is doing are likely through a spy network and therefore relatively low-key.

Some great comments on this at Michelle Malkin's site.

UPDATE 01/07/2008 05:11:00 PM:
I should have added this report to the mix. Just two days ago, tens of thousands of Iranian expatriates demonstrated in France in support of the People's Mujahideen, a group that supports armed insurrection in Iran, and is officially listed as a terrorist organization by many nations, including the US. It's strange that the mainstream media, as well as Iranian apologists (like Juan Cole) totally ignore this story.

This also illustrates one of the problems I have with asylum laws. Wouldn't there be a far better chance of real change in Iran if those tens of thousands were in Iran instead of Europe? Demonstrating in France is all well and good, but the average Iranian probably barely noticed, if they heard about it at all.

In any case, the will for change is there - they just need the right leadership, organization, and training.



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

Click here for more...

Eight year old busted for "discrimination" in Sweden

Swedish Parliament, by Riviera Kid

A textbook example of politically correct lunacy in Sweden; you just couldn't make this stuff up:

An eight-year-old boy has sparked an unlikely outcry in Sweden after failing to invite two of his classmates to his birthday party.

The boy's school says he has violated the children's rights and has complained to the Swedish Parliament.

The school, in Lund, southern Sweden, argues that if invitations are handed out on school premises then it must ensure there is no discrimination.

Yes, that's right - the case has gone up to Parliament, where the boy's father is also appealing the school's decision. Anti-discrimination laws sound good in theory, but this madness like this is the end result. Apparently, eight year olds don't even have the right to invite whom they wish to their own party anymore. Swedish parliamentarians must have an awful lot of free time on their hands...

Click here for more...

Profiles in Shame: Michael Crook

For one of the most nauseating videos you will ever see, the aptly-named Michael Crook visits the Atlantic County Veteran's Cemetery to (quite literally) spit on the graves of veterans buried there, whom he alternately calls "leeches" and "scumbags", both there and on his web site. He claims that these men, most of whom are WWII veterans, "did nothing for us".

I hate to give morons like this any more publicity, but I also want you to be aware that that people like this actually exist. He has written several books and made TV appearances based on his anti-military hysteria, as well as a string of web sites. I hope I'm allowed to question his patriotism without being criticized. It is encouraging that the video only rates one star, and the comments section is overwhemingly outraged over it.

This is a guy who decided to drop out of basic training (with multiple vague excuses) and is now jealous of those who had. He must be hard to live with such a man; he's only in his 20s and has been divorced three times.

(YouTube video found via Infidel Bloggers Alliance).

Click here for more...

Lightning!

As some of you might recall, I am currently in Arizona attending a military class. It's monsoon season here now, and lightning storms are in full swing. Here is just one of several spectacular shots I got from my backyard tonight.

How do you photograph lighting? There is only one way - wait for a very active storm, point your camera in a direction of your choosing, and use your autoshutter feature to take many pictures in succession until you get the shot you want. It just takes patience (and a bit of luck).

Click here for more...

Another "honor" killing in the UK

Yasmin Bibi Rakha was a young woman born to a Muslim Pakistani family in Halifax, UK. All she wanted was simply to exercise her fundamental right to marry the man she loved - in this case, another Pakistani named Mian Shahid Mehmood. But like too many women in Muslim families, she was already promised in marriage to her cousin from a very young age. She defied her family and married her true love anyway, the couple living like fugitives from her family until one day Yasmin's brother hired three men to kill Mehmood. All four of them were just convicted for the crime of murder.

These so-called "honor" killings happen so frequently in Europe I can hardly keep up with them; and they are only a drop in the bucket compared to such killings worldwide. Once again, I wonder why people who want to keep their cultural traditions so badly (in this case to such an extreme extent that it drives them to murder), would immigrate to the UK in the first place?

Although justice was served for the four men, it was still incomplete. Yasmin's father and mother, as well as other unnamed members of the Pakistani community, fully encouraged the killing, the father even joyously singing after Mr. Mehmood's death.

At the trial, Yasmin initially refused to testify, because she felt she was losing her entire family, first to murder, then to prison.

Honestly, Yasmin, you are better off without this family.

Click here for more...

Hola, Carolina del Norte

A school superintendent in North Carolina wants to create a Spanish-speaking school in his district. Once again, this is not California or New Mexico, but North Carolina:

Dissatisfied with teaching in Spanish 85 percent of the time, a North Carolina superintendent is pushing for a proposal that includes a plan for a school where Spanish is the predominant language.

Superintendent Peter Gorman pitched his proposal to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board today, with provisions to combine two of its dual-language programs and turn Collinswood Elementary into a Spanish-speaking school. Nora Carr, chief communications officer for Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District, told WND the facility will help to preserve Hispanic culture.

"Preserve Hispanic culture"? Is there really any possibility of this disappearing in America anytime soon? And are there any schools in any other country on Earth trying to preserve American culture?

In any case, if the parents want their kids to go to a Spanish-speaking school where Hispanic culture is well-represented, there is a place that is perfect for them. It's called MEXICO.

Click here for more...

Lesbians targeted in the US Army?

Some interesting statistics at the NYT:

While women make up 14 percent of Army personnel, 46 percent of those discharged under the policy last year were women. And while 20 percent of Air Force personnel are women, 49 percent of its discharges under the policy last year were women.

By comparison for 2006, about 35 percent of the Army’s discharges and 36 percent of the Air Force’s were women, according to the statistics.

The information was gathered under a Freedom of Information Act request by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a policy advocacy organization.

“Women make up 15 percent of the armed forces, so to find they represent nearly 50 percent of Army and Air Force discharges under ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is shocking,” said Aubrey Sarvis, the organization’s executive director. “Women in particular have been caught in the crosshairs of this counterproductive law.”

Incredibly, an all-too obvious explanation doesn't even occur to Ms. Sarvis; the very likely possibility that lesbian women are far more likely to be interested in a military career than gay men. If far more sign up in the first place, then far more are going to be discharged.

When you read things like this, you should also keep in mind that the vast majority of discharges for homosexuality are voluntary admissions. In other words, people who claim to be gay (some of whom aren't even gay) in order to get out of their military contracts. In fact, this was the case in every homosexual discharge that occurred in my own units in my 15 years in the military. How do I know this? Mostly because many of them openly declared that was why they had suddenly "outed" themselves. It's now an easy out, something we don't need during wartime.

Click here for more...

More on Boumediene

More great minds think alike. A couple more responses to the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision (that allows every detainee to make habeas corpus appeals).

At Pajamas Media, former senator Fred Thompson points out all the rights that Gitmo detainees had before the decision - as it was, they had far more rights than they would have had under the Geneva Convention alone.

Andrew McBride, a former federal prosecutor, at Wall Street Journal virtually echoed me:

had Boumediene been decided in 1940, more than 400,000 Axis troops held in more than 500 military facilities in this country during World War II would have had a right to challenge their detention in federal court.
...
Must military personnel take notes in the field regarding the location, dress, and comportment of captives for later use in the "trials" mandated by the Supreme Court? Must a chain of custody be preserved on a firearm or bomb seized from an enemy combatant? Can a detainee file a writ for habeas corpus immediately upon arriving at a U.S. military base like Guantanamo Bay?

Indeed.

The future of war - fought by lawyers. In my opinion, many of those celebrating the decision are simply motivated by a desire to see the Supreme Court defy President Bush, rather than a real interest or understanding of the issue involved.

Click here for more...

Photo of the week

Photo from NY Daily News (you can click on it to enlarge)

Supermodel Kate Moss creates a stir by showing up at an art gallery in a see-through dress which left little to the imagination (at least she was wearing a thong). People are upset because - gasp - her daughter could see her breasts!

I don't see why this is a big deal. They were in an art gallery for heaven's sake - if the gallery included any paintings or sculpture there must have been plenty of bare breasts on display already. The odd thing is, that this was in Istanbul. While it is a fairly modern city, it's still in a country that's overwhelmingly Muslim and not too wild about displays of the human body.

Click here for more...

Martha Stewart denied entry to the UK while terrorists can stay [Updated]

Martha Stewart was denied a visa to enter the UK, due to her criminal record. But since her record is only obstruction of justice, I don't think she would be much of a danger to the British public. But anyway, it's their country so they can set the rules.

But it might be helpful if they would clarify just what bizarre rule set they are following. While they keep Stewart out, they allow convicted rapists like Mike Tyson or convicted terrorists like Abu Qatada into the country with open arms (they won't even deport Qatada after his release from jail).

Either someone at the Home Office is so paralyzed from fears of accusation of racism that they can't even do their job anymore, or they are just doing their job at random. Either way, the UK's entry system is a mess.

At least they had the good sense to keep out Omar Bin Laden (the son of Osama Bin Laden). However, he and his wife are appealing the ruling, threatening to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. See previously here.

UPDATE 23/06/2008 12:25:00 AM:
The Daily Mail has just reported that Al-Qaida member Abu Qatada will now receive £150 ($295 US) a week in benefits from UK taxpayers for his bad back. And that's not all - his wife already gets £45,000 ($88,548 US) a year in public welfare. One might be skeptical as to whether they really even need the money; they live in an £800,000 ($1,574,582) house!

Click here for more...

Obama's endorsements

Barack Obama has now been endorsed by North Korea's leader Kim Jong-Il, Fidel Castro, as well as Hamas. Comforting, isn't it?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't blame Obama for this. Lumping him in with communists and Palestinian terrorists would be guilt by association, and a weak association at that.

However, it does bring me to an important point. Maybe we should take a more skeptical view when people make the popular claim that Bush's policies have only made the terrorists stronger. If they were really so much stronger today, why would they want that to change?

More coverage at Michelle Malkin and Lttle Green Footballs.

Click here for more...

In Los Angeles, race is the very heart of the gang problem

View of LA from the Hollywood hills, by Ramon Duran

One hell of an op-ed this week in the LA Times, by Lee Baca, the Sheriff of Los Angeles county:

So let me be very clear about one thing: We have a serious interracial violence problem in this county involving blacks and Latinos.

Some people deny it. They say that race is not a factor in L.A.'s gang crisis; the problem, they say, is not one of blacks versus Latinos and Latinos versus blacks but merely one of gang members killing other gang members (and yes, they acknowledge, sometimes the gangs are race-based).

But they're wrong. The truth is that, in many cases, race is at the heart of the problem. Latino gang members shoot blacks not because they're members of a rival gang but because of their skin color. Likewise, black gang members shoot Latinos because they are brown.
...
I would even take this a step further and suggest that some of L.A.'s so-called gangs are really no more than loose-knit bands of blacks or Latinos roaming the streets looking for people of the other color to shoot. Our gang investigators have learned this through interviews in Compton and elsewhere throughout the county.

Why don't we hear more about this in the general media?

Simple answer: because it's minority vs. minority violence. If it were white vs. minority, the press would be talking about nothing else. We live in a world where even the most innocent comment made by a white person that might be construed as racist gets the full media blitz, but the real racism right under our nose is ignored because it doesn't fit the image of "racism" that the mainstream media wants to present to the world.

Click here for more...

Blatant political hypocrisy - caught in the act

I don't often dive into political fights, but I had to point this out. It's rare to see such a blatant display of hypocrisy.

Keith Olbermann is MSNBC's political commentator, and an open supporter of Democratic candidates. On yesterday's program, referencing attacks on Michelle Obama, he said:

It's not an unreasonable request. To ask that personal attacks against the wife of a candidate, as part of a misguided strategy to torpedo a political campaign, be off limits.

Yet just last month he said this, of the Republican candidate's wife:

So Cindy, your husband is running a fully negative campaign. He's a flaming fraud. And if you think he's clean, so are you! Cindy McCain, today's "worst person in the world"!

A little background, which largely smacks of hypocrisy as well: Olbermann was (not surprisingly) simply echoing his favorite candidate's talking points. Barack Obama is upset that people are criticizing his wife, and claming this should be off-limits for discussion. Problem is, people aren't criticizing her personally, but her statements she made on behalf of her husband while stumping for his Presidential campaign. You can't have it both ways, and Obama should be mature enough to know this; you can't send out a representative to speak for you and then declare anything they say to be "off limits" to criticism.

(Initial quotes found via Olbermann Watch).

Click here for more...

The future of war: battles of the lawyers

Great minds think alike. The much maligned John Yoo echoed my thoughts exactly on the recent Supreme Court decision:

In World War II, no civilian court reviewed the thousands of German prisoners housed in the U.S. Federal judges never heard cases from the Confederate prisoners of war held during the Civil War. In a trilogy of cases decided at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court agreed that the writ did not benefit enemy aliens held outside the U.S. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, we in the Justice Department relied on the Supreme Court's word when we evaluated Guantanamo Bay as a place to hold al Qaeda terrorists.
...
Soldiers will have to gather "evidence," which will have to be safeguarded until a court hearing, take statements from "witnesses," and probably provide some kind of Miranda-style warning upon capture. No doubt lawyers will swarm to provide representation for new prisoners.

How the hell can we fight wars in the future this way? The 60's band "Creedence Clearwater Revival" once sang: "I see a bad moon rising..."

Glenn Greenwald vehemently opposes Yoo's article, which alone is enough reason to take Yoo even more seriously. Conveniently, he totally ignores the passage above and the implications for the future. He also, hilariously, mentions the "innocent" Khaled El-Masri or Maher Arar to boost his case (never mind that neither of them were sent to Guantanamo or are being held by the US so their cases don't apply), and lamely tries to claim:

Many were taken from their homes. Others were just snatched off the street while engaged in the most mundane activities. Still others were abducted while in airports or at work.

Despite his attempt at making it sound like these men were simply kidnapped in white-picket-fence lands while doing charity work for homeless orphans, none of them were captured in the United States, or simply "snatched off the street" for no reason. All of them were captured either during fighting in Afghanistan or traveling to/from the country when their names were on a terror watch list. He also totally ignores people like Saleh Ali Al Ajmi who were released only to conduct terrorist attacks later.

Now, one point on which I agree is that there should be a vetting process and that detainees should know how long they are going to be detained. But there is such a process, and as far as the length of detentio