"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...