Friday, February 07, 2003

ANTI-SEMITISM WATCH: Josh Kraushaar found this incredibly racist article found in the student newspaper Daily Illini and the response, or lack thereof, by the school's administration:

Current news from England tells us about discovery of a home stile lab producing potent ricine poison. Since this poison can be manufactured in every home, it constitutes the most serious threat ever. The President should act immediately to deal with this threat. First, separate Jews from all government advisory positions and give them one year fully paid sabbatical. No matter what sort of allegiance they have sworn to the United States, their true Jewish hearts are with Israeli, not American, interests. Secondly, the President should create a Palestinian state within 60 days. Only a free sovereign Palestine will stop poison cooking "homemakers."

Jewish ability to promote their desires, disguised, as being in the interest of the American people, one day will evaporate. Then the Jews might face another Holocaust. The Jews must be mad. The United States has given them a foundation for unprecedented world-wide influence and power but they are prepared to squander it all, for no apparent reason, oppressing Palestinians. Currently Jews have persuaded Americans to lure Iraqi scientists for interviews outside Iraq. Israeli security is prepared to assassinate these scientists.


I'm speechless.
MY LETTER TO MICHAEL: While perusing Michael Moore's site, he is apparently still convinced this is a war for oil. So I decided to email the idiot and ask him some very direct questions. Here's what I wrote:

Michael,

Why are you so convinced this is a war for oil? You have not the slightest bit of evidence to back this up, and yet you constantly repeat it. If you really believe this is a war for oil, please answer the following questions, and perhaps consider posting them on your website.

1. Only 5 percent of the world's oil comes from Iraq. If this war were really about oil, why aren't we "murdering children" as you would say, in Venezuela, where a much greater percentage of the world's oil comes from?

2. Why didn't we take control of Iraq's oil fields in 1991 after the Gulf War? We had complete control over their oil fields then and yet we left the country and it's oil reserves in the hands of the Iraqi government. Why didn't we just steal all their oil and take control of their oil reserves right then and there?

3. If oil is our main interest in the region and the only reason we are dealing with Iraq, why don't we just completely lift the UN sanctions and trade with Iraq freely? That way we could have much greater access to their oil at a cheaper cost. There would be a greater supply of oil and prices would fall. Why don't we just trade freely with Iraq if it's a "war for oil"?

I challenge you to answer these questions.

Trust me, I've no fan of Bush. I would consider myself a libertarian. But this is NOT a partisan issue. You have tried to make it one. It seems like only you and your far-left Socialist Green friends believe any of the garbage you write these days.

So I'll repeat again. I challenge you to answer my questions.

Stop making this a partisan issue.

Phil Kahn
AU Libertarians
American University


I'll certainly post his response if he has one for me. But somehow I doubt the weasal will even consider it.

By the way, it does seem a little odd that his forums have been down for weeks now, after he was tarnished with several instances of bad press in January, doesn't it? He has been known to make his words disappear every now and then, hasn't he?
WHY I HATE PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is one of the dumbest, most Nazi like (in terms of obsession) organizations in the United States. There are several reports of PETA supporting "terrorist" type attacks against the food industry and others who, *gasp!*, have the audacity to eat meat. But they have now sunk to a new low:

``If you have the opportunity,'' Newkirk beseeched Arafat, ``will you please add to your burdens my request that you appeal to all those who listen to you to leave the animals out of this conflict?'' In other words, Newkirk seems to be begging the Palestinians not to stop the slaughter, but rather to find a different delivery system for their bombs.

Appalling.

Perhaps Ms. Newkirk would prefer that the Palestinians used suicide bombers instead of burros. Oh, that's right, they usually do.

Lisa Lange, PETA's vice president of communications, told me yesterday that Newkirk's letter was written after their offices had been bombarded with calls from PETA members who had learned of the donkey bomb.

Lange said it's PETA's philosophy that human cruelty often begins with animal cruelty.

The Washington Post this week asked Ms. Newkirk if she had ``considered asking Arafat to persuade those who listen to him to stop blowing up people as well'' as animals.

Her response should be required reading for all would-be members of PETA:

``It's not my business to inject myself into human wars,'' Newkirk told the Post.

How does one respond to such moral ambiguity?

How about a body count of human bodies?

In January 2003 -- the month in which the donkey died -- 21 Israelis and eight foreign nationals were killed by terrorists in Israel, and 127 others were injured.

Yet PETA weeps for the ass.

Radio talk show host Tony Macrini got it right when he remarked recently that ``PETA'' was an acronym for ``People Embarrassing the Tidewater Area.''

One can only hope that Newkirk left off her Norfolk return address on that asinine letter to Arafat.


In other words, it's ok to kill Jews, as long as you don't involve donkeys in the act.

I think I'm going to go club a baby seal right about now.

HUH?: The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission opposes military action against Iraq. Fair enough. I'm not sure why a Gay and Lesbian Organization feels the need to opine on the war, considering it has absolutely nothing to do with the group's mission statement, but they are certainly entitled to their opinion.

But as Andrew Sullivan points out, why is this International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission actively supporting regimes which murder people for simply being gay. While America must rescind its stupid, and way too traditional Defense of Marriage
Act, shouldn't it be supporting the US if it supports gay human rights?

Better, in other words, for gay people in, say, Afghanistan to be punished by being crushed under rocks than to be liberated by the evil of America. These gay activists are simply depraved.

Exactly.

Thursday, February 06, 2003

THIS MAKES MORE SENSE: One of Instapundit's readers is making a bit more sense.

I really like the statement that we need "a united response from the Community of Democracies". Community of Democracies (COD). Got a ring to it, eh. How about abandonding the U.N. and creating COD. No more fascists heading human rights committees. Bye bye Syria, China, Iraq and all you other fascist pigs. We have a new club and if you want to join, you must change your ways and we can show you how. Good plan, don't you think?

Well certainly makes a lot more sense that allowing Libya to head the UN Human Rights Commission.
MORE UN BASHING: And then there's this from James Lileks.

"Granted. But how can we possibly go to war without the approval of the United Nations?"

Perhaps you mean that we need the moral imprimatur of this august and esteemed body. You'd have a better point if the United Nations was moral, august or esteemed. On the contrary: The United Nations is a dim hive of self-interested parties engaged in endless parliamentary mummery, united by a consensual delusion that all nations are equal.

So you have the bitterly risible sight of Libya chairing the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which is akin to giving Kid Rock control over the New York Philharmonic. You have the 2003 disarmament conference rotating its presidency among a group of states that includes Iran and Iraq. (Perhaps next year the agricultural planning conference will be held in Pyongyang.) You have the shameful performance of the peacekeepers in Srebrenica, looking away while thousands were slaughtered. You have the sex-for-food scandal at U.N. refugee camps in Africa -- if it happened at an American frat house, it would be national news for a week.

And you have small, telling scenes like the one that transpired in Baghdad recently. A man thrust himself into a U.N. inspector's car and begged for sanctuary. The U.N. official pretended to study his papers while the poor man pleaded for his life. The Iraqi guards took the man away, and if what we know about Iraqi prisons is even half right, we can only hope they killed the man as soon as he was out of camera range.

Imagine you are running in fear from Iraqi thugs, and you see a U.N. car, and a U.S. convoy. To which would you run?

"Yes, yes, it's not perfect. But don't we need U.N. approval?"

No. But if it makes you feel better to know that China graciously allowed the United States to act in its own self-interest, pretend that they did. Picture an unelected communist bureaucrat giving Bush permission to move some carriers toward the Gulf. Feel better?

The word you're looking for is "oui."


Ouch.
ADIOS: Mark Steyn agrees. The UN is dead.

Unless it starts enforcing its own resolutions.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST: With that said, compare and contrast the opinions of the New York Times and the Washington Post. The Times has been making numerous concessions lately and yet Harold Raines and his band of merry men have too much ego to admit when they might, just might, be wrong.

The logic is troubling if not incredibly stupid. It is similar to the logic used by some Security Council members. If Iraq defied inspectors and then lied about doing so, then how are more inspections going to help? According to Resolution 1441, it is the job of Iraq to showcase his weapons and voluntarily disarm. It is not the job of the UN inspectors to play detective and find them. Iraq has failed to meet the simple requirements placed on it and must now face the consequences. If the UN fails to act, then the United States and its multilateral allies (yes, it is a multilateral coalition now) will.

And the United Nations will be irrelevant.
COUNT ME IN: After hearing Colin Powell's "compelling evidence", count me in on the war. It is clear that UN must do something or risk being irrelevant. What is the point of enacting resolutions if they are not going to be enforced? If there truly is any "international law" as so many people wish to believe, then it must come from the United Nations and it must come through the use of force. There are, after all, no international policeman around to "arrest" Sadam Hussein. It is clear that he is not going to step down, so he must be removed from power, by any means necessary.

Including military force.

Wednesday, February 05, 2003

WELCOME BACK: Sorry for the lack of updates lately. Posting wil be light while I'm in London. In any case, I thought this was pretty funny.