As the new year approaches, there is certainly no lack of stories to cover. (We have been taking a bit of a holiday break here at MC, thus the lack of coverage)
The Israel-Gaza situation seems to be the most urgent international crisis currently receiving MSM attention. Though, there is probably literally almost no way in the world of getting an objective account of what occurred, given the nature of the conflict.
The situation is akin to trying to heal a festering wound by wrapping it tightly in gauze and punching it occasionally, then ripping off the gauze expecting to see healthy skin. (amazingly enough, this ridiculous-at-best method of establishing peace has been tried repeatedly by foreign powers determined to "bring peace to the middle east".) And they actually give out nobel prizes for this! Though, I've long said that getting a Nobel Prize (except perhaps in scientific fields) is a sure sign that you have probably done things which will cause death and disaster.
Imagine you have a long-standing feud with another person. They have caused you and your family grievous harm, and you feel force is the only way to resolve the issue. Then some foreign leaders who have never been to your country (outside of maybe a tourist trip and/or short stay at the nearest Four Seasons), don't speak your language, etc, meet with some divisive figures from your part of the world, argue about semantics while eating food you will never be able to afford, all finally shake hands, and announce that they have solved your feud.
But, of course, nothing has changed for you. You just wait until another good opportunity, and strike out again. When this is done in a violent manner (as it tends to end up being), it leads to more violence, and more violence, until a pattern of conflict is established. When this pattern has occurred for decades in its present form, and centuries in other forms, it cannot change until the "hearts and minds" of the people involved change.
This sounds trite, but there is no other reality.
Actually, any attempt at a solution to the problem of violence in the Middle East that is based in a world view where people are seen as inherently good, is doomed to failure.
Which brings us back to this season. The only real hope for peace, is that which the angels proclaimed in Bethleham, so many years ago. "Peace on Earth, Goodwill to men on whom His favor rests..."
When Peace does not reign in the hearts of men, how can it reign in their land?
-()4|<.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
SXeasXon's XGreXetiXngs-Merry Christmas!!!
First off, I'd like to celebrate the day by thanking my mysterious co-contributors, WMR and CSM:
Both of you bring specific talents to this blog, and I've enjoyed keeping this going with you.
Here's to another year of fun writing. Thanks guys.
And to those few of you who read this:
Thank you, have a wonderful Christmas, and may your numbers multiply greatly in the coming year!
-()4|<.
Both of you bring specific talents to this blog, and I've enjoyed keeping this going with you.
Here's to another year of fun writing. Thanks guys.
And to those few of you who read this:
Thank you, have a wonderful Christmas, and may your numbers multiply greatly in the coming year!
-()4|<.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Mirrored Losses
I'm not sure why I thought about this today. But, it seems that the parties simply switched candidates for this past election. In 2004, the Democrats ran an aging, boring fellow with no clearly stated vision for the nation teamed with a spunky, though vapid, vice presidential nominee. The Republicans ran George W. Bush who was more charismatic and had a plan (vague though it might have been at the time) teamed up with an older vice presidential nominee. In 2008, the Democrats ran a charismatic Obama with a very vague plan of "change" teamed up with an older vice presidential nominee, and the Republicans ran an aging boring fellow who never really laid out a plan and teamed him with a spunky, though attractive, vice presidential nominee.
I'm just tossing this one out there for discussion.
I'm just tossing this one out there for discussion.
Pirates! 2
In the latest development in the Somali pirates situation, China is sending a small naval detachment to help deal with the problem.
This is a new development for China, who historically has not had a navy prone to global actions. For a long period of Chinese history, there was basically no Chinese navy whatsoever, though at other times China held quite a firm grip on the seas around their borders. Ironically, those seas used to be scourged by Chinese pirates as well, but that's another story.
Meanwhile, as all eyes turn to see what the US Government's reaction will be, the official response was something along the lines of "Hm? Oh, whatever, that's fine.".
China has a vested interest in seeing that their cargo stays secure while passing through the area, doubtless. And it is a welcome relief to me to see that we don't feel an obligation to right the wrongs of the Gulf of Aden. More interesting is the fact that the local Muslim countries have up until this point done little to diminish it, let alone put a stop to it.
China's intervention may actually make a difference, as they have been heavily investing in Africa for a while now. Though, it has been made clear that Somalia is not really functioning as a nation right now. The "Somali Coast Guard" is actually a piratical organization as well.
-()4|<.
"We are making preparations and
arrangements to deploy naval ships to the Gulf of Aden for escorting
operations," [Foreign Ministry Spokesman] Liu said, without elaborating on details of the mission.
This is a new development for China, who historically has not had a navy prone to global actions. For a long period of Chinese history, there was basically no Chinese navy whatsoever, though at other times China held quite a firm grip on the seas around their borders. Ironically, those seas used to be scourged by Chinese pirates as well, but that's another story.
Meanwhile, as all eyes turn to see what the US Government's reaction will be, the official response was something along the lines of "Hm? Oh, whatever, that's fine.".
A U.S. State Department official said the U.S. has no problem with China "deploying its assets."
"China, like a number of other countries, has decided that we as an international community must act," the official said.
China has a vested interest in seeing that their cargo stays secure while passing through the area, doubtless. And it is a welcome relief to me to see that we don't feel an obligation to right the wrongs of the Gulf of Aden. More interesting is the fact that the local Muslim countries have up until this point done little to diminish it, let alone put a stop to it.
China's intervention may actually make a difference, as they have been heavily investing in Africa for a while now. Though, it has been made clear that Somalia is not really functioning as a nation right now. The "Somali Coast Guard" is actually a piratical organization as well.
-()4|<.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
A little Christmas Cheer from Mother Russia
What better way to spread the love of Christmas than with the gift that gives on giving?
No, I don't mean fruitcake, but something even better:
10 MiG-29 Fulcrum Fighter Jets that Russia is providing to Lebanon free of cost.
Of course, it's a bit of a white elephant as well. One wonders where they will find qualified pilots for these advanced fighter jets. And the gift becomes token at best, really, when you remember that their southern neighbor Israel has arguably the world's best pilots plus top level fighter jets that they outfit with their own packages.
In the event of an air war, those MiG-29's would simply become the first targets.
No, Russia has not really changed the balance of anything in the region militarily speaking, what they are doing is stirring up trouble. First with the highly publicized trips to Venezuela and now Cuba, it seems they are looking to rekindle the frosty fires of the cold war. Of course, that won't happen, since Russia is actually doomed, demographically speaking.
Their birthrate is so low that unless a rapid change occurs somewhere, in a few generations they simply won't have the population to sustain a military large enough to matter. Their own healthy ministry is predicting that by 2011, the death rate there will equal the birth rate. (possibly due to the fact that their are more abortions than births in Russia) Coupled with the fact that their population has been declining by half a percent annually since the mid-90's, those figures spell bad news for Russia. Now, their population is projected to fall as much as a third by 2050, down to 85 million or so.
In summary, now might be a great time to visit Russia.
Who knows, maybe they'll give you a fighter jet.
Dos Vedanya, Tovaricham...
-()4|<.
No, I don't mean fruitcake, but something even better:
10 MiG-29 Fulcrum Fighter Jets that Russia is providing to Lebanon free of cost.
This is like upgrading from a .22 pistol to a shotgun for the less-than-formidable Lebanese Air Force:Russia gave Lebanon an early Christmas gift of 10 MiG fighter jets today in a deal to boost defence co-operation.
The MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters would be provided for free to Lebanon under an agreement on military-technical assistance, the head of Russia’s defence co-operation service said. Mikhail Dmitryev said that the jets would be taken from Russia’s existing stock.
The MiG-29s, one of Russia’s best fighter jets, will provide considerable additional firepower for the Lebanese air force, which currently has only five outdated Hawker Hunter jets and 16 helicopters.
Of course, it's a bit of a white elephant as well. One wonders where they will find qualified pilots for these advanced fighter jets. And the gift becomes token at best, really, when you remember that their southern neighbor Israel has arguably the world's best pilots plus top level fighter jets that they outfit with their own packages.
In the event of an air war, those MiG-29's would simply become the first targets.
No, Russia has not really changed the balance of anything in the region militarily speaking, what they are doing is stirring up trouble. First with the highly publicized trips to Venezuela and now Cuba, it seems they are looking to rekindle the frosty fires of the cold war. Of course, that won't happen, since Russia is actually doomed, demographically speaking.
Their birthrate is so low that unless a rapid change occurs somewhere, in a few generations they simply won't have the population to sustain a military large enough to matter. Their own healthy ministry is predicting that by 2011, the death rate there will equal the birth rate. (possibly due to the fact that their are more abortions than births in Russia) Coupled with the fact that their population has been declining by half a percent annually since the mid-90's, those figures spell bad news for Russia. Now, their population is projected to fall as much as a third by 2050, down to 85 million or so.
In summary, now might be a great time to visit Russia.
Who knows, maybe they'll give you a fighter jet.
Dos Vedanya, Tovaricham...
-()4|<.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
New York Insanity
Gov. Paterson of New York has decided that raising taxes is the best way to fill the gaps in the state budget. The theoretical yield of this expansion of taxes is $4,000,000,000. But, how will the state of New York get this money?
Placing a sales tax on taxi and bus service? Removing the state 8-cent-per-gallon tax limit? The concept of taxing such things is not new at all. It seems to be common in an era where the goal of 'progressive' government is to get people to drive less. Adding a tax on 'digitally delivered entertainment' (meaning downloaded music/movies/etc...)? The concept of adding a tax to an already controversially easily acquired item seems rather foolish to me. Increasing taxes on soft drinks simply because they are not healthy?
Hmm...less driving, increased taxes on stuff in general, a tax for being unhealthy? It seems New York is well on the way to liberal tax-topia.
Placing a sales tax on taxi and bus service? Removing the state 8-cent-per-gallon tax limit? The concept of taxing such things is not new at all. It seems to be common in an era where the goal of 'progressive' government is to get people to drive less. Adding a tax on 'digitally delivered entertainment' (meaning downloaded music/movies/etc...)? The concept of adding a tax to an already controversially easily acquired item seems rather foolish to me. Increasing taxes on soft drinks simply because they are not healthy?
Hmm...less driving, increased taxes on stuff in general, a tax for being unhealthy? It seems New York is well on the way to liberal tax-topia.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Badly Aiming Journalists
It seems that, with paper closures and bankruptcies exploding on the scene, journalists have been missing more than hitting these days. That was graphically illustrated in Iraq with a random shoe-throwing incident that clearly demonstrates their aim may be permanently off.
Clearly, this journalist needs work on both his pitch and his delivery, as the President nimbly avoided his bombardment and shrugged off the incident. And notice that the Premier moved to protect the President, and didn't dive off the stage to save himself. (in Iraq, shoes may be a huge insult, but they're probably the least destructive thing you're likely to have thrown at you.) This may actually be proof of how safe Iraq has gotten: the most dangerous thing being thrown now are size 10 loafers.
An alternate account, involving more dialogue on the part of the shoe-chucker, (not to say shoe-bomber...) can be found here. In this version, his dialogue is even worse:
On a more serious note, the situation is sadly ironic. Here is power being peacefully transitioned over. (to what will sadly not be a particularly efficient or corruption-free ruling party, but at least they're not abducting, raping, torturing, and gassing their citizens now) Iraqis now have some say in their own government. Untold numbers of terrorists have been wiped out. Whether or not you agree with our reasons for going in, this event should be at least a moderately happy one for everyone but Al-Sadr and Al-Qaeda, setting the stage for some troop withdrawals in the near future.
Had this man thrown shoes at a visiting leader while Saddam was in power, he probably would have been thrown in a pit somewhere and starved to death. The very freedom of this man to doff his footwear and toss it at the leader of the most powerful nation on earth (and subsequently -not- be beaten to a pulp by his security force, to whom Bush signalled to stand down as the man was subdued) demonstrates that, contrary to his apparent views, victory in Iraq really is a reality. It seems the wait is over; the other shoe really has dropped.
-()4|<.
An Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes and an insult at George W. Bush, without hitting him, as the US president was shaking hands with the Iraqi premier at his Baghdad office on Sunday.As the two leaders met in Nuri al-Maliki's private office, a journalist sitting in the third row jumped up, shouting: "It is the farewell kiss, you dog," and threw his shoes one after the other towards Bush.
Maliki made a protective gesture towards the US president, who ducked and was not hit.
Clearly, this journalist needs work on both his pitch and his delivery, as the President nimbly avoided his bombardment and shrugged off the incident. And notice that the Premier moved to protect the President, and didn't dive off the stage to save himself. (in Iraq, shoes may be a huge insult, but they're probably the least destructive thing you're likely to have thrown at you.) This may actually be proof of how safe Iraq has gotten: the most dangerous thing being thrown now are size 10 loafers.
An alternate account, involving more dialogue on the part of the shoe-chucker, (not to say shoe-bomber...) can be found here. In this version, his dialogue is even worse:
"This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog," the journalist shouted (in Arabic), Steven Lee Myers of The New York Times reported in a pool report to the White House press corps.
Myers reported that the man threw the second shoe and added: "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."
On a more serious note, the situation is sadly ironic. Here is power being peacefully transitioned over. (to what will sadly not be a particularly efficient or corruption-free ruling party, but at least they're not abducting, raping, torturing, and gassing their citizens now) Iraqis now have some say in their own government. Untold numbers of terrorists have been wiped out. Whether or not you agree with our reasons for going in, this event should be at least a moderately happy one for everyone but Al-Sadr and Al-Qaeda, setting the stage for some troop withdrawals in the near future.
Had this man thrown shoes at a visiting leader while Saddam was in power, he probably would have been thrown in a pit somewhere and starved to death. The very freedom of this man to doff his footwear and toss it at the leader of the most powerful nation on earth (and subsequently -not- be beaten to a pulp by his security force, to whom Bush signalled to stand down as the man was subdued) demonstrates that, contrary to his apparent views, victory in Iraq really is a reality. It seems the wait is over; the other shoe really has dropped.
-()4|<.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
WWII and the Future of Cyber Warfare
For decades, Sci-Fi writers have frantically written the future, attempting to nail it down before it arrived. Pending the mass production of flying cars or psychic internet surfing, however, we who live in the increasingly less mundane present can sometimes catch a glimpse of it.
There was, for example, the cyber-barrage unleashed by Russian hackers that effectively disrupted Estonia's government for a number of days.
(For those interested in such things, Wired magazine has several articles describing how it went down in their archives, and some of it is fascinating.)
Far more troublesome for us here, though, have been the Chinese hackers.
They have caused massive (and under-reported) trouble to defense websites, emails systems, and gotten away with some restricted information. And that's just what has been made public.
Now, it seems the French are learning about this difficult-to-counter expression of Chinese disapproval, after Sarkozy dared to meet with the Dalai Llama. Shortly after, the French embassy in Beijing's website went down.
China, of course, denies it was any official move by their government, which may actually be more or less true. In the infinite web of personal connections within Chinese culture, nearly nothing need be official in a literal sense. However, that doesn't mean they weren't directly responsible either, and I suspect there is some incentivizing going on for Chinese hackers.
Lately I have been slowly digesting a tome recounting WWII, the Pacific Front, and it's been incredibly interesting. One thing that stands out again and again is how American code-breakers supplied the crucial intelligence we needed to form effective strategies and keep ahead of the opponent.
In today's information-based warfare, this edge is no longer a bonus, but absolutely crucial. China's invasive hacker force is a standing liability, as we've seen from their attacks on defense networks.
In the event of a diplomatic or even military stand-off (over Taiwan, exports, China trying to sink our economy by massive debt off-loading, etc)
this resource could be used with great effectiveness.
What are we doing to counter this threat? Making little feints and false-starts in various directions, as usual. If history is any guide, it will take a massive cyber-coup drastically reducing our effectiveness before the military gets serious about starting a force to combat this threat. So far the Air Force has been on the forefront of these efforts, but has not been going about it in either a consistent or particularly logical manner.
The future remains to be seen, but with the world becoming daily a more interesting place, I hope we don't have to suffer a digital Pearl Harbor before we get our act together and take real steps to counter this threat. Right now, it's open season.
-()4|<.
There was, for example, the cyber-barrage unleashed by Russian hackers that effectively disrupted Estonia's government for a number of days.
(For those interested in such things, Wired magazine has several articles describing how it went down in their archives, and some of it is fascinating.)
Far more troublesome for us here, though, have been the Chinese hackers.
They have caused massive (and under-reported) trouble to defense websites, emails systems, and gotten away with some restricted information. And that's just what has been made public.
Now, it seems the French are learning about this difficult-to-counter expression of Chinese disapproval, after Sarkozy dared to meet with the Dalai Llama. Shortly after, the French embassy in Beijing's website went down.
China, of course, denies it was any official move by their government, which may actually be more or less true. In the infinite web of personal connections within Chinese culture, nearly nothing need be official in a literal sense. However, that doesn't mean they weren't directly responsible either, and I suspect there is some incentivizing going on for Chinese hackers.
Lately I have been slowly digesting a tome recounting WWII, the Pacific Front, and it's been incredibly interesting. One thing that stands out again and again is how American code-breakers supplied the crucial intelligence we needed to form effective strategies and keep ahead of the opponent.
In today's information-based warfare, this edge is no longer a bonus, but absolutely crucial. China's invasive hacker force is a standing liability, as we've seen from their attacks on defense networks.
In the event of a diplomatic or even military stand-off (over Taiwan, exports, China trying to sink our economy by massive debt off-loading, etc)
this resource could be used with great effectiveness.
What are we doing to counter this threat? Making little feints and false-starts in various directions, as usual. If history is any guide, it will take a massive cyber-coup drastically reducing our effectiveness before the military gets serious about starting a force to combat this threat. So far the Air Force has been on the forefront of these efforts, but has not been going about it in either a consistent or particularly logical manner.
The future remains to be seen, but with the world becoming daily a more interesting place, I hope we don't have to suffer a digital Pearl Harbor before we get our act together and take real steps to counter this threat. Right now, it's open season.
-()4|<.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Feminism Schmiminism.
A real feminist.
Many people would read that and immediately think unshaven armpits, bra burning, and blasting "I'm an independent woman" music from Beyonce, Joan Jett, Sapphic poems, and...Hilary Clinton?
Hilary Clinton the feminist.
Hilary Rodham-Clinton, in fact.
A real feminist always hyphenates her husband's name and her own--a gesture that shows remarkable "I don't bow to the man" independence.
Hilary is heralded for having so much independence and feminist qualities.
So much independence that even after he had several affairs on her...
So much that even after he completely embarrassed her and ruined any trust that not only she, but the country had in him...
So much. That even though she had the "credentials" and "experience" to "make it" on her own as a politician...
She stays with him?
How so "feminist" of her to "Stand by her man."
Or, well...not.
Being a feminist means more than hyphenating your name.
Much like true conservatism (the past few years), feminism has lost its true meaning.
Feminism is about promoting women as equals to men--not shoving "rights to choose what to do with my own body" and "I can buy my own diamonds and keep my last name" down every man's throat.
"I believe in the rights of women — that we can do anything. My philosophy is based on 200 years of feminism that supports the rights of all human beings...Feminism properly defined is about the rights of all human beings, and that genuine equality doesn't come at the expense of anybody else. It was originally about the expansion of rights of people and that included the rights of the unborn, to-be-born. The early feminists talked about abortion in the most scathing terms as a reflection of women's weakness."
(I couldn't say it better than that, so I just quoted it.)
"Also, abortion violates the tenets of feminism, which are non-violence, nondiscrimination and justice for all. The National Organization for Women replaced a patriarchy which the early feminists would have chosen to reject, with a matriarchy that said women were more important than men. It wasn't even that men and women were equal for the feminists of the early 70's. Women were more important because if you have life-and-death decision-making over your child and you don't have to include the father in that decision-making, then you have total control. This is illusion. In reality we know that women have abortions out of desperation, not because women are in control."
Why then do women feel that killing the world's daughters makes them independent and "in control?"
India and China make up over 40% of the world's population--and every day many babies are killed JUST because they are female babies. Girls are discarded, left to die because families prefer male babies.
A real feminist would find this as a cause to support. Instead of promoting the philosophy that these babies should be adopted and accepted into society, they prefer to allow the women to choose to terminate these lives?
While women are forced (by men) to give up their children in these countries, women express their independence in the U.S. by killing their child(ren) just because it's their "right?"
How many women are in Congress? Senate? So...it's MEN that are giving women these rights?
Here's a few excerpts I found at http://www.feministsforlife.org/ :
(All quotes on this blog were taken / borrowed from this website)
How did feminism go from being pro-child to pro-abortion?
The number one goal of feminism in the '70s was to have equal rights with men in the workplace. Initially, Larry Lader and Bernard Nathanson had been going around the country saying that they wanted to repeal outdated anti-abortion laws. I don't even know if they knew that the anti-abortion laws that were enacted in 48 states were the result of work by feminists. The male-dominated medical profession and the media got together in the 1800s to make these consumer protection laws for women, as well as for children, because women were being coerced into abortions. [Also], because they believed in the rights all human beings, including the unborn, to-be-born. Women were very loud, especially in the 1800s about how abortion was wrong and at this was an evil crime. These two thought that anti-abortion laws should be revoked — Nathanson because he had seen botched abortions and Lader because [of a fear of overpopulation].
"I remember my mom told me that there were these two kooks running around saying that women should be able to kill their unborn babies. Because they weren't getting anywhere and were seen as pariahs by the governors, they went back to the drawing board. They went to these woman and told them, "If you want rights like a man, you have to pass like a man in the workplace." They basically sacrificed their children to gain entrance to the executive washroom. When Betty Friedan started hearing that 100,000 women had died from illegal abortion she said, "Oh, then we'd better do it to have it safe." That number was simply made up by Larry Lader and Nathanson after they met with resistance from Betty Friedan initially. I mean, we notice when 36 kids die of a car seat that was not installed properly. We would have noticed 100,000 dead people. But nobody questions this stuff."
So back to my original point.
Is Hilary Clinton really a feminist?
I'll let you be the judge.
Just because Sarah Palin doesn't hyphenate her last name--and she stands up for the rights of unborn daughters around the world does not mean she is betraying the feminist cause.
If anything, she is promoting female equality.
These feminists are killing their own cause by "raking her through the coals." With every insult, with every low, untrue blow, these extreme abortion-supporting feminists are ruining their cause, and instead proving the "hormonal woman" Mean Girls stereotype.
Many people would read that and immediately think unshaven armpits, bra burning, and blasting "I'm an independent woman" music from Beyonce, Joan Jett, Sapphic poems, and...Hilary Clinton?
Hilary Clinton the feminist.
Hilary Rodham-Clinton, in fact.
A real feminist always hyphenates her husband's name and her own--a gesture that shows remarkable "I don't bow to the man" independence.
Hilary is heralded for having so much independence and feminist qualities.
So much independence that even after he had several affairs on her...
So much that even after he completely embarrassed her and ruined any trust that not only she, but the country had in him...
So much. That even though she had the "credentials" and "experience" to "make it" on her own as a politician...
She stays with him?
How so "feminist" of her to "Stand by her man."
Or, well...not.
Being a feminist means more than hyphenating your name.
Much like true conservatism (the past few years), feminism has lost its true meaning.
Feminism is about promoting women as equals to men--not shoving "rights to choose what to do with my own body" and "I can buy my own diamonds and keep my last name" down every man's throat.
"I believe in the rights of women — that we can do anything. My philosophy is based on 200 years of feminism that supports the rights of all human beings...Feminism properly defined is about the rights of all human beings, and that genuine equality doesn't come at the expense of anybody else. It was originally about the expansion of rights of people and that included the rights of the unborn, to-be-born. The early feminists talked about abortion in the most scathing terms as a reflection of women's weakness."
(I couldn't say it better than that, so I just quoted it.)
"Also, abortion violates the tenets of feminism, which are non-violence, nondiscrimination and justice for all. The National Organization for Women replaced a patriarchy which the early feminists would have chosen to reject, with a matriarchy that said women were more important than men. It wasn't even that men and women were equal for the feminists of the early 70's. Women were more important because if you have life-and-death decision-making over your child and you don't have to include the father in that decision-making, then you have total control. This is illusion. In reality we know that women have abortions out of desperation, not because women are in control."
Why then do women feel that killing the world's daughters makes them independent and "in control?"
India and China make up over 40% of the world's population--and every day many babies are killed JUST because they are female babies. Girls are discarded, left to die because families prefer male babies.
A real feminist would find this as a cause to support. Instead of promoting the philosophy that these babies should be adopted and accepted into society, they prefer to allow the women to choose to terminate these lives?
While women are forced (by men) to give up their children in these countries, women express their independence in the U.S. by killing their child(ren) just because it's their "right?"
How many women are in Congress? Senate? So...it's MEN that are giving women these rights?
Here's a few excerpts I found at http://www.feministsforlife.org/ :
(All quotes on this blog were taken / borrowed from this website)
How did feminism go from being pro-child to pro-abortion?
The number one goal of feminism in the '70s was to have equal rights with men in the workplace. Initially, Larry Lader and Bernard Nathanson had been going around the country saying that they wanted to repeal outdated anti-abortion laws. I don't even know if they knew that the anti-abortion laws that were enacted in 48 states were the result of work by feminists. The male-dominated medical profession and the media got together in the 1800s to make these consumer protection laws for women, as well as for children, because women were being coerced into abortions. [Also], because they believed in the rights all human beings, including the unborn, to-be-born. Women were very loud, especially in the 1800s about how abortion was wrong and at this was an evil crime. These two thought that anti-abortion laws should be revoked — Nathanson because he had seen botched abortions and Lader because [of a fear of overpopulation].
"I remember my mom told me that there were these two kooks running around saying that women should be able to kill their unborn babies. Because they weren't getting anywhere and were seen as pariahs by the governors, they went back to the drawing board. They went to these woman and told them, "If you want rights like a man, you have to pass like a man in the workplace." They basically sacrificed their children to gain entrance to the executive washroom. When Betty Friedan started hearing that 100,000 women had died from illegal abortion she said, "Oh, then we'd better do it to have it safe." That number was simply made up by Larry Lader and Nathanson after they met with resistance from Betty Friedan initially. I mean, we notice when 36 kids die of a car seat that was not installed properly. We would have noticed 100,000 dead people. But nobody questions this stuff."
So back to my original point.
Is Hilary Clinton really a feminist?
I'll let you be the judge.
Just because Sarah Palin doesn't hyphenate her last name--and she stands up for the rights of unborn daughters around the world does not mean she is betraying the feminist cause.
If anything, she is promoting female equality.
These feminists are killing their own cause by "raking her through the coals." With every insult, with every low, untrue blow, these extreme abortion-supporting feminists are ruining their cause, and instead proving the "hormonal woman" Mean Girls stereotype.
GM trying to load the dice?
Evidently it takes the looming prospect of bankruptcy and dire straits to get an apology from an American car company, as we can see in this open letter from GM:
Also:
MAGICAL MC TRANSLATION TOOL: "Yeah, we need your money, we're sorry we screwed up and lost your money, please be nice and give us more of your money."
I am not sure that requires an apology, except in a government-controlled market. In a free market, if your product is clearly inferior, you lose. Minimal damage is done, except to the employees, perhaps, who have to find new jobs. No apology to consumers necessary, they have already moved on to other products, which is why you are in trouble in the first place.
But with enough government interference, it's not a question of just changing to other products.
For example, our airline industry. If foreign carriers were allowed to compete for the US domestic air travel market, most US carriers would cease to exist. But stifling competition forces consumers to make do with their limited options.
Now that GM has apologized, I am waiting for others to follow. A liberal congress should respond well to this kind of thing, but public opinion is against the auto bail-out, so we'll see...
-()4|<.
“We are in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great
Depression,” said GM in the missive. “Just like you, we have been
severely impacted by events outside our control. Despite moving quickly
to reduce our planned spending by over $20 billion, GM finds itself
precariously and frighteningly close to running out of cash.”
Also:
“At times we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below
industry standards and our designs become lackluster,” wrote GM. “We
have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where we
lost adequate focus on our core U.S. market.”
MAGICAL MC TRANSLATION TOOL: "Yeah, we need your money, we're sorry we screwed up and lost your money, please be nice and give us more of your money."
I am not sure that requires an apology, except in a government-controlled market. In a free market, if your product is clearly inferior, you lose. Minimal damage is done, except to the employees, perhaps, who have to find new jobs. No apology to consumers necessary, they have already moved on to other products, which is why you are in trouble in the first place.
But with enough government interference, it's not a question of just changing to other products.
For example, our airline industry. If foreign carriers were allowed to compete for the US domestic air travel market, most US carriers would cease to exist. But stifling competition forces consumers to make do with their limited options.
Now that GM has apologized, I am waiting for others to follow. A liberal congress should respond well to this kind of thing, but public opinion is against the auto bail-out, so we'll see...
-()4|<.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Coming soon to a location near you: Military Police
When both the ACLU and Cato Institute agree that something is a bad idea, that thing is certainly worthy of further review... unless, of course, you are a government in the process of consolidating power over its citizenry. What is it this time, you might ask?
Yay, we're safer! Oh, wait. No, we're not. We're just setting a dangerous precedent and opening a sort of Pandora's box, the contents of which remain to be seen.
When I was in the Philippines earlier this year, there was a heavy military presence. Going into pretty much any significant building involved getting my backpack searched and/or a metal detector pass-thru. I wouldn't have been surprised at all by finding a curfew had been established. I realize, of course, that they were having serious problems in the south part of the islands with some terrorist incidents, and had had a couple in Manilla as well, (where I was at the time) but I couldn't help feeling a little creeped out. Though a nominally free country, it felt much more like a junta under the early stages of martial law.
Now it would seem that our wonderful, useless, incompetent, apparently eternal congress wishes to strike out boldly in the same direction. Perhaps they'll change that awkward "Department of Homeland Security" moniker to a serene and simple "Ministry of Peace". Or even further, to a vaguely techy and soundbyteable "Minipax".
How will this play out? Well, once you grasp the idea that a crisis the gravity of which a newly-armed homeland security can declare through state-allied media companies is a valid excuse for infusing society with armed troops (while simultaneously pushing for more gun control), you will have a good idea of what's to come.
May it never be, but it's sure looking that way.
-()4|<.
The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.
Yay, we're safer! Oh, wait. No, we're not. We're just setting a dangerous precedent and opening a sort of Pandora's box, the contents of which remain to be seen.
When I was in the Philippines earlier this year, there was a heavy military presence. Going into pretty much any significant building involved getting my backpack searched and/or a metal detector pass-thru. I wouldn't have been surprised at all by finding a curfew had been established. I realize, of course, that they were having serious problems in the south part of the islands with some terrorist incidents, and had had a couple in Manilla as well, (where I was at the time) but I couldn't help feeling a little creeped out. Though a nominally free country, it felt much more like a junta under the early stages of martial law.
Now it would seem that our wonderful, useless, incompetent, apparently eternal congress wishes to strike out boldly in the same direction. Perhaps they'll change that awkward "Department of Homeland Security" moniker to a serene and simple "Ministry of Peace". Or even further, to a vaguely techy and soundbyteable "Minipax".
How will this play out? Well, once you grasp the idea that a crisis the gravity of which a newly-armed homeland security can declare through state-allied media companies is a valid excuse for infusing society with armed troops (while simultaneously pushing for more gun control), you will have a good idea of what's to come.
May it never be, but it's sure looking that way.
-()4|<.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
