Austrian company with a stake in the US election
Ed Lasky
The Austrian oil and gas company OMV signed a huge energydeal with Iran to develop its energy resources in 2007. This was so despite many other European companies who have chosen of their own volition (encouraged by America) to forego deals with Iran.
American companies do not do business with Iran's energy sector as a consequence of sanctions being imposed by Congress years ago in response to Iranian violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact, and a nuclear program that most analysts perceive as being geared towards developing a nuclear arsenal. This, combined with repeated Iranian threats to destroy Israel, has dissuaded many companies from engaging the Iranians.
The Austrians have resisted such entreaties and , in a shareholder's meeting this week, OMV's Chief Executive Officer stated that the company has "no moral obligation to Israel".
This is somewhat offensive on its face when one realizes that Austrians were prime movers behind World War Two and the Holocaust (Hitler was an Austrian by birth, as were many leading members of the SS). The CEO also said something quite revealing. According to this report, he stated that time is an ally and the company is waiting for "political changes in the USA" to bolster their dealings with Iran.
Now what sort of changes might he be awaiting?
Arizona Governor Fights Illegal Immigration Task Force
J. James Estrada
Manuel Espinoza-Vasquez lives in Gilbert, Arizona and is a student at Arizona State University. He is an illegal immigrant and he is facing deportation. Espinoza-Vasquez was stopped by Gilbert police for making an "improper right turn." At the same time, three teenagers were deported to Mexico after they were stopped by Gilbert PD for drag racing. They admitted they were in the country illegally, just like Espinoza-Vasquez.There are over 400,000 illegal aliens in the United States that have been ordered to leave the country, but remain here. Of that number, 80,000 are classified as violent criminals. It has been reported that illegal aliens generally commit crimes at the same rate, proportionately, as legal citizens. If, however, they were not here to commit those crimes, the number of overall crimes committed would be reduced. And, those who have lost their lives in an incident involving an illegal alien, would still be alive. Think about the three Newark, New Jersey college students who were killed by an illegal from Peru. If he weren't in this country, they would be continuing their education and dreaming of future careers and family. In many municipalities around the country, jaywalking is a crime. Mainly characterized as a civil traffic offense, it usually brings with it a small fine and a misdemeanor designation. Most law enforcement offices ignore jaywalking. Police and sheriff departments in America are very busy day after day with larger issues. So what if this one law is not enforced? What harm could result? Well, according to the National Safety Council, 1,770 pedestrians died in 1998 while crossing the street. Thousands more were injured. If those numbers hold consistently year over year, we would have lost over 16,000 to this kind of fatality between 1998 and today. Is enforcing the jaywalking law important? Would it have saved every life that was lost? Not every life, but perhaps a fairly significant number of them. A deterrent would have been established if any municipality let in be known that this particular law would be strictly followed, or, tickets and fines would follow. How many lives have been lost due to illegal immigration? Tragically, the news is replete with incidences of crimes, including murder (see above), that involve illegal aliens. Are all illegal aliens dangerous criminals? No. Do most illegal aliens commit minor offences or relatively petty crimes? No. However, all of them broke the law at least once. That is the truth of the matter. Legislatures at the local, state and Federal levels, are debating how best to handle this situation. One way is to start enforcing unfailingly the laws already on the books. Perhaps a life will be saved if we do. And that includes the lives of those who risk peril by coming to this country by a treacherous desert crossing, or, by resting a dangerous faith in a coyote to smuggle them across the border. This leads us to the decision this week by Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to pull the funding designated by the State's legislature to Sheriff Joe Arpaio's illegal immigration task force. Napolitano buckled to political pressure to stop Arpaio's crime suppression sweeps and bow before the forces of the pro-illegal immigrant crowd in Arizona. It seems that the Sheriff's sweeps have netted more than a couple of illegal immigrants as his deputies enforce the law by pulling over motorists for broken tail-lights and expired car registration tags. Her excuse for pulling the Sheriff's money is that 40,000 felony warrants are outstanding in the greater Phoenix area (that number has somehow blossomed to 60,000 in newspaper accounts this week), and the money is better spent chasing down these warrants. She also says his sweeps have caused "trepidation" in the "immigrant community." So, via executive order, the money has been re-directed to the Department of Public Safety. The DPS, curiously enough, has been recently chastised in the state by an ACLU allegation that has charged them with racial profiling during their traffic stops. No wonder the Governor has selected them to receive Joe's money.
A long range question for Napolitano is this: if she were to become a President Barack Obama's Attorney General (as rumored -- she supported him over Hillary Clinton), would she direct money and resources to round up the 80,000 criminally violent illegal immigrants now roaming free all throughout these United States? Doubtful.
Can McCain be tamed?
Nancy Thorner
McCain is behaving like a wild mustang, untamed and unbridled, which gives support to his claim of maverick status. Republicans are being told to toe the line and be loyal Republicans. Often mentioned is an admonishment not to speak evil of fellow Republicans.
But enough is enough! I am concerned about the liberal-light leanings of the Republican Party at a time when liberals are attempting to emasculate the Republican Party. Republicans leaders seems not to realize what is happening. Three safe Republican seats have already been lost to Democrats who sounded more Republican than the Republicans they defeated.
Although I cringe at the thought of an Obama presidency and the unwelcome and disastrous changes that would be ushered in, how can I be sure about John McCain? I am told that he would be good on taxes, appointing judges, and the war on terror, but if McCain faces a Democratic Congress could these issues have a happy ending for Republicans?
Sadly McCain has hammered another nail in a coffin that is already pierced with all manner of doubt and distrust with his courtship of West Coast swing voters on Monday, May 13. His was a call to action on global warming and an indictment of the Bush Administration’s failed policies to combat global warming. His proposal to develop a cap-and-trade system designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions in his belief that CO2 is behind global warming, would ultimately destroy this nation’s free market system and capitalism, raise the cost of energy, destroy smoke- stack industries, and rob us of our liberties -- all in the name of phony science. McCain’s surrender to the extreme environmentalists, when he must surely know that a large chunk of his party’s conservative base remains skeptical about the science of climate change, puts him in tandem with both Hillary and Obama. Even so, McCain’s radical proposals of May 12 are being ripped by environmentalists as not going far enough, as just a beginning. What are Republicans to do in November? Our goose seems to be cooked whichever way we turn given McCain’s embrace of a liberal approach to something that does not even exist and would not make a bit of difference even if the fixes were put in place.
Sadly the absence of conservative leadership over many years has caused this frustrating dilemma for many Republicans. McCain has no overall set of beliefs of philosophy that can be embraced by his party faithful. Can John McCain be tamed and brought back into the fold of Republicanism or has John McCain and the Republican Party tacked so far to the liberal left in a belief that doing so will win elections, that Republican values and doctrine have been cast aside?
I am willing to give John McCain a chance. It is up to John McCain to prove to Republicans like me that he would be a responsible leader. That he knows what must be done to keep this nation secure and economically vital, while at the same time preserving our individual freedoms.
McCain is counting on the fact that we have nowhere else to go, so we can lump it. Perhaps you might say that McCain cannot count on everyone who dislikes Obama or Clinton to bother to vote for him; they might just stay home and let God sort it out. Certainly, conservatives will be reluctant to put their time and money into electing him. At best, he will get our vote -- maybe.
Calling our troops cold-blooded killers
Bob Weir
Not that I want to bring any attention to that loser on MSNBC, but the comments made recently by Keith Olbermann on his "Countdown" show should be addressed, if only to point out how out of control these left-wing Bush haters are. Olbermann has engaged in vitriolic diatribes against the president before, but this time he was way over the top. Referring to the US Military in Iraq as "merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and then evade prosecution in any country by hiding behind your skirts, sir," this foul-mouthed commentator, struggling to get ratings for the moribund network, has resorted to calling our soldiers paid killers. Olbermann is one of those rabid radicals who foam at the mouth whenever the subject of war comes up. Not just the Iraq war, but any war. "Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush," he snarled, as spittle formed at the side of his mouth. It's become almost axiomatic that whenever this country faces a challenge from without, leftists from within, like Olbermann, will always side with the enemy. When 3000 innocent civilians were massacred on 9/11, we never saw the type of outrage and bile-spewing utterances from Olbermann or his coterie of anti-America misfits. In fact, it wasn't long after the attack on this country that his ilk began insinuating, if not saying outright, that we got what we deserved. Less than a week after the Twin Towers came crumbling down, snuffing out the lives of thousands of Americans, Bill Maher, on his ABC show, "Politically Incorrect" said he didn't think the terrorists were cowards, as George Bush had described them. Instead he said, "We have been the cowards; lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That's cowardly! Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it; but it's not cowardly." Maher is another example of the limousine liberals like Olbermann who are paid millions of dollars annually working for a system that they detest, but one that they would never walk away from. Mr. O works for NBC, which is owned by General Electric, which has been one of the largest producers and sellers of landmines, rocket launchers and other anti-personnel weapons, many of which have ended up in the hands of America's enemies. We don't hear Mr. O fulminating about the billions of dollars made by his employer as they supply killing and maiming devices to our enemies. Many of those "four thousand dead soldiers," whom he blames on Bush, may have lost their lives and limbs because of "merciless" weapons sold by the same company that signs Mr. O's paychecks. If this guy really wanted to make a statement about his integrity and antipathy over the war, he could do so by resigning his lucrative position and stating that he could no longer accept "blood money." You wouldn't want to be hanging by your thumbs waiting for that to happen. Instead, this rancid, fire-breathing hypocrite will continue to stuff his bank account with the liberal largesse of his "mercenary" boss, while firing verbal blasts at the man he abhors, not because of the Iraq war, but because of fundamental philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans. It's straight out of the liberal playbook to blatantly disregard inconsistencies in their own "moral" judgments, while highlighting every perceived imperfection in their rivals. Mr. O referred to an interview President Bush had in which he was asked if the reason he hasn't been playing golf for the last few years is related to Iraq. Bush replied: "I don't want some mom, whose son recently died, to see the Commander in Chief playing golf." Now, to most people whose minds aren't poisoned with the sickening stench of political partisanship, that statement would be satisfactory. Bush was merely stating that he didn't want to be seen enjoying a golf outing while our troops were fighting and dying. Au contraire; Mr. O adroitly distorted Mr. Bush's meaning with an acid-laced growl: "Mr. Bush, do you think these families, their lives blighted forever, care about you playing golf?" He went on to imply that the president said he was sacrificing his golf game in order to show solidarity with the troops. You see, it wouldn't matter how Bush answered the question; those who derive their daily sustenance from angst inspired liver secretions will always find an outlet for their venomous spurts. At the conclusion of his 15 minute rant, during which viewers must have wondered when someone would run onto the set with a straightjacket, Mr. O, staring menacingly into the camera, told the president to "shut the hell up!" He forgot to thank the "merciless mercenaries" for fighting and dying for his right to say that without fear of being executed.
Lawyers and Judges Presiding over a Breakdown of Basic Justice
Christopher Alleva
The claims for injuries allegedly caused by the painkiller Vioxx have seemed rather dubious to me. It always felt like another example of justice run amok with the judges and lawyers involved subverting the process for personal gain. A ruling by the Texas Court of Appeals yesterday overturning a $32 million award to the widow of 71-year-old man whose death was linked to the drug appears to affirm this view.
The judges ruled the widow did not prove that his brief use of Vioxx caused two blood clots that they claim triggered his heart attack. Also, they concluded that their was insufficient evidence to rule out his long-standing heart disease and other chronic ailments as the cause of his fatal heart attack. The man took Vioxx for less than a month.
This case doesn't even pass the laugh test. The man was 71 years old with a history of chronic heart disease and he only took the drug for a couple of weeks. You don't need to be a blood relative of Dr.Jonas Salk and Chief Justice John Roberts to immediately conclude the claim is frivolous. At 71 after a near fatal heat attack this man was probably a walking specimen (that is if he was even ambulatory) of every disease and affliction known to man.
Lawyers that pursue this kind of perverted justice should be sanctioned and disbarred and judges that allow cases like this in their courtroom should be removed and disbarred. Clearly, the Superior courts have been much to lax in their supervision of the lower courts. Most states vest their highest court the power to oversee lower courts. At the Federal level the Chief Justice also has the responsibility to oversee the administration of the entire federal judiciary. In 1922, Congress established the Judicial Conference of the United States, the governing body for the administration of the federal judicial system. As chair of the conference, the chief justice presides over the conference's biannual meeting, manages the agenda, and appoints committees.
Evidently, the Chief doesn't understand the serious and systemic problems afflicting the courts that is undermining basic justice and the administration of laws. Other than some esoteric speech I can't recall any substantive action by this conference in my lifetime.
The Obama campiagn senses the glove fits
Richard Baehr
The Obama campaign seems to know they have a problem -- their man is perceived as soft on terrorists, and way too accommodating to the world's worst thug regimes. After Obama stated that he would meet with any foreign leader without pre-conditions, including the leaders of Iran ,Venezuela, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba, the campaign attempted to backtrack using hacks in the friendly media such as the New York Times to suggest that of course, that is not what he meant, and the McCain camp was smearing Obama for bringing up the group's endorsement of Obama. The Obama campaign and its journalist warriors kept bringing up how Obama refused to meet with Hamas until the group changed its tune, stopped terrorism, and accepted Israel's right to exist. Of course Hamas's position is identical to that of Iran, a sponsor of terror groups including Hamas and Hezbollah, which has called for Israel's annihilation, and Obama has been willing to meet with them without preconditions. Last week, Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy advisor, noted that meeting with leaders of other countries without preconditions, does not mean meeting them without preparation. This is what is known as a difference without a distinction. Today, the Obama campaign is back on its heels again, sensing that President Bush was criticizing Obama when he spoke in Israel in front of the Knesset and condemned the naïveté of meeting with terrorist groups and rogue states. It turns out the President did not mention Obama by name and he could well have been referring to former President Jimmy Carter, just back from another round of freelance diplomacy, meeting with Hamas' leaders and Syria's President, for which Obama was hesitant to utter a word of criticism. Carter slammed both Israel, the United States and President Bush, when on foreign soil, as he has done many times before. Carter of course is in Obama's corner, and many of Obama's supporters on the left, think Carter has done nothing wrong. The Obama campaign seems terribly upset that words that might only by inference, be seen as critical of his campaign, were uttered on foreign soil. The President could also have been referring today to Robert Malley, another Obama campaign foreign policy advisor who suddenly was described as "not an advisor" after his statements and record were exposed http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/ barack_obamas_middle_east_expe.html , but then was forced to resign as an advisor to the campaign (funny how this works) after admitting he had also recently met with Hamas, the one group in the world Obama seems to think (for the moment anyway)is beyond the pale. Not surprisingly , the New York Times picks up on the Obama camp's complaint about today's Bush statement .My sense is that the Obama camp knows they have several problems on their hands: the defection of many traditional Democratic Jewish voters to John McCain, and a series of statements by Obama that suggest to a broader swath of the electorate that when it comes to foreign policy, the Obama candidacy is an amateur production waiting to go on stage and Obama comes off very weak willed to our enemies (much as the Carter Presidency was and did). So expect the thin-skinned ultra sensitivity evidenced by the campaign today to pop up again and again the next few months. And of course, we know what the New York Times will think.
Richard Baehr is chief political correspondent of American Thinker.
Euro-appeasers can't wait for Obama Presidency
Ed Lasky
What kind of political change is a major European energy company waiting for to avoid the issue of sanctions on Iran?
The Austrian oil and gas company, OMV, signed a huge energy investing deal with Iran to develop its energy resources in 2007. This happened despite many other European companies who have chosen, of their own volition (encouraged by America), to forego deals with Iran.
American companies do not do business with Iran's energy sector as a consequence of sanctions being imposed by Congress years ago in response to Iranian violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact and a nuclear program that most analysts perceive as being geared towards developing a nuclear arsenal. This, combined with repeated Iranian threats to destroy Israel, have dissuaded many companies from engaging the Iranians.
The Austrians have resisted such entreaties and , in a shareholder's meeting this week, its Chief Executive Officer, stated that their company has "no moral obligation to Israel". Well..this is somewhat offensive on its face when one realizes that Austrians were prime movers behind World War Two and the Holocaust (Hitler was an Austrian by birth, as were many leading members of the SS).
The CEO also said something quite revealing. According to this report, he stated that time is an ally and the company is waiting for "political changes in the USA" to bolster their dealings with Iran.
Now ..what sort of changes might he be awaiting?
Will the Obama campaign dismiss these comments by the CEO of OMV as a "smear"? What message does Obama telegraph to our enemies and those who would sup with them that they can assume that , as President, he will be soft against terrorism and nuclear proliferation?
Bush Disses Obama Overseas
Rick Moran
Demcorats have done it to Bush enough times, I guess turnabout is fair play.
Both Al Gore and Jimmy Carter go out of their way when speaking to foreign audiences to harshly criticize Bush for everything from Iraq to climate change. So Obama doesn't have much of a leg to stand on when he gets upset that Bush calls his idea of talking to President Ahmadinejad of Iran "appeasement:"
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you.
America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Not very subtle but someone has to say something about Obama's visions of peacemaking with cutthroats like Ahmadinejad and Assad of Syria.
Obama fired back:
It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power - including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.
Talking about the "politics of fear" in Israel is incredibly stupid. The Israelis live under the threat of terrorism every day and talking about it in relation to the two major sponsors of terror directed against the Jewish state couldn't be helped - unless Obama thinks Israel deserves what it gets at the hands of Hamas and Hezb'allah.
And the Democrats have been politicizing foreign policy since the beginning of the War on Terror - something Obama didn't mention or apologize for. I guess apologies go only one way in Obamaland.
Bush was trying to point out the potential danger in Obama's policies. The fact that he doesn't recognize or acknowledge the risks involved in his plan to negotiate with Iran and Syria without preconditions makes him not only naive but incredibly dangerous.
Class-based affirmative action would be worse
Richard Wozniak
In a recent blog at American Thinker the author mulls over the idea that Obama could move to a position of being against our current race based affirmative action program, and support replacing it with a class-based affirmative action program. I have seen this suggestion modification put forward with increasing regularity, often put as: "we shouldn't help rich black kids, we should help poor kids no matter what race they are".
I strongly disagree with this notion, now being advance by a nominally conservative publication that "class based" affirmative action is better, or less objectionable than the current system.
In fact it is far worse.
First let us return to the original justification for affirmative action: society needs to make up to a group, initially blacks, for their ancestors mistreatment by society as a whole. In the case of blacks, that includes enslavement. Thus the current AA system is at least nominally grounded in an historical fact. Sadly AA has now grown to include groups with dubious historical claims to maltreatment, at least in the original case there is some logic to it.
What logic applies to using the power of the state to favor the poor over the middle class? Inevitably this supports the leftist intellectual tradition which says that poverty is societies fault, and becomes yet another part of the endlessly increasing culture of welfare payments and dependency. Conservatives used to stand opposed to these notions, and deride them as "cultural Marxism".
In fact it is hard to imagine a more perfectly Marxist notion than favoring the children of the poor for admissions over more qualified children of the middle class. It is a signature of the most hated Communist regimes such as Mao's and Pol Pot's to raise the "peasant" class above the bourgeoisie.
Leaving aside that the people who administer such programs are going to be the same people administering the current race based system, and likely to use it to reward exactly the same people, you would now be favoring, say, a black kid from the ghetto whose mother lives on welfare over a black kid from the suburbs whose mother is a registered nurse.
Now consider for a second that these two mothers are sisters, who shared and identical upbringing. One has worked hard and achieved a middle class existence, the other has made a series of poor choices and now finds herself living in poverty.
Why should the child of the poor mom have preference over the child of the successful mom? The absurdity of this system should be self evident. It creates a perverse system of rewards for failure on the part of parents. Basic economics tells us you will get more of what you reward.
Consider also that in a society that allows massive immigration the children of immigrants are nearly always less well off than the children of long established families. Under the "class based" AA system children of immigrants would mostly be given preference over children of citizens. A very odd system that punishes the people who have worked their whole life to pay for the state schools so that the new arrivals can step in front of them in line.
The traditional American system of families working themselves up the ladder of success over several generations implies, and requires, that some benefit accrue to things like working harder, moving to better neighborhoods, sending your kids to better elementary or high schools. Such as their ability to get into better colleges is enhanced.
As always the closer we get to a meritocracy in these things the better for the hard working, and society as a whole. Conservatives are supposed to believe in the American tradition of hard work, a level playing field, and supporting your family for the good of all members.
While we might imagine some day bringing race-based Affirmative Action to an end, based on the reasoning that X number of generations of blacks have now gotten a leg up and it is time for them to compete nose to nose, it seems there is no possibility of ending class based AA once it has begun.
For all of these reasons "class based" affirmative action is a worse abomination than the race based version it claims to be superior to, and should be vigorously opposed by all thinking Americans.
Burmese Cyclone Claims at least 43,000
That may be the death toll from the natural disaster but no one knows what the toll will be as a result of the Myanmar Junta not allowing foreign aid workers to help them assess damage and figure out how to feed, bring water, and give shelter to around 1.5 million people:The government said Thursday that the official death toll from the May 2-3 cyclone had climbed by almost 5,000 to 43,318. The number of missing has remained at 27,838 for at least two days.
But the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies estimated the death toll was between 68,833 and 127,990. The U.N. says more than 100,000 may have died.
The U.N. and the Red Cross say between 1.6 and 2.5 million people are in urgent need of food, water and shelter. Only 270,000 have been reached so far by the aid groups.
Tons of foreign aid including water, blankets, mosquito nets, tarpaulins, medicines and tents have been sent to Myanmar, but its delivery has been slowed down because of bottlenecks, poor infrastructure and bureaucratic tangles.
The junta insists on taking control of the distribution. It has allowed the U.N. and some other agencies to hand out the aid directly but prohibited their few foreign staff allowed into Myanmar from leaving Yangon, the country's main city.
Police have turned back foreigners from checkpoints at the city's exits.
The government said Thursday that the official death toll from the May 2-3 cyclone had climbed by almost 5,000 to 43,318. The number of missing has remained at 27,838 for at least two days.
But the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies estimated the death toll was between 68,833 and 127,990. The U.N. says more than 100,000 may have died.
The U.N. and the Red Cross say between 1.6 and 2.5 million people are in urgent need of food, water and shelter. Only 270,000 have been reached so far by the aid groups.
Tons of foreign aid including water, blankets, mosquito nets, tarpaulins, medicines and tents have been sent to Myanmar, but its delivery has been slowed down because of bottlenecks, poor infrastructure and bureaucratic tangles.
The junta insists on taking control of the distribution. It has allowed the U.N. and some other agencies to hand out the aid directly but prohibited their few foreign staff allowed into Myanmar from leaving Yangon, the country's main city.
Police have turned back foreigners from checkpoints at the city's exits.
Very soon now, disease will begin to ravage the suriviors as the tens of thousands of dead bodies become a breeding ground for all kinds of ailments. And with no food distribution to flooded towns and hamlets, those people are going to begin to starve to death with the weakest among them - the very young and very old - unable to survive. Apparently, some in the government may be cashing in on the relief bonanza: Myanmar's junta warned Thursday that legal action would be taken against people who trade or hoard international aid as the cyclone's death toll soared above 43,000.
It was the first acknowledgment by the military government, albeit indirectly, of problems with relief operations in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis.
The warning came amid reports that foreign aid was being sold openly in markets, and that the military was pilfering and diverting aid for its own use
The ruling junta has been blasted by aid agencies for refusing to allow most foreign experts into the hard-hit Irrawaddy delta and not responding adequately to what they say is a spiraling crisis.
Relief workers reported that some storm survivors were being given spoiled or poor-quality food rather than nutrition-rich biscuits sent by international donors, adding to fears that the ruling military junta in the Southeast Asian country could be misappropriating assistance.
New York-based Human Rights Watch said in a statement Wednesday that it had confirmed an Associated Press report that the military had seized high-energy biscuits that came from abroad, and distributed low-quality, locally produced biscuits to survivors.
The situation is only going to get worse.
Government health care and its complaints
Danny Huddleston
The promise of free government health care from Obama and Hillary is a tempting proposal. But before we jump on board let's take a look at how our cousins across the pond are doing. They've had "free" health care in England since 1948, and it seems they still haven't worked all the bugs out of the system. Here are some excerpts from an illuminating article in the left wing newspaper The Guardian:A big variation in the performance of NHS trusts across England is revealed today in the health inspectorate's annual survey of patients' experiences.
In some hospitals more than three-quarters of inpatients said the standard of care was excellent, compared with less than one quarter in others.
In the best trusts, staff almost invariably helped frail patients to eat, but in the worst nearly half the people who needed assistance at mealtimes said they did not get it.
There was also a wide variation between hospitals in the quality of food, cleanliness, responsiveness to call buttons and the proportion of patients expected to share bathrooms and toilets with members of the opposite sex.
The level of quality care seems uneven at best. A hospital in West London had an approval rating of only 24%, almost as bad as Congress! Here is a ground breaking idea they just instituted:
"Since last month people have had the right to choose between any NHS hospital in England and any private clinic meeting the Department of Health's standards on quality and cost."
Imagine, you can now go to any hospital. Maybe we should try that. Unfortunately effective infection control and good basic hygiene have gotten worse: Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said: "These results will make worrying reading for a government that claims to be committed to infection control and patient dignity. The key indicators of effective infection control - good basic hygiene - have got worse rather than better."
The Department of Health responded by publishing research from last year showing patients were more concerned about hospital cleanliness than single-sex accommodation. A Mori poll showed 58% of patients thought staying clean in hospital was most important, compared with 17% who wanted single-sex wards.
When you get a toothache in Great Britain the quality of care you'll be receiving is not your main concern, it's just hoping you can find a dentist. The conservative Telegraph has this story: People who cannot get an NHS dentist are pulling their teeth out with pliers and using Superglue to put caps back.
So declared Mike Penning, from the Tory front bench, in a bid to destroy the "complacent" picture of dentistry painted by Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary.
Let us leave the glue on one side, or beneath whatever caps it may be holding in place: what worried some of us was the thought of the pliers.
Canada is also having a few problems with their nationalized health care system as reported in this article from the Canadian Medical Association: It is well known that Canada is facing a shortage of maternity care providers in a trend that has been developing over the past two decades. This shortage is being felt most acutely in rural and remote communities. For years, maternity care has been provided in these communities by family physicians with the assistance of registered general nurses. Increasing numbers of family physicians are deciding not to provide intrapartum care. Rural hospitals are finding it equally difficult to attract nurses with maternity care experience.
In many cases, women and their families are leaving their home communities up to 4 weeks prior to their due dates and residing in hotels or with relatives until the birth of their baby. In the most remote communities, women are usually flown out alone, and accommodated in hostels located in large cities, completely unfamiliar to the expectant mothers. The emotional, social, and financial costs to these women and their families are immense.
It looks as though in order to get free health care we may have to give up a few perks such as "infection control" and "patient dignity." And we may have to become more adept at home dentistry. Maybe this is why the Democrats never give any examples of other countries where nationalized health care is a success worth emulating, because they can't find any.
The Obama-McCain relationship: some context
Lee Cary
This letter from Senator McCain to Senator Obama in 2006 is an historical reminder for past tension between the two men. February 6, 2006
The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Obama:
I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again.
As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.
You commented in your letter about my "interest in creating a task force to further study" this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate's return in January.
Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public's low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.
As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.
Sincerely,
John McCain
United States Senate
NYT's Journalism of Misdirection
Richard N. Weltz
Imagine: The President of the United States of America pays a friendly visit to Jamaica's Prime Minister in the capital city of Kingston. Shortly after his plane touches ground, the city of Ocho Rios is hit by a rocket fired at it by terrorists from nearby Montego Bay, injuring over a dozen adults and babies, some critically.Then, it turns out that the rocket has all the "fingerprints" of having been manufactured and supplied by Cuba. What do you suppose the US news coverage of that event would look like? Well, the actuality is that it was President Bush visiting Israel to help celebrate its 60th Birthday; the rocket was fired from Gaza; it hit the coastal city of Ashkelon; and it was manufactured and supplied by Iran. Front-page, top right column coverage in The New York Sun: Iran Role ‘Clearly Visible' in Attack on Israeli Mall
Rocket Falls Amid a Visit by BushBy Benny Avni, Staff Reporter of the Sun | May 15, 2008A rocket attack from Gaza at the heart of a major Israeli city, occurring just as President Bush launched a three-day visit to celebrate the Jewish state's 60th anniversary, may signify a major escalation in the intensifying regional confrontation between pro-American countries and Iranian-backed Islamist forces.
The New York Times, on the other (left) hand, chose to take note of the incident at the bottom of Page 6, and the rocket attack was deferred to its third paragraph, after reporters Sheryl Gay Stoler (who has apparently replaced Elisabeth Bumiller as the paper's designated Bush attack dog) and Ethan Bronner (seemingly leading the Jerusalem Bureaus antipathy-toward-Israel squad) first describe an action in which "Four Palestinians were killed, including two militants, and nine were wounded in a series of Israeli Army strikes and incursions into Gaza, said medics and witnesses there." Another lesson in the journalism of indirect misdirection.
American Thinker now accepting comments
editor's note
Beginning today, readers of American Thinker are enabled to submit comments for publication on our article and blog pages. This follows as a direct result of the generosity of hundreds of readers who have donated to our first-ever fundraiser this month.We look forward to intelligent and worthy commentary from our readers. We will not screen out contrary views, but there will be quality standards applied. All comments will be monitored before posting, so there will be a time lag between submission of a comment and its appearance on the relevant page. Please keep comments polite, do not libel anyone or engage in personal attacks. Please limit comments to the topic of the blog or article. Digressive comments will not be posted. Keep in mind that having a comment posted is not a right but a privilege.
We will no doubt encounter dilemmas and glitches along the way, so please bear with us as we work our way through these inevitable teething issues. But we look forward to becoming a broader forum and enjoying the wisdom and thought of our readers.
Protecting Not Polar Bears But Warmist Power
Marc Sheppard
In a move climate realists have dreaded for months, the polar bear was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act yesterday. Despite increasing numbers in recent decades, Ursus maritimus now distinguishes itself as the first creature ever officially endangered due to global warming. Bureaucratic actions this preposterous invariably mask ulterior motives, and this little doozy is certainly no exception.Under what is perhaps the nation's strictest environmental law, the bear's critical habitat must now be protected and a strategy formulated to assist its population's recovery. But unlike species whose dwindling numbers actually can be attributed primarily to the actions of man, such as their grizzly bear cousins (trains and cars), the gray whale or the sea otter (both from over-hunting), the polar bears' plight is purely model-based theory. And while you can fence off tracks and roads in national parks, and even regulate harpooning and trapping, how do you protect an animal from a warming planet? Any guesses? Detractors of the action argued that it would force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to regulate the cause of the danger -- which greenies have convinced the masses to be CO2 emissions from tailpipes and smokestacks. As this would clearly be outside the Service's jurisdiction, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne reassured us that he'd personally make sure it didn't happen. Adding: "Listing the polar bear as threatened can reduce avoidable losses of polar bears, but it should not open the door to use the E.S.A. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
What nonsense -- the slippery secretary is well aware that -- thanks to last year's absurd Supreme Court declaration of CO2 as an air pollutant -- it won't need to. Kempthorne knows full well that the greenie groups that demanded the ESA listing are mostly the same that are pressuring the Environmental Protection Agency to declare CO2 a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. And that they have the lawsuits of 17 states and Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works chair Barbara Boxer behind their ridiculous demands. Should they prevail, the EPA would, indeed, be in control of airborne carbon. And beyond inevitably materializing the green dream of cap-and-trade by regulatory decree, it would - in confluence with yesterday's dreadful decision -- empower unelected bureaucrats to levy huge ESA violation penalties against "polluters." And that's just for starters. Susan Casey-Lefkowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council said that, while she was glad that the Bush administration was finally acknowledging "the threat posed by global warming," the polar bear listing [my emphasis] "does not go nearly far enough." One thing the media, policy makers, and presidential candidates of all flavors never seem to savvy is that attempts to placate the enviro-mental cases never do go nearly far enough. It's never more than "a good start." Now consider this -- taken but a miniscule regulatory step further, a family motoring about in an SUV in Texas could be cited not only for polluting under the Clean Air Act, but as their "pollution" has been regulated as a global warming contributor, they could be further fined under the Endangered Species Act for harming the protected polar bear. Did I mention that penalties for such ESA transgressions can be a maximum fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for one year, or both -- per violation? Such - not solar or wind -- represents the true power sought by warmists.
|
|
|
