Category: Uncategorized

From the Morocco Times:

France Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said that “13,000 undocumented immigrants have been expelled in eight months,” and he is now committed to sending 10,000 more illegal foreigners home before the end of 2005, reported the Moroccan daily Assabah on Tuesday. He urged the police authorities to work hard to meet this goal….

Sarkozy has refused all the attempts made by different humanitarian associations and communities, explaining that “the European Court of Human Rights does not allow people to live wherever they like,” added the Moroccan daily. “Some countries refuse to cooperate with France in this respect, namely Belarusia, Cameroon, Egypt, Georgia, Guinea, Pakistan, Serbia and Sudan,” stated the same source.

“France, in return, will limit the quotas of visas given to citizens coming from these countries and wishing to go to France,” warned Sarkozy.

Interesting, is it not, that those feckless Europeans, so unwilling to go to war halfway across the world, are nevertheless able to identify their internal problem and deal with it. Of course, as I wrote before, the Europeans have never made it a habit to deal kindly with out-of-favor minorities once they are deemed overly troublesome.

Halation sees, but fails to grok:

it does so amuse me to see men prattle on about the stunted ‘child-like’ minds of incompetent wimminfolk in one breath, and in the next breath begin squealing ‘harems! harems! BOOBIES!’

The very significant difference is that men, for the most part, do not see fit to write their childish interests into legislation. If they were, there would be no taxation on breast augmentation, indeed, there would be subsidized plastic surgery or perhaps it would be mandatory for those deemed genetically challenged.

Women, on the other hand, don’t even blink about lobbying to have their notoriously variable feelings made into enforceable law. Thus, it is illegal to look at a woman if the woman doesn’t want you to look at her, however, if you happen to be someone that she wants looking at her in precisely the same way, it is not illegal. This form of so-called sexual harassment is the epitome of bad law, or rather, it is not law at all, it merely puts the force of the legal system behind an individual woman’s feelings.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with being childish. But there is something deeply wrong and dangerous with basing a system of government on childish and wishful thinking.

1. Week One picks are tough. Chokechain and I finished 8-8, in 42nd place out of 100+ with 67 points, 32 points behind the leader and below the dread Annabella line. The White Buffalo did even worse, finishing in 50th. Last year, we started even slower; the WB finished 2nd and we finished 14th in a 88-man pool.

2. The Vikings looked terrible. Daunte looked terrible and the running game was nonexistent. I’m not giving up hope on the season, however, because our problems are theoretically fixable. Green Bay’s, on the other hand, aren’t. The fact that neither team’s coach is ever going to be confused as a genius suggests that while a division win is still likely in the cards for the Purple, they’re unlikely to do much in the playoffs.

3. Speaking of coaches named Mike who won’t be confused with geniuses, let’s all enjoy the last whacky gasps of the Martz era. Martz is the anti-Belicheck, never content to keep it simple when he can screw things up and outsmart himself. It happened to work last week, but seriously, what other coach in the league goes for it on fourth and ten from the 34 when you need two scores and there’s almost four minutes left? Kick the field goal! (And I’d still say that even if I didn’t have Jeff Wilkins while Chokechain had both Bulger and Holt going.)

4. If I were Bill Cowher, I’d keep the Bus in the garage and ride the Parker light rail express for another week or two. (And I’d still say that even if I didn’t want to start Parker against the WB next week.)

5. Eli Manning doesn’t appear to suck this year. His two interceptions were not mistakes but excellent defensive plays instead and he also threw a lovely spiral to the corner that hit the base of the pylon at the back of the end zone. Nice arm. Unfortunately, his receiver had pulled up short so it was for naught. Kurt Warner looked all right, but the Arizona running game didn’t.

6. I’ve always liked Trent Dilfer as a quarterback and I expect the Browns will do a little better than people think thanks to him. But not much better. Still, there’s a lot to be said for a quarterback who may not win the game for you, but won’t lose it either.

7. Michael Vick: still overrated.

8. It’s way too soon to declare that the Tuna has rejuvenated Drew Bledsoe and that Dallas will return to the playoffs, but keep in mind that Phil Simms wasn’t exactly the Peyton Manning of his day either. Let’s see… strong defense, check. Bruising running game, check. Decent QB throwing high percentage balls, maybe. Whether you like Bledsoe or not, he’s a big upgrade from Testaverde and that was an impressive win over a solid AFC playoff contender.

9. Denver looked really bad. I don’t know why Mike Shanahan thought that he could turn Jake Plummer into the second coming of John Elway, I just know that he’s wrong and Jake is still The Fake. I’m not sure Plummer even had a completion in the first half.

10. Cadillac Williams looks pretty good, but I thought Ronnie Brown looked even better, Williams one long run against a Vikings defense that had given up notwithstanding. It surprised me that Cedric Benson got in the game after so little time with the team. Arrington showed nothing, but the new Giants rookie looks like what Ron Dayne was supposed to be.

Mr. Joseph Farah writes on WND:

ohn Roberts still has most conservatives buffaloed. They just can’t believe George W. Bush would betray them so boldly. But he has.

Even I, the ultimate skeptic, am just beginning to fathom the extent of the shell game that has been played on conservatives – most of whom are actively working on behalf of the confirmation of a new chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who will make Ruth Bader Ginsberg look like a moderate.

That’s right.

Up until now, I’ve been comparing Roberts to Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. I’ve got news for you. He’s worse.

I like and respect Mr. Farah, but the ultimate skeptic he’s not. I’m not even the ultimate skeptic on WND’s Commentary page – I was initially willing to grudgingly follow the administration’s lead on Iraq – that honor belongs to Mr. Patrick J. Buchanan.

Mr. Farah is, of course, right on soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts. I’d encourage all of those conservatives who voted for George Bush because of the Supreme Court nominations to keep that in mind once it’s Roberts who has them putting on sackcloth and gnashing their teeth again.

From Ananova:

A new political party in Sweden says it will abolish marriage if it gets into power. The Feminist Initiative, which expects more than 20% of the vote in next year’s election, claims marriage “is not about love, but about ownership”.

FI founder Tiina Rosenberg, said: “Instead of marriage we want to promote a co-habitation law that ignores gender and allows more than two people in a partnership.”

But she said in allowing relationships to involve more than two people, the FI did not want Sweden to fall back into a “patriarchal structure” with one man having a harem of women. “A man who lives with eight women in a patriarchal structure, where the man decides and the women obey is not what we are aiming for,” said Rosenberg.

And in order to encourage men to vote for them as well, the party’s all-female board is also calling for the introduction of a six-hour working day.

I do so enjoy the smell of unintended consequences in the morning. Is anyone willing to bet against my assertion that if this law passes the Swedish parliament, that patriarchal harem system for which they are not aiming is exactly what they’ll get? I hope this party does come to power, as it would not only produce some interesting column fodder, but months, if not years, of amusement as Sweden falls apart.

I daresay more than a few men will support them, not so because proposed six-hour workday but due to the inherent appeal of constructing their own Swedish Bikini Team. More than 20 percent of the vote, that’s impressive. And it is only one of the many reasons why women should no more have the right to vote than toddlers should have the right to bear arms.

I have no doubt that many people will consider that to be an anti-women statement. And yet, I’m not the one supporting the extermination of little girls, forcing them into the labor force, using the law to prevent them from marrying men who will provide for and protect them and demolishing the underpinnings of the one society that has afforded them better lives than any other society in history.

The NYT talks with Ms Sex and the City about her new book:

Trading a Pursuit of Mr. Right for the Chance to Be Ms. Big

In Candace Bushnell’s new novel, “Lipstick Jungle,” women wear the pants, pay the bills and compete with the big boys of corporate America. They’re a far cry from the man-hunting heroines of Ms. Bushnell’s “Sex and the City” – they are not looking to be swept off their pedicured feet, nor are they content to be the proverbial woman behind every great man. In fact, more often than not, the XY chromosomes in Ms. Bushnell’s jungle are depicted as spineless, useless, or worse – ridiculous.

“The women in this book have realized that you can’t completely rely on men,” said Ms. Bushnell, perched on a pink leather ottoman in her sun-drenched Greenwich Village apartment one recent afternoon. “Women have got to rely on themselves.”

This sisters-are-doing-it-for-themselves sentiment saturates “Lipstick Jungle” (Hyperion), which Ms. Bushnell calls her most feminist work to date. In it she writes, “Success and self-actualization was what really made women glow – they shone with the fullness of life.” Female characters strive to be billionaires, to own yachts, to be mistresses of the universe.

At this rate, Ms Bushnell’s next book will be entitled “Bull-Dyke Divorcees”. Funny, how the word “ridiculous” does spring to mind so quickly when Ms Bushnell’s work is discussed. Her entire ouvre is based on appealing to those who want to think women are just like men, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

From the NZZ am Sonntag:

Members of parliament from the main political parties have set out to change the constitution to make full-day school available throughout Switzerland. The “coalition of mothers and grandmothers” wants to give parents the option to leave their children at school for the whole day. Their initiative will be launched in the autumn session of parliament.

Currently the vast majority of Swiss schools close for lunch with the expectation that children return home to eat their midday meal. Studies have shown that this makes it difficult for parents to juggle work and family life.

The alliance of women politicians wants local authorities to be obliged to provide a full school day for children for the entire period of compulsory schooling.

Why don’t the Swiss just pass a law giving parents the option to hand their children over to the state permanently? Of course, one wouldn’t dream of questioning that parents who don’t want to raise their children love their kids any less than those who actually prefer to spend time with them.

And you know it’s a women’s issue any time the words “compulsory” and “obliged” are involved.

JCC sounds the alarm:

Uh-Oh, Vox just capped on the Iron Lady, Margie Thatcher in his column. Better find a place to duck behind as the conservative blowhards have an apopletic fit over this one!

I am an admirer of Lady Thatcher, and had the privilege of hearing her speak once at the Center for the American Experiment a few years ago. But my regard for her does not change the fact that she was primarily responsible for Britain’s loss of national sovereignty to the European Union.

She alone had the stature to keep Britain out of the EU, but sadly, she failed to understand the true nature of the beast in time. It is pretty clear that unlike the Bushes and Clintons, all four of whom are enthusiastic globalists dedicated to creating the American Union, Thatcher was fooled into bringing Britain into what she thought was nothing more than a free trade zone. Her memoirs and subsequent actions also demonstrate how she bitterly regrets her decision to do so now. Even in retirement, she is one of Britain’s strongest voices against the abandonment of the pound sterling, which is one of the last vestiges of British independence.

Her betrayal of her country was inadvertant, and so very different than the treacheries of the other elected leaders I mentioned today, but the results are essentially the same, namely, subservience for the people of the nation she led.

From Reason:

Last week, we saw an awful truth in New Orleans: A disaster can bring out predators ready to loot, rampage, and pillage the moment that they have the opportunity. Now we are seeing another awful truth: There is no shortage of police officers and National Guardsmen who will obey illegal orders to threaten peaceful citizens at gunpoint and confiscate their firearms.

Is it necessary for Americans to rethink this whole idea of “supporting the troops” after all? If the US military is perfectly willing to violate their oaths to the Constitution and use force to disarm the American people, then the more of them that are killed and incapacitated in Iraq, the better off Americans as a whole will be.

After all, you can’t claim to be fighting in defense of American freedoms abroad when you are simultaneously violating them at home. No soldier gets a free pass for simply taking the oath to the Constitution, he has to uphold it as well.

However, I have read that the federal authorities involved have declared that they have not and will not issue any orders to seize private firearms. I’d be a little more concerned about Louisiana’s cretin of a governor issuing orders violating both the national and state constitutions except for the fact that her demonstrably epic ineptitude tends to reduce the likelihood of these orders being a cunning anticonstitutional conspiracy.

Still, it is no small matter of concern that the Louisiana police and National Guard have been so willing to accede to these illegal and totalitarian orders.

The NYT’s house conservative may not be a conservative, but David Brooks does have an amusing sense of the ridiculous:

Among the many achievements of the human race – Chartres Cathedral, the Mona Lisa – surely the New Orleans emergency preparedness plan must rank among the greatest, and the fact that this plan turned out to be irrelevant to reality should not detract from its stature as a masterpiece of bureaucratic thinking…. One can imagine the PowerPoint presentations! The millions of cascading bullet points! The infinity of hours spent planning a hurricane response that would make a Prussian officer gasp with reverence!

The quality of the facilitating must have been surpassed only by the magnificence of the interfacing!

And the bureaucrats wonder why the masses despise them in spite of their selfless “public service”.