tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17547465772425394682024-03-13T12:33:41.288-04:00Wrathful Dakini ModeA blog about human rights, democracy, Asia, politics and other stuff that brings out my inner dakini.Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-59673543326479130002009-11-25T00:23:00.003-05:002009-11-25T00:26:57.296-05:00Breaking News – Angelina Jolie Not a Fan of Obama<div>I don't even care if this is really true. But I do think I know who has been talking to US Weekly...</div><div><br /></div><a href="http://www.usmagazine.com/celebritynews/news/angelina-jolie-not-a-fan-of-obama-20092411">Angelina Jolie Not a Fan of Obama – Celebrity News – UsMagazine.com</a><br /><br />Posted using <a href="http://sharethis.com/">ShareThis</a>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-11454170960201966482009-09-10T23:29:00.005-04:002009-09-13T21:37:22.364-04:00Tom Friedman's Chinese DreamsTom Friedman is a big fat idiot with a ridiculous porn-stache. There. I said it. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1">Exhibit A</a> (actually - there are many many examples but this is just the most recent): the vile piece of nonsense that was published as his column by the newspaper formerly known as the New York Times yesterday, extolling the virtues of the fascist Chinese state. Here is the money quote:<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family:'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;font-size:11px;"><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-weight: normal; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; font-size:13px;"><span class="UIStory_Message"><div id="id_4aa9c47865580778692ad" class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" style="display: inline; "></div></span></h3></span></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family:'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;font-size:11px;"><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-weight: normal; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; font-size:13px;"><span class="UIStory_Message"><div id="id_4aa9c47865580778692ad" class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" style="display: inline; ">"One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; "> just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century." </span></div></span></h3></span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>Friedman should be forced to go and try to work as a journalist in China for a year (or better yet, a coal miner), and then come back and talk about what an enlightened "green" dictatorship they are running over there. Forget about human rights, forced abortion, the Tibetans, the Uighurs, the horrible illegal brick kilns filled with child slave labor, the rivers that have turned black from industrial waste, blah blah blah; they banned plastic bags! China will save us all! </div><div><br /></div><div>Three Pulitzer Prizes. This idiot has won three Pulitzers. Honest to Betsy.</div><div><br /></div><div>On the bright side, maybe this will help make more people aware of what an absolute blathering hypocrite of a moron Friedman has become. From his <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/16/matt-taibbi-takes-on-tom-_n_158426.html">sasquatchian carbon footprint</a> to his fawning leadership of the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/opinion/17friedman.html">Van Jones mutual admiration society</a>, I think we may be seeing the jumping of the shark by this fool. At least I hope so. But then again, this is the New York Times - home of the execrable Maureen Dowd, so my hope is probably badly misplaced.</div><div><br /></div><div>UPDATE: FWIW, A guy has started <a href="http://firethomasfriedman.blogspot.com/">a blog</a> after reading this atrocious article calling on the NYT to fire Friedman. </div><div><br /></div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-59529638161232022932009-08-15T22:34:00.005-04:002009-08-16T01:04:35.674-04:00I am calmer now but Jim Webb is still an idiotOk. This guy goes to Burma to tell the junta he doesn't like sanctions on them either, and ends up engaged in a little <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090815/ap_on_re_as/as_myanmar_us_senator;_ylt=Aqt043Sl_dbhTfkgAend336s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTMzOWhncmgxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwODE1L2FzX215YW5tYXJfdXNfc2VuYXRvcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3NlbmF0b3J3aW5zcg--">hostage diplomacy </a>with the military dictatorship. Who does this guy think he is anyway - Bill Clinton? Well, Than Shwe seems to be channeling Kim Jung Il, so why not. And he got to meet with Suu? She should have told him to go jump in Lake Inya, along with his new traveling companion, but she is way to classy for that. I hope that she was able to explain to him how he is being used by the junta, since he can't figure it out for himself. For instance: <div></div><blockquote><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; ">"It is my hope that we can take advantage of these gestures as a way to begin laying a foundation of goodwill and confidence-building in the future," Webb said in the statement.</span></div></blockquote><div><div><br /></div><div>Riiight. I am really annoyed right now. What is wrong with Virginia? Also, remember that this guy was seriously being considered by The One as vice president material? God help us. And the left makes fun of Palin. This nitwit makes her look positively statesmanlike. And poor Suu having to sit across from this guy for 40 minutes. I suspect that 2 minutes into the meeting she was wishing she could go back under house arrest.</div></div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-28661140245618329172009-08-15T22:24:00.001-04:002009-08-15T22:26:59.673-04:00Jim Webb is an Idiot<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8203253.stm">Honestly</a>.<div>That is all.</div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-70419204057336148192009-08-15T22:12:00.003-04:002009-08-15T22:23:44.543-04:00Seeking truth from facts<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">The International Campaign for Tibet highlighted an interesting </span><a href="http://www.danwei.org/front_page_of_the_day/blaming_people_not_knowing_the.php"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Xinhua editorial</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"> earlier this week in a </span><a href="http://weblog.savetibet.org/2009/08/06/tibet-and-the-“people-who-don’t-know-the-truth”/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">post on their blog</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">. The Xinhua article was about "mass incidents" in China, specifically </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/world/asia/27steelchina.html?_r=1"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">one at a steel mill in Jilin province</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">, and criticized the government for saying that the reason for these incidents was that those who rose up against the authorities "don't know the truth." This editorial says that if this is the real cause of anti-government actions, then simply telling the citizens involved "the truth" should be sufficient to stop them from striking out against officialdom. Now, Xinhua is of course talking about the kind of localized protests and anti-government violence that occurs all over China every day (some 90,000 times a year, apparently), but ICT's Stewart Watters makes the point that: </span><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; line-height: 22px; "></span></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; line-height: 22px; ">One of the challenges that Tibetans and their supporters face is to reach a point where commentators like Huang Guan or Chinese officials or ordinary Chinese citizens can begin to draw parallels between their own mistrust of the way the government characterizes and responds to mass incidents, and the factors that lie behind the Tibetan mistrust of Beijing.</span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Good point!</span></span></span></div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-57851915432687007812009-08-14T13:34:00.004-04:002009-08-14T14:12:54.445-04:00Xu ZhiyongGreat <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/13/AR2009081303106.html">editorial today in Wash Post</a> about Xu. The lede is priceless and a stinging indictment of the current US approach to China: <div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman', times, fantasy;font-size:17px;"><blockquote>AT THE CONCLUSION of the Strategic Economic Dialogue on July 28, the United States and China issued a news release affirming "the importance of the rule of law to our two countries." One day later, Chinese police led prominent legal scholar Xu Zhiyong out of his apartment to be detained indefinitely.</blockquote></span><br /><div>I hope someone in the White House, Foggy Bottom or Treasury bothers to read it and takes a moment to absorb.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here is a Xu quote that inspires me to have faith in the Chinese people despite their evil government: </div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family:'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;font-size:11px;"><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" style="font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-weight: normal; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; "><blockquote>"I strive to be a worthy Chinese citizen, a member of the group of people who promote the progress of the nation. I want to make people believe in ideals and justice, and help them see the hope of change.”</blockquote></h3></span></div><div>Obama is reportedly going to China in November. There are any number of ways he could either make this situation worse or better. If he did nothing but talk about this case, in excruciating detail, it would be a serious "teachable moment" for both the Chinese and the Chinapologists in the Administration. It really is China's human rights situation in microcosm.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-66847520158407873202009-08-12T20:27:00.003-04:002009-08-13T10:18:52.465-04:00With Friends Like TheseFurther to <a href="http://wrathfuldakini.blogspot.com/2009/08/where-is-american-leadership-on-burma.html">my post yesterday</a> on Aung San Suu Kyi's continued detention, the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/11/AR2009081102936.html">Washington</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/11/AR2009081102936.html">Post had a good lead editorial</a> today that called out the US admin for empty rhetoric. Here's a grab:<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;"><div id="article"><div id="article_body" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', times, serif; font-size: 1.5em; padding-left: 10px; "><div id="body_after_content_column"><p></p><blockquote><p>There are measures that could be tried: coordinated financial sanctions aimed at the leaders who profit from their compatriots' misery, for example, or a real arms embargo -- particularly apt given recent <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/hrp/documents/Crimes-in-Burma.pdf" target="" style="text-decoration: underline; color: rgb(12, 71, 144); ">report</a>s of Burmese cooperation with North Korea in nuclear affairs. A May report by the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School, commissioned by eminent former judges such as Patricia Wald of the United States and Richard Goldstone of South Africa, compellingly laid out sufficient evidence of the junta's crimes against humanity to justify a U.N. Security Council Commission of Inquiry that could lead to charges in the International Criminal Court. Russia and China, defenders of despots, would be obstacles, but perhaps not insuperable ones, if the United States, Southeast Asia and Europe made this a priority.</p><p>And where is the United States? Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced early in her tenure a review of U.S. policy toward Burma. While the sham trial of Aung San Suu Kyi was taking place, that review was suspended, leaving the administration surprisingly unready to respond to Tuesday's events. The review will be resumed now -- with, we would hope, a sense of urgency that has been wanting so far.</p></blockquote><p></p><p></p></div><span id="aptureEndContent"></span></div></div></span></div><br /><br />Well said Fred.Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-88193103586719190892009-08-12T16:52:00.004-04:002009-08-14T14:49:53.940-04:00The Queen Strikes AgainEven by Sheila Jackson-Lee standards, which are about as low as they come, this is outrageous. She is on the phone during a constituent meeting on health care. Who does this? Seriously! <div><div><br /></div><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-L3FnWNkIzU&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-L3FnWNkIzU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />But, then again, what do we expect from a woman who has been <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C000%5C867aejst.asp?pg=2">banned from flying on Continental Airlines because of her outrageous behavior</a>. How does someone this ignorant and arrogant get re-elected to Congress? Do her constituents have no self-respect? Un. Real.</div><div><br /></div><div>**UPDATE: The Queen talks to <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/08/13/cnns-sanchez-presses-rep-sheila-jackson-lee-town-hall-phone-use">Rick Sanchez at CNN</a> and makes a bizarre claim the video is doctored. Seriously - the woman is unhinged.</div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-10487383927925046312009-08-11T15:15:00.004-04:002009-08-13T10:22:07.538-04:00Where is American Leadership on Burma?Well. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/world/asia/12myanmar.html?fta=y">Burmese junta sent Aung San Suu Kyi back to house arrest</a> for 18 months today. This is, of course, just long enough to keep her out of circulation for the 2010 sham elections. She was actually sentenced to 3 years hard labor because an idiotic American broke into her house, which was surrounded by junta henchmen because she was -- wait for it -- under house arrest. Senior General Than Shwe personally commuted her sentence to house arrest. He must be clairvoyant, because the Burmese Home Minister showed up in her court room right after the sentence was announced with a note from Than Shwe. Here is what the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/11/aung-san-suu-kyi-guilty">Guardian</a> had to say:<div><br /></div><div><blockquote></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 18px; font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;"><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; background-repeat: no-repeat; "></p><blockquote><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; background-repeat: no-repeat; ">A diplomatic source who witnessed the verdict said Aung San Suu Kyi looked "unfazed" after the first sentence was read out. "It didn't seem to catch her by surprise at all," he told the Guardian on condition of anonymity. "She was unfazed by it. She did not look like someone who had just been sentenced to three years' hard labour."</p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; background-repeat: no-repeat; ">The announcement minutes later that her sentence had been commuted to 18 months' house arrest was "a choreographed attempt to get us to witness the leniency, clemency and humanity of the general [Than Shwe]", the source said. "But if the aim was to keep her out of circulation for the elections, then that is what they achieved."</p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; background-repeat: no-repeat; "><b>Before being led from the courtroom, Aung San Suu Kyi walked over to the diplomats and thanked them for attending her trial. "I look forward to working together for the future prosperity of my country," she was quoted as saying.</b></p></blockquote><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; background-repeat: no-repeat; "></p></span><div><br /></div><div>Girlfriend has got a pair. That kind of thing must just drive the regime crazy - the Lady has just been put back under house arrest, saved from hard labor (and it is hard) by the benevolence of Than Shwe, and she tells the dip corps she'll be working with them like she's gonna be in charge or something!</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, the idiot who broke into her house gave the ogres this opportunity on a silver platter; but even beyond the damage that this idiot did to Suu personally, he has done a broader disservice to the other 2100 political prisoners in Burma. He got 7 years hard labor for his foolishness, and until the day he is released, the US consulate general (we don't have an embassy in Rangoon) will have to devote resources to getting this yahoo released that could otherwise be devoted to getting Min Ko Naing or Nilar Thein released. </div><div><br /></div><div>It has already started, judging by the two sentences devoted to this nitwit in Secretary Clinton's statement on the trial. And about that statement - how weak was it? Well, the French and the Brits made us look pathetic. Both <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/world/asia/12reax.html">called for an arms embargo</a> against the regime, something that was absent from HRC's remarks. I guess she is <a href="http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2009/08/blowing-bridges.html">too busy haranguing African college students</a> to keep up. Or maybe she thinks that Senator Webb will deliver a tough message to the junta when he travels to Burma this month. No, wait - he is opposed to sanctions and wants to engage the junta. Nevermind.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is a truly sad commentary on how far US leadership has fallen on Burma. Last year, the US was pushing the Europeans to toughen their sanctions; today, France is making us look weak and confused. On a human rights issue we used to own. Again.</div><div><br /></div><div>While critics of the Obama administration will point to the litany of realpolitik engagement with the dictator-of-the-month strategies they have rolled out, I genuinely am flummoxed by Secretary Clinton's behavior on this one because she was so good on Burma before. I can only believe that the "we must do the opposite of whatever the Bush Administration did" mantra has wiped out her instinct to stand with Aung San Suu Kyi and push a tough policy forward. The truth is HRC should be taking lessons from Suu on how to be one tough b!+@# with style and grace. </div></div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-55855695608197761332009-08-07T10:12:00.004-04:002009-08-07T10:19:38.721-04:00Shutting down the internet to block a single dissidentYesterday's outages at Twitter, Facebook and Live Journal were <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10305200-245.html">apparently the result of an effort to target a single blogger in the Republic of Georgia</a> who is a well known critic of Russia. That the Russians would take down several of the most popular sites on the web just to shut down one guy says something really scary. This and the <a href="http://www.digital-media.net.au/article/chinese-hack-melbourne-international-film-festival-website/491755.aspx">Chinese DDOS attacks on the Melbourne International Film Festival </a>because of a documentary about Rebiya Kadeer remind us that we are dealing with criminal regimes. This remains true no matter that their leaders are invited to the G8 or G20 or their countries are veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council.Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-74193216008570299262009-08-07T10:01:00.006-04:002009-08-07T11:08:15.566-04:00Ferris: "We'll drive home backwards"<div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#0000EE;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;"><br /></span></span></div><div>This <a href="http://wellknowwhenwegetthere.blogspot.com/2009/08/sincerely-john-hughes.html">moving tribute</a> from a woman who was pen-pals with Hughes as an 80's teenager is one of the coolest things I have ever seen. The man was a genius and growing up in the 80's would have been a much lamer experience without him.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>And then there is <a href="http://denisboyles.com/PDRepublicans.html">this</a>:</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.denisboyles.com/images/PDRepublicans.jpg"><img src="http://www.denisboyles.com/images/PDRepublicans.jpg" border="0" alt="" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 590px; height: 798px; " /></a></div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-27360259131657531732009-08-06T17:50:00.002-04:002009-08-06T17:53:26.499-04:00wOrst president ever?Remember those bumper stickers with the big "W" and "worst president ever"?<div><br /></div><div>Well apparently not..if you believe this new <a href="http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/06/after-6-months-more-view-obamas-presidency-as-a-failure-than-bushs/">CNN poll</a></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Trebuchet MS', Geneva; font-size: medium; "><p style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; ">A rather surprising finding from the newly released CNN poll. Question three on the national survey of 1,136 adults (which includes an oversample of African-Americans) asks, "Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?"</p><p style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; ">Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they believe the Obama administration is a "failure," while 51% consider it a "success" and 11% say it's still "too soon to tell."</p><p style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; ">An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure." </p></span></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Trebuchet MS', Geneva; font-size: medium; "><p style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; "></p></span></div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-22711123156577941252009-08-05T13:16:00.008-04:002009-08-05T23:53:12.527-04:00The vast right-wing conspiracy, cleverly disguised as concerned citizens participating in representative democracyI don't even know where to start. I guess this <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/">Weekly Standard piece</a> is as good a place as any.<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family:'trebuchet ms', verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><p style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "></p><blockquote><p style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The Democratic Party will pay far lower a price for their immature rhetorical abuse of voters than the Republican Party would, thanks to many friends in the media who will take the press release at face value and investigate the "mobs" forthwith. The White House will pay a lower price than a Republican White House would have for asking citizens to report their neighbors to the administration for spreading anything "fishy" about the President's plans, even via "casual conversation." (Do you remember when local police directives to "see something, say something" to prevent possible terrorist attacks and Homeland Security suggestions to "report suspicious behavior" were a cause for civil libertarian outrage on the Left? But those were designed to protect mere buildings, not the vital mission of Medicare cost-savings and government-run health care, you see.)</p><p style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">But surely there will be some price to pay for equating nearly 60 percent of the voting public with "mobs of extremists." <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/08/05/poll-shows-perils-for-obamas-health-overhaul/tab/print/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102); text-decoration: underline; ">According to a new Qunippiac poll:</a></p><blockquote style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); padding-left: 8px; "><p style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "></p><p style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">In the Quinnipiac survey, 55% (including 54% of the key independent voter bloc) said they were more concerned that the overhaul would increase the deficit than that Congress would not pass some kind of overhaul. That same 57% (and <strong>59% of independents</strong>) disagreed with the following statement: “Overhauling the nation’s health care system is so important that it should be enacted even if it means substantially increasing the federal budget deficit.”</p><p style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The poll also contains another piece of the public opinion puzzle that Mr. Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership may find problematic: Voters by a large margin don’t want a health care overhaul if it can only garner Democratic votes. In other words, even though Democrats control both houses of Congress, voters are suspicious of a bill that only has Democratic support.</p><p style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The poll found 59% of the public disagreed (and only 36% agreed) with the following statement: Congress should approve a health care overhaul even if only Democrats support it.”</p></blockquote><p style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "></p><p style="font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">It's utterly probable that some—even many— of the concerned folks showing up at health-care town halls are the kind of older, white, Middle America Democrats Obama went to great pains to woo. The rows of VFW ballcaps and <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/05/boxer-protesters-too-well-dressed-to-be-sincere/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102); text-decoration: underline; ">suspiciously well-dressed protesters</a> bespeak a contingent of Hillary Democrats and even the ballyhooed Obamacans, convinced by Obama's moderate shtick and now left wondering what they got themselves into. And, if such folks are not in those crowds, they are in the 60 percent of voters who identify with them, as are the all-important Independents.</p><div></div></blockquote><div><br /></div></span></div><div><br /></div><div>When there were suggestions from certain right-leaning quarters that questioning or criticizing President Bush during wartime was somehow unpatriotic, I found that deeply offensive. I really do believe that reasonable people can disagree (but should do so reasonably -- i.e. using their powers of reason -- and without being disagreeable), and that our country is founded on the right of every person in it to hold whatever belief they want no matter how much I may disagree with it or even find it offensive. It is right there in the First Amendment.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now comes the Democratic party and White House itself basically saying that citizen activism, if it is in the form of objecting to Obamacare, is the behavior of an "extremist mob", and calling on their supporters to be on the lookout for those "fishy" people who might *gasp* have a different view on what needs to be done to reform America's health care system. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now I am just a consumer of health care and, I think, a relatively intelligent person. I am not a doctor or an economist or even a government bureaucrat (anymore). But, based on what I know about Obamacare from reading the paper and other "reputable" sources in the public domain: I am concerned about the costs of the plan as currently composed. I am skeptical of claims that the "public option" will not directly compete with (and destroy) private insurance. I am alarmed by Members of Congress whose sole job it is to legislate but who claim they are too busy to read, wait for it, legislation. I have other concerns about the Dems' proposed health care "reform" (lack of tort reform and other serious cost control measures, remaking the whole system rather than taking practical steps to insure the uninsured who want insurance, etc.). I guess this officially makes me an extremist wing-nut of the most dangerous sort (along with such well-known crazies as <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/organization/od.htm">Doug Elmendorf</a>, head of the radical Congressional Budget Office). I suppose I should be expecting a visit from the FBI or the DNC (or maybe <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/25/video-acorn-affilates-go-nuts-on-tea-party-activists/">ACORN</a>) any day now. If this blog goes silent, you'll know why. </div><div><br /></div><div>UPDATE: Senator Cornyn has written to Obama calling on him to knock it off with the enemies list. TWS blog has the letter <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/cornyn_to_obama_stop_with_the.asp">here</a>.</div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-13483548919205512572009-08-04T17:09:00.004-04:002009-08-05T00:47:56.694-04:00Gibbs on A'jad: "He's the elected leader"Stunning. <div><br /></div><div>Video of Gibbs saying that A'jad is the "elected leader" <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOlLQd_MsLg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eweeklystandard%2Ecom%2Fweblogs%2FTWSFP%2F&feature=player_embedded">here</a>.<br /><div><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zOlLQd_MsLg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zOlLQd_MsLg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> This is just unbelievable. <div><br /></div><div>But I guess it should not be surprising coming from an Administration that is <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/">asking people to inform on their neighbors</a>. It annoys me that these people are turning me into a wingnut.<div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div></div></div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-11496796730210175492009-08-04T10:49:00.004-04:002009-08-04T10:59:10.917-04:00The Global Climate Change Agenda vs. Prosperity & Freedom<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574327992553917308.html">Excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal</a> about freedom, the poor and climate change. Money quote:<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 10px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10px;"><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 8px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 8px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.3em; line-height: 1.5em; display: block; "></p><blockquote><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 8px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 8px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.3em; line-height: 1.5em; display: block; ">The real source of China’s pollution problem is a state-led industrial policy geared toward production, and state-owned enterprises (especially in “dirty” sectors like coal and steel) that strive to meet production quotas, and state-appointed managers who don’t mind cutting corners in matters of safety or environmental responsibility, and typically have the political clout to insulate themselves from any public fallout.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 8px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 8px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.3em; line-height: 1.5em; display: block; "><b>In other words, China’s pollution problems are not a function of laissez-faire policies and rampant consumerism, but of the regime’s excessive lingering control of the economy. A freer China means a cleaner China.</b></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 8px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 8px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.3em; line-height: 1.5em; display: block; ">There’s a lesson in this for those who believe that the world’s environmental problems call for a new era of dirigisme. And there ought to be a lesson for those who claim to understand the problems of the poor better than the poor themselves. If global warming really is the catastrophe the alarmists claim, the least they can do for its victims is not to patronize them while impoverishing them in the bargain.</p></blockquote></span></div><div>Having traveled the world - including India & China - I have to say that in my experience, the poorer a place is, the dirtier it is and the converse is true (Ever been to Geneva? Do those people even have trash?). Hard to imagine why poor countries and people should want to remain poor, or even accept an enormous one-time wealth transfer (we won't be able to afford another one since we can't even really afford the first one) from rich countries to clean up their environment if the trade off is that they have to stay poor in perpetuity because they aren't allowed to grow their economy, er I mean increase their CO2 output. Shocking that less developed countries aren't leaping onto the climate bandwagon!</div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-57911080403981651762009-08-03T16:10:00.005-04:002009-08-03T16:22:41.604-04:00The Nork/SLORC connectionA few years back when I heard that the Burmese were getting help from the Russians to build a nuclear reactor, my thought was "Yikes, that is scary; those idiots couldn't run a fruit stand, let alone a nuclear reactor." Now there seems to be <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/revealed-burma8217s-nuclear-bombshell/2009/07/31/1248977197673.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1">increasing evidence</a> that Than Shwe and crew are trying to follow in the footsteps of North Korea, literally, and develop their own nuclear weapon. To say this is bad is like saying the mainstream media thinks highly of President Obama. <div><br /></div><div>Apparently I was wrong to think of them as idiots. The Burmese junta formerly known as the SLORC (sounds like a bad-guy name out of Austin Powers or Get Smart, right?) is crazy, but they they are not stupid. They have watched the past decade plus of North Korean and Iranian nuclear brinksmanship -- and the corresponding attention, financial aid, business relationships, etc. it has earned for the rulers of those two regimes -- and decided "I gots to get me some of that." Their logic, which is irrefutable based on US policy responses over the past 15 years, is that if they get the bomb or even just make everyone think they are trying to or close or something, the West will stop picking on them and start showing respect.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thanks Chris Hill - add another win to your column. And thanks also to China for all their "help" with Burma - couldn't have done it without you, as usual.</div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-90335460694154727152009-08-02T14:53:00.007-04:002009-08-03T16:38:44.979-04:00Too big to pass: the death of American democracy?This <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024175.php">blog from Powerline</a>, ostensibly about health care, but applicable to pretty much anything Congress is doing these days, is right on the money. The title is "Too Big to Fail" and it gets to the heart of one of the biggest problems with Congress today: members of both parties failing to live up to their most basic responsibilities as legislators. They don't read the bills they vote on. They don't think about the issues independently - they either do what their party, favorite lobbyists, or constituents tell them to do, rather than having a set of ** gasp ** core principles that they are able to clearly articulate to the electorate and use as guides for evaluating the various legislative proposals that come before them. Principled leadership is for suckers. To whit: <div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(32, 32, 32); line-height: 18px; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><p style="margin-top: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; "></p><blockquote><p style="margin-top: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">So I would propose a simple, bright-line rule. In recent months many observers have said that if a company is too big to fail (i.e., in a pinch the government will bail it out), then it is too big to exist. I think there is a lot of merit to that idea. Here is my corollary: if a bill is too vast for a Congressman to read and understand, it is too big to pass. If a Congressman can't read the bill, he shouldn't vote for it. The appropriate response to any such legislation is: just vote "No."</p><div></div></blockquote><div><br /></div></span><div>Abso-freakin-lutely. <b>We are watching the destruction of representative democracy before our very eyes.</b> The innovative vision of representative democracy that enlivens our Constitution has been hollowed out by a government that is so big that no one individual can possibly understand its component parts in a coherent way, which makes it possible for those who understand any one corner of the vast bureaucracy to set up a lucrative little empire based on doing so - be they legislator, bureaucrat, lobbyist, journalist, etc. Aggregated, these little empires grow and distort our government in ways that would horrify our founding fathers. The best hope for saving it is the promise of modern communication and social networking as tools for citizen activism. These tools have the potential to create mechanisms to absorb, comprehend and start shaping these complex systems in a way that individual citizens, acting alone or even in localized groups, cannot. On the plus side, technology moves faster than bureaucracy so innovation is on our side; liberals have embraced these technologies to advance an anti-freedom party and agenda, but the conservative side is starting to catch up. Will it be enough?</div><div><br /></div><div>UPDATE *8-3-09: Mark Steyn at NRO agrees: </div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; line-height: 20px; "><blockquote></blockquote></span></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; line-height: 20px; ">Rule by anonymous technocrats is a form of tyranny, however benign.</span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>See the whole thing <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTYzYmY4ZjFjZGNmN2U2NzY4ODY0ODY5ZjVmYzA1ODg=">here</a>.</div><div><br /></div></div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-28036249117945639602009-07-31T15:14:00.003-04:002009-07-31T15:15:40.596-04:00off topic postNot something I usually write about, but <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mjg4OWE3OGNmNjgzZWU0ZTcwMTdjYjRlYmIxZjVhOWU=">this</a> kind of struck a nerve with me today:<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; line-height: 20px; "></span></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times; line-height: 20px; ">We can either spend a trillion dollars and get a two-tier health system or not spend a trillion dollars and get a two-tier health system. To get a one-tier health system, you have to outlaw money.</span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;">Yep.</span></span></div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-75511255790647130422009-07-24T13:06:00.003-04:002009-07-24T13:19:40.898-04:00Rasmussen: Obama, Boxer both below 50%<a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll">Rasmussen</a> has Obama below 50% approval for the first time in his presidency. His strong favorable/strong unfavorable differential has now reached 8 points. This is on the heels of polling that showed Obama tied with Romney in possible<a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/2012_match_ups_obama_romney_tied_at_45_obama_48_palin_42"> 2012 matchup polling</a>, and only beating Sarah Palin by 6 points (!). Think about the past six months of media coverage each of them has had as you ponder that...<div><br /></div><div>They are also reporting that Barbara "Don't Call me Ma'am" Boxer is "clinging to a <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/california/election_2010_california_senate">4 point lead" </a>in a theoretical race with Carly Fiorino. At 45%, Boxer is well below the half-way point. Considering she is a well-funded Democratic incumbent in one of the most heavily Democratic states in the country, this is what the President would call an "unhelpful" poll. There was also a story in <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25309.html">Politico</a> yesterday about how her Dem colleagues in the Senate are concerned that her shrill personality and abrasive style - leading causes of recent bad press - are going to tank the cap & tax bill.</div><div><br /></div><div>Glimmers of hope for the GOP, but it needs to have something to offer voters as Dems keep the machine gun aimed at their big toe.</div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-51856410189008814012009-07-23T17:56:00.003-04:002009-07-23T18:17:00.778-04:00NORKS go postal on Hilary while she flops around on BurmaThis is just too hilarious. Apparently the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/world/asia/24diplo.html?nl=pol&emc=pola1">North Koreans have issued a charming statement</a> in response to HRC calling them unruly children, and it is in classic Nork-speak:<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; "><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}" style="font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-weight: normal; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; "><br /></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}" style="font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-weight: normal; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; "></h3></span></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; "><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" ft="{"type":"msg"}" style="font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-weight: normal; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; ">“We cannot but regard Mrs. Clinton as a funny lady as she likes to utter such rhetoric, unaware of the elementary etiquette in the international community,” the North Korean statement said. “Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping.”</h3></span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>Love it.</div><div><br /></div><div>This comes on the same day when HRC is all over the map on Burma, coming in with a policy today that is nearly the polar opposite of the one she was espousing yesterday, to whit from today's Wash Post: </div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', times, fantasy; font-size: 17px; "><blockquote>The release of Suu Kyi is "critical" to easing the strained relations between Burma and the United States, Clinton said. "If she were released, that would open up opportunities at least for my country to expand our relationship with Burma, including investments in Burma," she told reporters while attending a regional security forum.</blockquote></span></div><div>Really, all she had to do was get of the plane and not say something incredibly stupid to one-up the fact that Condi could not be bothered to go to an ASEAN ministerial. Oh well.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-16914719188045285632009-07-20T16:31:00.003-04:002009-07-20T16:39:39.238-04:00In the name of AllahThis has to be one of the sickest things I have ever heard. The <a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443842931&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull">Jerusalem Post</a> interviews an Iranian Basiji, who talks about his time as a prison guard. One of his rewards for being so good at his job (i.e. being a thug for hire) was the honor to temporarily "marry" young girls who were being executed. WARNING: this is horrific and not for the squeamish.<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; "><blockquote>In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin, he explained. Therefore a "wedding" ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard - essentially raped by her "husband."</blockquote></span></div><div><br /></div><div>And he said this in response to a question about why he regretted these rapes even though they were "legal":</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; "><p></p><blockquote><p>"Because," he went on, "I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their 'wedding' night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning. And they would always fight back, so we would have to put sleeping pills in their food. By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die.</p><div></div></blockquote><div><br /></div></span></div><div>Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!? How does this regime consider itself ordained by God? As one commentator said, it must be nice to be able to craft laws to accommodate your depravity. This is the true face of the Iranian regime and this is why the Obama policy of trying to make a deal with these amoral freaks is wrong.</div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-77052537025430780682009-07-14T16:47:00.002-04:002009-07-14T23:13:33.329-04:00Champagne wishes and caviar dreams!When Obama was in Russia last week, there were stories in the press about how he blew off dinner with Putin to go out with his family on one of the two nights he was there, and that this was some kind of "signal." Well, as the details of his "working brunch" with old Pootie have emerged, there are some different signals being sent. The <a href="http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=35235&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=407&no_cache=1">Jamestown Foundation cites </a>Interfax, the Russian news agency, as reporting that Obama and Putin dined on "beluga and black caviar." So what? Well, both are apparently illegal in Russia as part of an effort to protect the endangered species that produce them. More from Jamestown: <div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; "><blockquote>Obama had a "Russian style" working brunch with Putin with smoked beluga and black caviar. At present, the commercial production, sale and consumption of beluga or black caviar is illegal in Russia to protect endangered species. It was speculated that Putin served Obama Iranian-made caviar, which is legal (Interfax, July 8). Of course, in Russia, laws do not apply to the top nomenklatura, so the delicacy Obama consumed was most likely Russian-made and contraband. It is not clear what is politically more damaging for a U.S. president: to publicly eat Iranian caviar or Russian contraband. Putin indeed has a peculiar sense of humor.</blockquote></span></div><div>Peculiar indeed. But what may be most peculiar is the total lack of any US media coverage of this. As Michael Goldfarb, writing in the <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/">Weekly Standard blog </a>notes: </div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'trebuchet ms'; font-size: 12px; "><blockquote>I recall this president making <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-05-05-burger_N.htm" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102); text-decoration: underline; ">national news</a> with his decision to go out for a cheeseburger at lunch. Then there was the time that the White House press corps covered Obama's <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/a_real_false_choice_war_or_ice.asp" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102); text-decoration: underline; ">trip to the ice cream parlor</a> in excruciating detail ("Obama had vanilla frozen custard in a cup with hot fudge and toasted almonds."). But Obama goes to Moscow and starts shoveling down gourmet endangered species and contraband fish eggs and you'd have to read the Russian wires to get the story.</blockquote></span></div><div>Where are the environmentalists, Friends of Animals, PETA, the Slow Food people? Honest to God, if GWB was caught eating some endangered fish roe, they would be calling for his head on a blini. Bush was ruthlessly (and deservedly) mocked for looking into Pootie's soul, but at least he never got caught making <a href="http://www.ihatethemedia.com/what-did-barack-obama-see-in-putin-eyes">googly eyes</a> with him over $3000 a pound fish eggs.</div><div><br /></div><div>But back to the important stuff of the trip, because Obama was probably just being polite about the caviar so he could get something really big and important out of the Russians, right? Well, no. For that, he sold Georgia down the river. Back to Jamestown: </div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; "><blockquote>Before the brunch Obama announced he had "excellent discussions" with Medvedev and praised Putin for doing "extraordinary work on behalf of the Russian people" as the former president, and now prime minister (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, July 7). Under Putin's rule since 2000, elections have been regularly rigged, and political and press freedoms crushed. Last August, Putin and Medvedev ordered Russian troops to invade neighboring Georgia and occupy its territory, but for Obama these issues seem to be secondary.<br /><br />The government-controlled media has observed with approval Obama's "hands off" approach to human rights issues in Russia. </blockquote><blockquote>--</blockquote><blockquote>The act of acute political appeasement of Putin and Medvedev performed by the Obama team in Moscow has produced something, but what will be the final price? Obama discussed Georgia with Putin and agreed to disagree (Interfax, July 7). President Mikheil Saakashvili interpreted Obama's statement, reiterating Georgia's independence and territorial integrity, as a demonstration of "unconditional support" (Civil Georgia, July 6), but is that indeed true?<br /></blockquote></span></div><div>It just keeps getting better & better.</div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-85521567335825609622009-07-14T11:42:00.003-04:002009-07-14T16:29:18.878-04:00What's good for Africa is good for...AfricaObama goes to Ghana and gives a "tough love" speech, preaching - seriously, he was practically hectoring these poor people -- to Africans that they need to get their house in order, embrace good governance, democracy, human rights and free trade, and stop blaming the West and colonialism for all their problems. Where was this guy in Cairo? Why isn't this kind of talk considered patronizing meddling or hypocritical (because of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc.) when Obama does it in Africa, but would be if he were to say it to -- for example -- Iran or any other Middle Eastern country, Honduras, Russia or China, just to name a few who recently could have used a dose of "tough love" from Dr. O? <div><br /></div><div>I continue to be amused by the lack of critical response to this bipolar (multi-polar?) policy approach on the part of the liberal media. Republicans are not being effective in taking advantage of his so-flexible-as-to-appear-unprincipled approach to foreign policy. The <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753013433935785.html#articleTabs%3Darticle">WSJ has a good piece</a> on this speech that should serve as a roadmap for not only pointing out his wildly divergent regional foreign policies, but linking them up to some of his worst domestic policy ideas. </div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-28011548562342906282009-07-13T14:54:00.004-04:002009-07-14T11:40:13.213-04:00China's Cat & Mouse Game with Burma?So... there is this odd piece in the <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/10/chinas_black_cat_white_cat_diplomacy?page=full">current issue of Foreign Policy magazine</a> about how China is allegedly fed up with the wackadoodle Burmese junta and has been quietly reaching out to the Burmese opposition, led by Aung San Suu Kyi. After portraying China as the victim of crafty erstwhile allies who often take it for a ride, the author breathlessly claims that: <div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31); line-height: 23px; font-size:14px;">Indeed, recent weeks have shown China to be stealthily exploring the possibility that jailed opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi might govern Burma as a more reliable, and perhaps more pliable, neighbor than Burma's junta does.</span><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Ok - let's examine this claim. First, she says China is reaching out to ASSK because they think she will be more "reliable" and "pliable" an ally than the junta. This belief of theirs seems to be predicated on an assumption that a competent democrat will be a better ally that incompetent autocrats. Pretty speculative stuff. While I certainly think competent democrats would do a better job of running Burma (hell, a monkey with a dartboard would do a better job that these lunatics), it would be quite shocking if the Chinese government now thinks that a Burmese democracy would be more stable than the status quo. This would fly in the face of everything they have ever said and done, both with regard to Burma and <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">in China</span>. Seems unlikely. Moreover, anyone who has ever met ASSK, or even knows anything about her would never use the word "pliable" to describe her. This is one tough chick who has made unimaginable sacrifices for the sake of democratic ideals, but hey - the Chinese think she will be willing throw all that aside to preside over a more accommodating client state for their benefit? Again, unlikely. </div><div><br /></div><div>Second, China has been "stealthily exploring" this possibility "in recent weeks." And how have they been doing this, according to the author? Through these extremely secret maneuvers: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657212227888741.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">allowing UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to travel to Burma</a>; their support in the fall of 2007 (!) for the ridiculous Gambari mission after the regime crackdown on the Saffron Revolution; and their signing of an EU-ASEAN statement calling for the release of political prisoners. Color me underwhelmed. During this same period, China has had numerous state visits with the junta, maintained its economic and military support for the regime, and blocked serious efforts within the UN to go after the junta. I just don't see it, based on the thin evidence the author provides. </div><div><br /></div><div>So maybe she knows something more? Could be. There have been claims over the years by various exiled Burmese democracy activists that they have maintained relationships with Chinese contacts who have alluded to their willingness to work with a Suu Kyi-led government. I find this more compelling than the flimsy material in the FP piece, but I have always believed that these contacts were more likely part of an intelligence gathering operation by the Chinese than a sincere expression of interest in, let alone support for, the political aspirations of Burma's democrats. </div><div><br /></div><div>China has undoubtedly, at times, sought to soften its image as the patron saint of the world's worst dictatorships, especially when there was something else it wanted in play. And yes, the epic bad governance of Burma creates headaches for Beijing. But to leap to the conclusion that China is seriously reaching out to Burma's opposition, based on such shallow activities as support for a UN mission that serves as a useful fig leaf for the Chinese, especially when compared to the deep and serious ties that China maintains to the Burmese regime, seems like a lot of wishful thinking.</div><div><br /></div><div>My real gripe, though, is with Foreign Policy magazine for publishing such a weakly argued, sensationalistic piece. I suppose they could be forgiven if it had been submitted by someone who was famous for passing off gibberish as important information - say, for example <a href="http://www.nypress.com/article-19271-flat-n-all-that.html">Tom Friedman</a>. But I could not understand their allowance for such a lame piece from someone I had never heard of - one Wen Liao of Longford Advisors. So I Googled Ms. Wen.</div><div><div><br /></div><div>Here is a charming quote from another of her pieces, this time on how China's involvement in the war in Sri Lanka is really a good thing for all of us:</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Verdana;font-size:12px;"></span></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Verdana;font-size:12px;">China’s newfound assertiveness, rather than creating fear, should be seen as establishing the necessary conditions for comprehensive negotiations about the very basis of peaceful coexistence and stability in Asia: respect for all sides’ vital interests. In recent years, such an approach ran counter to America’s foreign-policy predisposition of favouring universalist doctrines over a careful balancing of national interests. With the Obama administration embracing realism as its diplomatic lodestar, China may have found a willing interlocutor.</span></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>Huh?</div><div><br /></div><div>And then there is this, from a piece Ms. Wen did last year on Tibet, which posits that China cracked down on monk-led protests because the US did not sufficiently reassure the ChiComs that Kosovo independence was a one-off event whose logic did not apply to them (especially since they were not engaged in ethnic cleansing - oh, nevermind...): </div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Verdana;font-size:12px;"><p style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; font-size: 12px; margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; "></p><blockquote><p style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; font-size: 12px; margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; ">The West has historically stressed two bright lines with respect to Taiwan: no independence and no use of force by China. But, in view of Kosovo’s independence against the will of Serbia and without UN sanction, these bright lines have become blurred in China’s eyes.</p><p style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; font-size: 12px; margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; ">The world is risking much by injecting ambiguity into an issue that once seemed clear-cut. Thirty-five years ago, in a supreme act of modern statecraft, Zhou En-lai and Richard Nixon signed the Shanghai Communiqué, which set the following unambiguous standard: there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of it. An unequivocal reaffirmation of that understanding, particularly by the United States in the light of its role as primary backer of Kosovo’s independence, is now needed if China is to be reassured that its unity will not be called into question.</p><p style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; font-size: 12px; margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; ">---</p><p style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify; font-size: 12px; margin-top: 15px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; ">Both China and the West must now avoid letting exaggerated fears create self-inflicted prophecies. Events in Tibet can only be properly viewed with the shadows cast by Kosovo and Taiwan in mind.</p></blockquote></span></div><div>What the what? </div><div><br /></div><div>So, again, who is the mysterious Madame Wen and why do people publish this nonsense from her? Other than the fact that she is part of <a href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/">Project Syndicate</a>, and that her "consulting firm" <a href="http://www.fsc.gov.im/companies/companydetails.aspx?companynumber=002358v">Longford Advisors is registered in the Isle of Mann</a>, a notorious tax haven, I could find nothing about her. Seriously - no professional, academic or other background. Very strange. </div></div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1754746577242539468.post-29094914567567106602009-07-11T11:02:00.002-04:002009-07-12T14:44:55.350-04:00Uighurstan Power PlaysThe NYT has an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/world/asia/11xinjiang.html?th&emc=th">excellent piece</a> today on how the hardline policies in Xinjiang relate to the bigger picture political jockeying within China's leadership. The profile of the notorious Wang Lequan, which also notes his relationship to his protege and equal in nastiness Zhang Qingli - the hardline party secretary in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, is some quality reportage of the kind that is often sorely lacking when it comes to China. I hope that everyone in the Obama Administration reads this article, as it exposes a number of important currents in Chinese political thought about how to manage the restive minority nationalities. To whit: <div><br /></div><div>- Whereas in most other countries, the fact that Xinjiang exploded into violence in the first place would normally be held against Wang and Zhang, their harsh response and their reputation for toughness (which arguably is a leading factor in the initial violence!) will probably result in their continued promotion up the ladder.</div><div><br /></div><div>- Wang and his ilk are among a minority who believe that inter-ethnic conflict, rather than economic slowdown, has the most potential to upset the Communist Party's apple cart. This viewpoint may be self-serving, given his position, and is definitely shaped by the fact that he has spent the past 15 years cracking-heads in Uighurland. Unfortunately, having recognized inter-ethnic conflict as a problem, he has come to the conclusion that the way to resolve the problem is to be as harsh as possible on one hand while maximizing assimilationist policies on the other.</div><div><br /></div><div>- Hu Jintao, who comes across on the international stage as Mr. Smooth - a polished, modern leader, is thoroughly linked up with this mentality of repression and chauvinism. He is probably one of its strongest proponents in the system. </div><div><br /></div><div>And so it goes. US and European policymakers continue to pretend that they are dealing with a modern, normal nation, while China continues to act like a 19th century colonial power. And we are surprised when the mask slips and the true ugliness peeks out from behind the 21st century veneer.</div>Wrathful Dakinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07999097666943274274noreply@blogger.com0