Here are some Jewish students at U of C Irvine standing up for themselves and battling the student government which seems to be in the pocket of the Muslim Student Union. It's about damn time. Like so many college organization this student government has no trouble with anti-semitism as long as it is disguised as "anti-zionism.
This little girl got out. She was granted her divorce. I bet there are thousands of others throughout the lands under enlightened rule of the Religion of Peace (and child abuse) that haven't been as lucky.
Judge Abdo cannot conceal his surprise.
“You want a divorce?”
“But... you mean you’re married?”
His features are distinguished. His white shirt sets off his olive skin. But when he hears my reply, his face darknes. He seems to have trouble believing me.
“I want to get divorced!”
“At your age? How can you already be married?”
Without bothering to answer his question, I repeat in a determined voice: “I want a divorce.” I don’t sob, not even once, while speaking to him. I feel trembly, but I know what I want: I want an end to this hell. I’ve had enough of suffering in silence.
“But you’re so young and frail,” he murmurs.
I look at him and nod. He starts nervously scratching his mustache. If only he’ll agree to save me! He’s a judge, after all. He must have lots of power.
“And why do you want a divorce?” he continues in a more natural tone, as if trying to hide his astonishment. I look him straight in the eye. “Because my husband beats me.” It’s as if I had slapped him right in the face. His expression freezes again. He has just realized that something serious has happened to me and that I have no reason to lie to him.
Point-blank, he asks me an important question: “Are you still a virgin?” I swallow hard. I’m ashamed of talking about these things. It’s deeply upsetting. In my country, women must keep their distance from men they don’t know. And this is the first time I’ve ever seen this judge. But in that same instant I understand that if I want to win, I must take the plunge.
“No. I bled.”
He’s shocked. Abruptly, I have the feeling that of the two of us, he is the one who’s flinching. I can see his surprise, see him trying to conceal his emotions.
Then he takes a deep breath and says, “I’m going to help you.”
I know making assumptions is one of those practices that can make one look foolish, but I'm going to assume that the following letter from Thursday's Detroit Free Press is from someone who proudly refers to herself as an environmentalist.
I'm an old woman who strives to lessen the impact of my carbon footprint so my grandchildren and their children can flourish on a healthy Earth. I have little patience for those who whine about looking at a sunset through the wings of a windmill that's a mile or more distant.
I have seen the windmills in Pennsylvania and think they look majestic. They have an aura of power with grace. The concern that waterfront properties would drop in value is nonsense. People will always want waterfront property, and those who can afford it will buy it.
Michigan has nearly 1,000 miles of shoreline where clean wind energy is available. Why is it taking us so long to take advantage of this?
That windmills may be a danger to migratory birds is a concern, but birds will learn the dangers of flying near windmills and avoid them. Your recent article focused only on opposition to wind power ("Will Canada's wind turbine's invade lakes?" Feb. 26). Your coverage should be more balanced.
Earth will survive no matter what we do. What's at stake is the planet's ability to support human life.
I have no problem with a person thinking that windmills look majestic even though I think they are as attractive as a barbed wire fence. I don't care that she thinks property values won't go down. Maybe they won't if the entire Lake Michigan coastline is filled with them and there is no way to escape them if one wants property on Lake Michigan.
But, "birds will learn the dangers . . . and avoid them"? Under that line of reasoning, we no longer need the Endangered Species Act. If migratory birds can learn to avoid windmills, surely other animals can learn to avoid the human caused dangers that affect them. Whales can learn to dodge harpoons. Wolves can learn to avoid hunters and traps. Spotted owls can learn to nest in other trees. Migratory sea turtles can learn to lay their eggs on beaches that don't attract tourists.
In fact, rather than protect any animal species, can't we find animal trainers who will teach them to alter their behavior so that they aren't affected by human activities? I suggest this as the new mission of PETA, Greenpeace, and all of those other "save the earth" groups. Teach the animals new modes of behavior so that they on longer need protection.
And then start building nuclear power plants and allow drilling for oil in the United States. Windmills are still a bad idea.
I've got some very liberal friends. Paul Krugman is their economist of choice. He is the darling of the left, especially when he skewers some conservative pundit. I've read some of his columns and seen a bit of his - um - skewering on Youtube, and I have to say that I think he's put his politics ahead of his thinking. Yes, I know he's a Nobel laureate and all, but I think he needs to reexamine some of his economic beliefs. Well actually, according to this piece by James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, linked by way of House of Eratosthenes, maybe he unknowingly has. Either that, or he assumes that his uncritical, adoring fans will blindly accept anything he says as received wisdom, so it really doesn't matter what he says or if it has any basis in reality. Reading some of his NY Time columns and watching pieces of his TV appearances, he's probably right - about his sycophants, that is, but dead wrong about a lot of things that matter.
Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman takes note in his New York Times column of what he calls "the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties":
Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.
"What Democrats believe," he says "is what textbook economics says":
But that's not how Republicans see it. Here's what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning's position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work."
Krugman scoffs: "To me, that's a bizarre point of view--but then, I don't live in Mr. Kyl's universe."
What does textbook economics have to say about this question? Here is a passage from a textbook called "Macroeconomics":
Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.
So it turns out that what Krugman calls Sen. Kyl's "bizarre point of view" is, in fact, textbook economics. The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman.
It seems Krugman himself lives in two different universes--the universe of the academic economist and the universe of the bitter partisan columnist. Or maybe this is like that episode of "Star Trek" in which crewmen from the Enterprise switched places with their counterparts from a universe in which everyone was the same, only evil.
Like Spock, the evil Krugman is the one with the beard.
Kind of funny, ain't it? What is also humorous is that this bit of inconsistency will be ignored by the NY Times and all of Krugman's followers.
Gazans elected the terrorists of Hamas to run their government. Like those who voted for Obama (and no, I'm not comparing the two) they should have known what they were getting, a repressive, dictatorial, terrorist, bunch of thugs. The problem now is that for some, Hamas is not repressive and dictatorial enough. They haven't forced Gazans far enough back to barbarity. They still haven't reached their goal of a seventh century Sharia-inspired Islamic utopia. As the AP relates:
Gaza's Islamic Hamas government on Thursday banned men from working in women's hair salons, the latest step in its campaign to impose strict Islamic customs on Gaza's 1.5 million people.
Since seizing Gaza in 2007, Hamas has taken steps in that direction while avoiding a frontal assault on secularism. The majority of Gaza residents are conservative Muslims, but Hamas is under growing pressure from more radical groups to prove its fundamentalist credentials by imposing ever harsher edicts.
The latest measure irked one of the victims of the ban.
"Next thing you know, they will ban doctors from treating women, and will only let women treat women," said Barakat al-Ghoul, a 44-year-old hairdresser. "Tomorrow, they will ban everything."
No, Barakat, they won't ban everything. They will merely ban everything that makes life enjoyable.
Islamic tradition forbids women from showing their hair to men who are not their husbands or blood relatives. Until now, though, exceptions were made for the eight known male hairdressers in women's salons in Gaza City.
Solution: If they hire gay hairdressers then- oops! Sorry, I forgot.
Fares said Hamas' new ruling takes away one of the last remnants of a more liberal lifestyle in Gaza that flourished decades ago, when the territory had cinemas and bars.
So then why exactly did you vote in Hamas? Is your Islamic Jew-hatred really that strong that you were willing to overlook the fact that Hamas would create more suffering for Gazans than they ever could for Israelis? Did your hatred blind you to the fact that Hamas doesn't care about whether or not you make a living? The fact that you can't, makes it easier for them to recruit your children for jihad. Or in the end, will you find some twisted, irrational way to blame this madness on the fact the Israel is willing to protect its citizens against Hamas?
Since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, small ultra-radical Islamic groups have sprung up. Known as Jihadi Salafis, they advocate holy war and a strict, fundamentalist brand of Islam, dismissing Hamas as too pragmatic. They are suspected in dozens of bombings of Internet cafes, music stores and other alleged purveyors of vice. All cinemas and bars closed years ago.
Hamas - too pragmatic? As if Gazan society wasn't dysfunctional enough, there are those who wish to sink further into the abyss. When you accept the kind of hatred espoused by Hamas as part of every day life and as normal within your society, don't be surprised when somebody even crazier and more hate-filled comes along to make your life even more miserable.
And by the way, how much of this dysfunction is paid for with American dollars?
I left comments on my blog and on other blogs a week or so ago. (Who can keep track of time any more?) They disappeared. Or they never showed up, I'm not sure. And they were really good lengthy comments. Really. Probably my best ever. And they're gone. If I had any time, I'd go back and try to recreate them. Instead I will go back and leave something that's probably lame, and make sure that the comments get posted. Because, let's face it, it's probably some idiot mistake I made (repeatedly) that caused the comments to not post in the first place. If I was getting the amount of sleep I probably, I doubt I would have made those mistakes.
"No one can find a safe way out for himself if socety is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result." -- Ludwig von Mises