Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Olmert, the suicidal dreamer

Post below excerpted from Powerline. See the original for links and much more

What is being said about the upcoming Israeli-Palestinian talks in Annapolis is beyond delusional. The appalling Ehud Olmert sets the stage:
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he may be able to make peace with the Palestinians by the end of 2008 as the United States vowed to defend Israel's security during the difficult process. "If we act decisively together, we and the Palestinians, there is a chance for us to reach real achievements, maybe even before the end of President (George W.) Bush's term," he said at the Saban Forum think-tank in Jerusalem.

Sure, peace by the end of 2008! This is just what we don't need: another American President looking for a "legacy" in the Middle East. Olmert digs himself in deeper:
"There is no intention to drag out the negotiations without end. There is no reason to again hit the foot-dragging that characterised our talks in the past," the premier said.

Foot-dragging? What foot-dragging? At Oslo, Israeli diplomats raced to give away the store, and a lot of good it did them. Let's not confuse "foot-dragging" with the genocidal patience with which the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters have plotted the destruction of Israel for two generations. AFP, the source of this particular news story, shares with other news agencies an odd incuriosity about the recent history of the region:
The two sides plan to launch intensive bilateral talks on a permanent agreement following the international meeting, aimed at reviving a peace process that has been dormant for seven years.

Gosh! Why has the "peace process" been "dormant" for seven years? I suppose AFP meant to tie this "dormancy" to the seven years that President Bush has been in office. In reality, however, the "peace process" is dormant because the Palestinians have failed to live up to any of the commitments they made in Oslo, and instead have continued to murder Israelis with rockets and suicide bomb belts.


The REAL doers of good

Post below excerpted from Rand Simberg. See the original for links

Who is it that really changes the world, and for the better? I would argue that it is the people like Bill Gates, or Henry Ford, or Thomas Edison, or the Wright brothers, who have a much larger and more beneficial effect on the world than people who "want to make a difference."

Who is more of a humanitarian, a Norman Borlaug, who through his technological efforts saved untold millions from hunger, and even starvation, and was reasonably compensated for it, or an Albert Schweitzer or Mother Theresa, who labored to help a relatively few poor and ill, while living in relative poverty? Obviously the latter derived personal satisfaction from their hands-on retail efforts, but I don't think that they ever whined about their lifestyle.

These people do in fact need to grow up, and understand that there are other ways to help people than forming non-profits and NGOs, or working for a government bureaucracy. People are helped most by technological advances that make essential items--food, transportation, communication, shelter--more affordable and accessible to them, not by those who provide them with handouts and sympathy, and keep them in a state of perpetual dependency.

In many ways, Sam Walton was one of the great humanitarians of our time, in bringing our nation's poor closer to a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle, and he seemed to do pretty well by doing good. But don't expect very many of these idealistic overgrown adolescents to want to emulate him. Actually increasing wealth, for themselves and others, would go against everything they believe



Of two Swedish men, one is very pro-Israel and the other mourns the death of Arafat. Which gets called a "Nazi"? I think you can guess. The pro-Israel man belongs to a party that wants to restrict Muslim immigration into Sweden, you see. Details here. Rather strangely, it seems mainly to be LGF who is circulating the "Nazi" allegations in the English-speaking world. Gates of Vienna seems to agree that the Nazi allegations are Leftist in origin.

There is a recent interview with Ann Coulter here in which she is her usual witty self.

Even Maureen Dowd of the NYT is laughing at Hillary: "Women need to rally to support Hillary and send her money because there are men, men like Tim Russert, who have the temerity to ask her questions during a debate. If there are six male rivals on stage and two male moderators and heaven knows how many men manning lights and boom mikes, the one woman should have the right to have it two ways. It's simple math, really, an estrogen equation. If she wants to run on her record as first lady while keeping the lid on her first lady record, that's only fair for the fairer sex. And if she wants to have it both ways on illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses, then she should, especially if those illegal immigrants are men, or if Lou Dobbs is ranting on the issue, because he's not only a man, he's a grumpy, cranky, border-crazed man. She should certainly be allowed to play the gender card two ways, or even triangulate it. As her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, said after the debate, she is "one strong woman," who has dwarfed male rivals and shown she's tough enough to deal with terrorism and play on the world stage. But she can break, just like a little girl, when male chauvinists are rude enough to catch her red-handed being slippery and opportunistic."

Even the abortionists are not impressed by Hillary's flip-flopping: "Kate Michelman, a former NARAL President and admitted Edwards supporter posts at Open Left: "As a woman who's been in the public eye and experienced scrutiny, as a woman who knows how hard it can be for women to earn their seat at the leadership table, how hard women have to work just to get the same opportunities, this distresses me. It is not presidential. Any serious candidate for president should have to answer tough questions and defend their record. Any serious candidate for president should make their views clear and let the American people know where they stand on issues. And any serious candidate for president should be held to the same standard - whether man or woman. Have we have come a long way? Well, far enough to know better than to use our gender as a shield when the questions get too hot."

Crazy college costs: "Since 1990, the cost of tuition and fees at the University of California and the California State University system has climbed by 350 percent, while the general cost of living has increased during that time by 44 percent and personal income in California has grown 70 percent."


List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here


"Why should the German be interested in the liberation of the Jew, if the Jew is not interested in the liberation of the German?... We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time... In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.... Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade... Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist". Who said that? Hitler? No. It was Karl Marx. See also here and here and here.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".


No comments: