Iran is one of the most notoriously bigoted countries on the planet. Just this week the whole world hada chuckle at how stupid they can be. A cleric decided women were the cause of earthquakes. They’re so sexist women pretty much have to cover themselves head to toe when in public. The Dark Ages have nothing on these people.
One of the places worse than Iran is The Congo. In 2007, this amazing report was released:
26 October 2007 – The scale and brutality of the sexual violence currently faced by women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity, an independent United Nations human rights expert has told the General Assembly.
Yakin Ertürk, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, told the Assembly’s Social, Humanitarian and Cultural (Third) Committee yesterday that the international community needs to intervene urgently to stem the widespread sexual violence.
Ms. Ertürk spent 12 days in the DRC in July, speaking to Government officials, UN agency staff, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and many female victims of violence.
She said she found that the perpetrators include armed militiamen, members of the Congolese armed forces, national police officers and, increasingly, civilians.
“The situation is most acute in South Kivu, where non-State armed groups, particularly foreign militia, commit sexual atrocities that are of an unimaginable brutality and aim at the complete physical and psychological destruction of women with implications for the entire society,” she said.
“In many cases, the scale and brutality of the violence amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
The Special Rapporteur said the problem was not confined to the far east, which has been the most unstable and violent part of the DRC in recent years and the scene of mass displacement this year because of renewed clashes between the Government, breakaway sections of the military and armed militia.
In Equateur province, near the centre of the DRC, soldiers and police officers have also carried out systematic reprisals against local civilians, including mass rape.
Ms. Ertürk said a climate of impunity for crimes against women predominated across the country.
“Security and the justice system fall short of addressing the problems of sexual violence and women survivors of rape lack sufficient care. Survivors are often also socially stigmatized and they are systematically denied the compensation to which they are entitled under international and Congolese law.”
So, after releasing this incredibly damning report, what do you suppose the United Nations does? It adds the Congo to The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Here’s this year’s list of the new memebrs:
- Iran
- Belgium
- the Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Estonia
- Georgia
- Jamaica
- Liberia
- the Netherlands
- Spain
- Thailand
- Zimbabwe
Only one of the new members makes the “best places to be a woman” list. It’s not in the Middle East or Africa. What makes it amazing to me is they will be joining China, Pakistan, and Iraq, THREE other members of the worst places to be a woman list. Now, I’m pretty sure the UN is rewarding women who have struggled in those countries. But, that’s not how those governments are using it, and that’s not how the United Nations is presenting it. Here’s their member list:
Membership of the Commission on the Status of Women at its 55th session ( 2011 )
They’re specifically promoting the countries.
Have I ever mentioned how useless I think the UN is any more?
Chris Dodd is mad. He’s quite upset too:
“The idea that state by state would start developing its own immigration laws in the country — imagine what a patchwork that might look like,”
He didn’t stop there. He tossed in the only answer the Democrats seem to have any more:
“It’s demanding a national answer to immigration policy, so before this even gets further out of hand, we’ve got to step up and do the job.”
Chris Dodd should know what he’s talking about. The state of Arizona sits right smack on the Mexican border. They’ve been stuck in the middle of a bloodbath going on right across that border and killing their residents too. They’ve had to deal with drug lords killing people and generally disregarding all US laws in order to push their trash on the rest of the United States. And, there was nothing they could do. Since the feds wouldn’t help them, they took into their own hands. Simple.
Wait a second, I got that all wrong. Chris Dodd knows nothing about what’s going on in Arizona, he’s from Connecticut. Connecticut borders no foreign country. They have no issues whatsoever with foreign gangs creating all kinds of hell within their state. They’re not expected by the rest of the country to slow down the drugs and violence being shipped into this country every day.
He also seems to know nothing about the US Constitution. He is charged by that Constitution to protect us from foreign aggression. He is really pissed that Arizona is doing just that so he’s doing what he can to put a stop to it. He’ll be damned if he’ll let some piddly little issue like unemployment or Barack Obama harassing the banks Dodd got all his kickbacks from get in his way. He’s going to put a stop to Arizona doing what it feels it has to to protect itself from the aggression Dodd’s government has refused to deal with.
And, give Dodd and the Democrats enough time, they’ll totally eliminate the need for those pesky states at all. We should all be exactly the same. People in Arizona should be expected to deal with foreign crime within their state exactly the same way people in Connecticut do. Anything else would be unconstitutional.
Bertha Lewis, CEO of Acorn, is proud to be a socialist. She applauds anyone who calls themself a socialist. But, that’s not the best part:
“Any group that says, ‘I’m young, I’m Democratic, and I’m a socialist,’ is all right with me. You know that’s no light thing to do — to actually say, I’m a socialist — because you guys know right now we are living in a time which is going to dwarf the McCarthy era. It is going to dwarf the internment during World War II. We are right now in a time that is going to dwarf the era of Jim Crow and segregation,” Lewis said……
“This is not rhetoric or hyperbole — this is real,” Lewis said. “This rise of this Tea Party so-called movement — bowel movement in my estimation — and this blatant uncovering and ripping off the mask of racism.”
Of course, Bertha didn’t get this started. When someone didn’t like what Obama was doing, Hank Johnson knew why:
My only gut understanding of these people is that by taking away everyone’s rights, it makes us all even? Either these people, and they’re certainly not alone in this administration, are incredibly stupid, or they’ve reached a conclusion I don’t get based on history I don’t see. They are both avowed socialists, but both believe that without socialism, you’re going to have McCarthyism, racism run amok, and internment camps. Does anyone else not see the irony in this? Do they not have any clue about the last few great socialist societies we have experienced?
There’s the downside of what Bertha Lewis is hoping for. Someone show me where it’s worked. In China today the government strictly controls what they want their people to know. In Russia today the government is ramping up their nuclear arsenal while the people live in barely industrial standards. One man alone nearly crippled the Russian economy. And, in all three instances, one man usurped the power of the government and led to disastrous consequences world wide with human atrocities Bertha Lewis apparently can’t fathom. When you centralize all power, that’s the inherant risk. The United States has had to deal with issues other countries have as well. Social discord is not unique to the United States. Ask the Jews in Germany, Russia, or the Christians in China or Iran or Africa. They live in fear in China to this day. However, the structure of the United States, although it’s being eroded, allowed for the pursuit of happiness as an individual defined it. If you were not happy in one environment, you had the option to move to a different one. Rights in Seattle are different than rights in Memphis or Bangor. That was the design of the Founding Fathers. That is what “states’ rights” means. Bertha Lewis doesn’t get it. She doesn’t get the fact that protesting as she does would get her persecuted by the government she so readily speaks about the downfall of now.
So, these people may be enlightened. But, they are terminally stupid if they truly think socialism will eliminate racism. The only thing that will eliminate racism is for people like Bertha to stop using it as a political prop. Sure, there are people that will toss out the n-bomb at a black person to get them riled. It’s just too easy. But, there are just as many that will insult someone’s religion if it will get the same reaction. When people know using racism won’t get a reaction, there will be no need for overt racism. And, apparently in the case of Bertha and Hank, they will have no motivation whatsoever.
Remember all that talk about The Patriot Act? The fear of Big Brother? How you were losing all your civil rights? All of that would be changed by electing Barack Obama. Well guess what, it has:
The United States various governments have made 3,580 data requests from Google between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009. They are still waiting on their legal challenges to expand the Patriot Act.
What’s that? I can’t hear those people who whined endlessly about Bush for eight years complaining right now. They’re much too concerned about people protesting the government.
OK, I’m good with the Pentagon wanting to get the best price it can for the aerial tankers. But, I’m not OK with $35 billion going to Europe. Not in the least bit.
The contract is the largest on the horizon at the Pentagon, and it could eventually be extended for several hundred planes worth $100 billion. And if EADS won, the work would enable EADS to build a manufacturing plant in the United States, where it could further challenge Boeing in the commercial airplane market.
Mr. McAleese said that even though Boeing had more political influence, the decision should come down to a numerical scoring process that placed emphasis on which company offered the lowest overall bid.
I’ve got a REAL problem propping up foreign companies to compete with domestic companies using our money. If they want competition, prop up some DOMESTIC company. Now, the jobs issue is not so much in building the aerial tanker itself, that HAS to be domestic. But, it’s in the lost sales Boeing will lose in the future to a healthy Airbus.
Now, IF, and this is a farcical IF, the Pentagon operated as a private sector enterprise, they’d simply state how much they’re willing to pay for the aerial tanker, period. No over-runs, no adjustments, this is it. It would be up to the contractor to make it profitable or not. THEN, and this is a HUGE “then”, the Pentagon wouldn’t feel pressured to potentially send our taxpayor money to other countries.
If Obama truly intends to watch out for the little guy, and stimulate the economy, he’d make damn sure, at the very least, our national defense was manned by our own people.
Now, the chances I think of the Pentagon using sensible contracting procedures are pretty much nill. Which are about the same chances I think are of Obama going to bat for the unemployed.
20
Apr
A few days ago President Obama decided he was going to go after the finance industry. The SEC immediately filed charges agaisnt Goldman Sachs. Obama immediately hit the road attacking Republicans who supposedly went to Wall Street.
So, the question I’ve got is if Obama’s going to return the $1,500,000 he’s taken from Goldman Sachs since 2007? This wasn’t just “a trip to Wall Street”. This was about 700 trips to Wall Street. And don’t tell me he didn’t know what was going on, the book was already on the shelves.
For what it’s worth, Drudge is bitching about Goldman Sachs. Obama is bitching about all Wall Street. If that’s the cases, he needs to return a lot more:
| University of California | $1,591,395 |
| Goldman Sachs | $994,795 |
| Harvard University | $854,747 |
| Microsoft Corp | $833,617 |
| Google Inc | $803,436 |
| Citigroup Inc | $701,290 |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | $695,132 |
| Time Warner | $590,084 |
| Sidley Austin LLP | $588,598 |
| Stanford University | $586,557 |
| National Amusements Inc | $551,683 |
| UBS AG | $543,219 |
| Wilmerhale Llp | $542,618 |
| Skadden, Arps et al | $530,839 |
| IBM Corp | $528,822 |
| Columbia University | $528,302 |
| Morgan Stanley | $514,881 |
| General Electric | $499,130 |
| US Government | $494,820 |
| Latham & Watkins | $493,835 |
Looks a lot more like $3,000,000 to me.
19
Apr
Arizona did a rather strange thing last week that has gotten little to no attention. Kinda surprising to me. Their legislature voted to eliminate permits for concealed weapons. The governor signed it to. This is not exactly a trend, but it may become one:
I’m sure Arizona legislators possibly took two figures into consideration:
| Year | Rank | Rank |
| 1965 | 51 | 1 |
| 1966 | 50 | 1 |
| 1967 | 37 | 1 |
| 1968 | 42 | 1 |
| 1969 | 41 | 1 |
| 1970 | 50 | 1 |
| 1971 | 51 | 1 |
| 1972 | 48 | 1 |
| 1973 | 47 | 1 |
| 1974 | 43 | 1 |
| 1975 | 50 | 1 |
| 1976 | 33 | 1 |
| 1977 | 50 | 1 |
| 1978 | 43 | 1 |
| 1979 | 51 | 1 |
| 1980 | 49 | 1 |
| 1981 | 39 | 1 |
| 1982 | 45 | 1 |
| 1983 | 39 | 1 |
| 1984 | 45 | 1 |
| 1985 | 41 | 1 |
| 1986 | 48 | 1 |
| 1987 | 45 | 1 |
| 1988 | 49 | 1 |
| 1989 | 48 | 1 |
| 1990 | 47 | 1 |
| 1991 | 46 | 1 |
| 1992 | 46 | 1 |
| 1993 | 41 | 1 |
| 1994 | 50 | 1 |
| 1995 | 45 | 1 |
| 1996 | 48 | 1 |
| 1997 | 48 | 1 |
| 1998 | 42 | 1 |
| 1999 | 39 | 1 |
| 2000 | 47 | 1 |
| 2001 | 49 | 1 |
| 2002 | 42 | 1 |
| 2003 | 41 | 1 |
| 2004 | 39 | 1 |
| 2005 | 51 | 1 |
| 2006 | 42 | 1 |
| 2007 | 45 | 1 |
| 2008 | 38 | 1 |
The number on the left is obviously the year. One of the figures is for Vermont, who’s never had a concealed permit law. The other is for the District of Columbia, who’s had a concealed firearm ban then entire time. Wanna guess which is which? No state in the country has consistently stayed at the bottom of the most dangerous list quite the way Vermont has, the only state to allow concealed firearms to anyone. No place in this country has consistently stayed any more violent than the place with the strictest firearm restrictions.
Particularly, he’s concerned that Tea Party and right-wing rhetoric will fuel the flames for domestic terrorism attacks like the one in Oklahoma City fifteen years ago.
First, a history lesson. Murrah was not a reaction to some right-wing media show. It was a reaction to the Waco, Texas massacre. It was a very direct reaction. The government attacked Waco, Timothy McVeigh struck back in Oklahoma City. If Bill Clinton wants to use Oklahoma City as an example, so be it. But, get it right. It was not an example of a lack of government censorship, it was an example of an overly-imposing ruthless federal government. Using Timothy McVeigh as his example, it can be argued that so long as the federal government doesn’t massacre 75 innocent women, children, and men, we should be safe.
Second, the hypocrisy on display is galling.
If Nancy Pelosi doesn’t agree with you, you’re un-American.
If you disagree with her, you’re a Nazi.
If you don’t think Obama’s telling the truth, Hank Johnson says you’re a white hood wearing racist.
And of course, we have to have some anti-Zionism.
Bill had no comment on any of those comments. And, there are lots more of them from the left.
Now, this is the stuff that many conflicts have been made from. It split our country in half for four years, and has created deep wounds for two hundred. It has created problems for mankind throughout history.
What has not created problems throughout history is people speaking out freely about practices their government does that they don’t agree with.
So, Bill, you’ve got it about as wrong as you can get it. Sure, the right-wing has said some inflammatory things, but the left wing is saying much worse right now and they ARE the government. Big difference.
19
Apr
Last week President Obama announced he was sick and tired of all the financial abuses going on and was going to do for the finance industry what he’s done to health care. In the same fashion as he did the health care take-over, he didn’t say what he was going to do, but by God, he was going to do it. In order to get it done, whatever it might be, he was going to tour the United States and work up all his people into a frenzy to get something done, whatever it might be. Everyone still remembers the financial meltdown of the last couple of years, easy sell. He wasn’t going to address that tho. He was going to attack the private industry. He’d already fixed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by giving them lots more money. He’d already fixed the big financial players by giving them lots of money too. But, he hadn’t put the screws to anyone as he did the auto industry. Someone must pay. We just didn’t know who. With the auto industry, the scapegoat didn’t appear until after the need was there. GM and Chrysler fell apart, the feds went after Toyota. They’ve been dogging Toyota ever since. With Obama’s announced tour to punish the finance market for not being 100% socialist, he needed a headline.
For all intents, the very next day, enter Goldman Sachs. Their scheme was so ugly, so vile, so corrupt, everyone would have to hate them. Easy sell. Now, just hit the road and let everyone know that all financial institutions operate exactly the same as Goldman Sachs and Obama will have every bank in the US at his mercy.
For all intents, pretty much the next day, the SEC announced it was charging Goldman Sachs with a scheme to defraud investors. It was sold a product as an investment while some key individuals, and a huge hedge fund, betted against it. Bad stuff. Real bad stuff.
But, the story’s not nearly as black and white as it appears.
Mainly because it’s not a new story. Greg Zuckerman wrote a book about it in 2009. It wasn’t even new when he wrote about it. The incident that is so damning to Paulson and Goldman Sachs happened in 2007. The vehicle that enabled it all was signed into law on December 21, 2000 by President Clinton. And, the mechanism, which I have bitched about here for five years, has been around for seventy years.
The practice of buying something with no money and damaging it for profit has been around as long as publicly traded stocks have in the US. Almost every hedge fund does it.
So, ya gotta wonder why the SEC sat on all this for nearly three years before announcing it publicly a couple of days after Obama announced he was going to go after financial greed. Some people have noticed. A lot won’t. A lot won’t want to.
Now, the very simple fix to stop the abuses of Goldman Sachs would be to repeal the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
A better fix to me would be ban naked short selling outright and publicly list all short positions on any stock or fund.
Simple. Fixes the problems. No heads need to roll. No big huge debate needed. No town halls needed. And, it won’t cost billions of dollars to anyone.
Problem with this President is, it’s too simple, it doesn’t cut off people’s heads, there is no public fight, he doesn’t get the public spotlight for six months, and it won’t move money from the private to the public sector.
He will once again use a seriously flawed government regulation to support his argument for even more seriously flawed public regulations.
16
Apr
President Obama is gearing up for a fight to get Goodwin Liu for the 9th Circuit. For those not in the know, that’s the one from San Francisco. It represents the liberal heart and soul. I don’t think you’re going to find a conservative judge in that part of the world, so that point is somewhat moot. But, he said something that to me represents the essence of “activist” or not judges. Per Goodwin:
“The question … is not how the Constitution would have been applied at the founding, but rather how it should be applied today … in light of changing needs, conditions and understandings of our society.”
In other words, it’s open to translation as Goodwin Liu sees fit.
That is the root for activism. Now, here’s why that’s a bad thing. The US Constitution does not address a lot of things. It does that intentionally. Anyone wanna guess why?
Think about it real hard. People who read my stuff regularly should already know.
Still thinking? It’s really not that difficult. In fact, the problem today is people have made an otherwise mindlessly simple document too complicated.
Give up?
OK, try this one for size.
They intentionally did not address stuff because they felt it was none of their business.
That is the message Goodwin Liu is completely missing. That is why Goodwin Liu is unfit to be a judge, period, much less a federal judge. An activist judge will make a decision on something that is not a federal issue. A conservative judge, regardless of current expectations, would say it’s not a federal issue and pass on the decision entirely. The problem we have now is there are very few truly conservative judges. Everyone feels they have to render an opinion. They don’t. The question is not whether the Contitution was to be interpreted at some random point in time, the question is always whether it applies to the situation or not. If it does not, pass it back to the state it came from and let them decide how they wish to deal with it. If another state chooses to deal with it differently, so be it. It’s not Goodwin Liu’s right to tell the states what they can do based on his personal interpretation of the Constitution.
That is the difference. Goodwin Liu is totally unfit to be a federal judge. Obama won’t care because he has the same disregard for the Constitution. The Democrats won’t care because Obama picked the guy and they’ll have to support him. The Republicans will fight him because they pretty much have to. But, so far I think they’re making the wrong arguments. I think they just need to make a poster of Goodwin Liu with the banner on it to the effect of “How would you like your Constitution today?”.
Now, where this gets really fun is applying my definition of “liberal” vs “conservative” judges, Barbara Crabb would have made a very conservative decision regarding the National Day of Prayer. She cited the fact that the Constitution is very specific in dealing with religion. She’s right. In this case by suggesting everyone pray, Congress is compelling those who don’t believe in prayer to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. That’s wrong. She’s right. However, states CAN have a day of prayer. That’s none of her business. That’s not Liu’s business either. The right decision in this case would be to pass it back to the state to decide. A true conservative judge would do that. A true liberal judge would not. That’s the difference. Then, a person who wants to live in an environment that does have a day of prayer, or does not have a day of prayer, can choose to do so. Under Liu’s random interpretation model, they could not and therefore people in Wyoming have to fight people in New Jersey for the right to do what they wish in Wyoming. That’s wrong folks.
