Hey it pays better than grad school!. Apparently, according to The Jerusalem Post , the Palestinian Authority tried to bribe some of its Tanzim members by paying them $3000 to sit in jail for a month to act as Hamas or Islamic Jihad terrorists in order to fool the US and the EU. Considering that a large percentage of attacks on Israelis have been carried out by the Tanzim, they probably deserve to be in jail anyway.
Well, I made it back from my enjoyable vacation in San Diego, Los Angeles and Las Vegas, which means I've now flown 4 times in 3 weeks and have lived to... blog about it. I'll write more about it later .
And now for something a bit different. As I was doing some blog surfing, I found an interesting tid bit on Shiloh Bucher's excellent blog. In it, she highlights yet another example of the press not holding Third World citizens accountable for their actions; in this case it's a sickening account of a recent spate of baby rapes in South Africa. In this BBC round-up (note, the BBC is summarizing the points of view held in various British newpapers), we read the following:
The Daily Mail and Guardian agrees that "the cruel and perverse nature of much violent crime" in the country "has everything to do with South Africa's violent past. In the township upheavals of the apartheid days, the norms and taboos that hold society together were undermined as children threw hand grenades, witnessed violent death and torture, and burnt people alive," the paper says.
This is a pretty bold statement, especially when applied to baby rapes. It seems to me that as brutal as apartheid was, connecting it to causing grown men to rape babies is more than a bit of a stretch. Let me address this claim:
1. From the news reports I've found on the web (where would we be without Google?), I haven't been able to determine if the men arrested for these sick crimes are black or white. Now before I am accused of racism, allow me to explain why this is important. The claim is that these brutal rapes occurred because the perpetrators were brutalized by apartheid. So if the men are white, this claim is absurd since white people weren't brutalized . If they men are black, then the claim may have some merit. What I have found so far is that according to this report, in one case a man of "of average build, light in complexion and ...grey hair" ordered 8 young girls to pull down their panties, sexually abused them, and then payed them 50 cents each. I assume light complexion means he was a light skinned black, but I don't know enough about South African norms to be sure. Another article gives the names of 6 men accused of gang raping (are these people sick or what?) a 9 month old baby: Piet van Rooi, 39; Jan Mienies, 45; John Radebi, 24; Frans Mosterd, 28; Jan van Wyk, 66 and Job Freeman, 32. These sound like Afrikaaner names to me but I guess it's possible that black South Africans use these kinds of names. Again, I don't know, but I would like to.
2. Someone ought to look at a somewhat analgous case in history: the South after the United States Civil War. Surely hundreds of years of slavery was at least as brutal (if not more so) than apartheid, so I think looking at the South during the reconstruction would be instructive. Was crime more rampant among the newly freed black population? Was there a series of baby rapes, or an increase of rapes in general. Obviously, such things weren't recorded as well back then as the are now, but it seems to me that any type of crime committed by a black would be amplified by those racist southerners (think KKK) to incite against blacks, so there should at least be some records to look through. I'm hardly an historical expert, I've never heard of such brutal crimes committed by freed slave taking place in the South after the civil war. This leads to the question "what makes these two situations different?" Aside from the obvious ones: different government, different cultures, etc. there's one huge one: the rampant spread of HIV in South Africa. This brings me to point 3.
3. According to the same BBC round up:
The Natal Witness links the episodes of child rape with AIDS, saying this is encouraged by the "shocking belief propagated by traditional healers that intercourse with a virgin cures Aids".
Ah ha! Now we get to the crux of the matter. These rapists are seeking out virgins, and what better guarantee of virginity is there than being an infant? And why are they seeking out virgins? Because traditional healers said so. And why is the advice of these tradiational healers so believed? Because of a lack of education in South Africa about HIV and AIDS. And why is there this lack of education? Because the president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, refuses to believe that HIV causes AIDS.
So it seems to me, that if we're not going to blame the actual rapists themselves, we should be pointing the finger at the current South African governement rather than the former one. I still vote for blaming those sick rapists.
From the "they can dish it out but they can't take it" file. According to the EU Observer, a Swedish citizen has been expelled from 14 European countries after posting an unauthorized poster critical of the European Union in Brussles. Those Belgians sure are not only self-righteous, but over-sensitive as well. I can only imagine what the reaction in Europe would be if something like this occurred over here in the US. No doubt a litany of polemics against American fascism would ensue, followed by an all out assault on local McDonald's restaurants.
Just a thought. As I was using the wonderful little spell checker provided by Blogger, I was wondering how many times people have added "Osama", "Bin-Laden", and "al-Qaida" to their personal dictionaries. I know I just did. And I just added "Blogger" as well.
U.S. Asks Israel to Help Afghanistan. And you thought Israel was only good for weaponsl now she's lending her agricultural expertise. Oh the irony... country #2 that Osama wants destroyed is going to help fix the country he help destroy. A good one-two punch... bombs then farms.
Britain Tightens Arms Regulations for Israel. I found this interesting little story on Middle East Newsline and had to laugh. I guess it's ok for British weapons to be used on some Arabs (i.e. al-Qaida) but not others (Palestinians). One of the items listed is "riot control gear." So, the Brits expect the Israelis to use non-lethal force (you know, act with restraint) but not to use British equipment when doing so. Frankly, I find this whole idea of "you can have our weapons but you can only use them when we say so" utterly absurd. When you sell weapons, you should expect that they might be used on the buyer's foes. Oh well, I guess Israel will have to keep on making their own weapons, like the ones the US is using in Afghanistan.
An interesting article in the Telegraph by Barbara Amiel. (Thanks to Moira Breen.) I was particularly intrigued by some of the lovely statements she quoted, from the anonymous EU diplomat (probably jealous over the fact that Israel's high tech industry is more developed than that of his country) and from that lunch hostess. Yes, European love Jews, as long as they're willing to roll over and play dead. That anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism is hip in London is hardly a surprise.
I admit that I'm not nearly as optimistic as Amiel... I don't believe the tide has turned just yet; it's still touch and go. There are still plenty of people out there who blame Israel and the Jews for 9/11 and its aftermath, and while their numbers may be dwindling, all it takes is for one thing to go wrong in the war on terrorism to change that trend.
Hey look! It's the Hizbollah SS! I thought I'd share this pretty picture will all of you. A bunch of uniformed kids giving a salute a la Hitler's finest. (Thanks to Andrew Sullivan). But Andrew, it's the Hizbollah, not Hamas dressing up their kids this way. Hamas prefers to dress them in the latest Palestinian fashion: faux suicide bomber.
Hmm. My blog is looking strikingly similar to the World War III blog. I guess we both have good taste in templates! I also guess that I'm going to have to change this around or else be called a copier.
Anti-Jew Threats Stop Paris Harry Potter Screening Well isn't this spiffy? Here we've been told ad infinitum, especially by the Arab/Muslim community that attacking your average, everyday Arabs/Muslims is wrong. With this, I must agree. However, it just makes my blood boil when I see Arabs/Muslims threatening Jewish civilians (kids no less!!). This is perhaps the basest form of hypocrisy I've seen yet. Maybe Norah Vincent was right.
Anti-Jew Threats Stop Paris Harry Potter Screening Well isn't this spiffy? Here we've been told ad infinitum, especially by the Arab/Muslim community that attacking your average, everyday Arabs/Muslims is wrong. With this, I must agree. However, it just makes my blood boil when I see Arabs/Muslims threatening Jewish civilians (kids no less!!). This is perhaps the basest form of hypocracy I've seen yet. Maybe Norah Vincent was right.
"Studs and Duds" by Eric Umansky Or why the Navy's weapons work and the other armed forces branches' doesn't. Thanks to Slate for bringing this informative article to the forefront. A few points that stand out:
1. The Air Force has wasted billions of dollars on high-tech weapons systems that don't work. Of the two examples given (the B-2 bomber and the Predator air drone), the B-2 is far more egregious. Imagine, billions of dollars are spent on an airplane that can evade the most sophisticated radar systems, but is easily defeated by...water. Obviously, 20/20 hindsight allows me to say, "why didn't you test the damn skin in real weather situations," so I won't harp on that point. However, Umansky claims that the B-2 skin cannot be replaced. I'm not an aerospace engineer, but it seems to me that if the skin can be repaired it can be replaced. The contractor that developed the skin should be forced to develop a water-resistant version. Scotch-guard anyone?
2. When comparing the effectiveness of Navy and Air Force aircraft, Umansky makes the following statement:
Indeed, in the first month of the bombing campaign in Afghanistan, B-2s flew just six missions. Navy planes, meanwhile, have flown more than 1,500.
Well that may be true, but it's not a fair comparison. The Navy is flying F-14's and F/A-18's which aren't exactly new weapons systems. In fact, the plane that was supposed to be the Navy's aircraft of the future was killed in development by Dick Cheney in 1991. Moreover, despite the failings of the B-2, the Air Force has flown hundreds of sorties using B-52's and F-16's, which by all accounts, work just fine.
3. I think the following statement was made with far too little comment on its implications:
For instance, under the old testing system still used in the other services, contractors and program officers have no idea until the end whether or not the weapons systems they've banked their careers on will make the grade. The situation inspires a gnawing fear, and the natural reaction to such fear is to exert pressure on the testing office to make the tests less rigorous
This says to me that in order to save their jobs, these program officers and contractors are putting military personnel's lives at risk by making the testing easier. I wonder if those 30 Marines who died in Osprey crashes would still be alive had the testing not been made "less rigorous."
Anyhow, check out the article. It's definitely a worthwhile read.
Al Qaeda Chechens Fight to Death in Tora Bora. Wow, the Chechens are gluttons for punishment, aren't they? First they tangle with a former superpower in Russia, and now they're fighting to the death against the world's only superpower. Perhaps someday they'll fight on a winning side.
Well, now it seems all is working well on this new blogger thingy. I have to admit, they at blogger.com have really made this easy, and thanks to the readily available templates, it really looks nice! And to think, only a couple of years ago, I would have spent hours handing coding the HTML etc. to do this using trust ol' Notepad+. My how times have changed.