There’s been a lot of finger pointing in the few days since Bhutto’s assassination. John Edwards blamed George Bush. Mike Huckabee went so far as to blame the entire United States, apologizing on our behalf. Robert Novak thinks the United States is also to blame for the fact that it neither provided security nor did it push Musharraf to provide strong security for Bhutto. The Pakistani military might have been involved. Mark Steyn hints delicately that Bhutto’s own courage and foolhardiness may be to blame — something that is supported by the fact that, despite two prior assassination attempts, she voluntarily made herself a target by sticking it out of the top of her car, which placed her in a situation beyond protection. Al Qaeda has offered itself as a probable suspect, a claim Pakistan has hastened to endorse.

I think these assignments of blame are all too facile. I think the fault lies with the British. You see, in 1947, when the British withdrew from their Indian Empire, they acceded to Islamic demand that they create an Islamic nation — and, voila, Pakistan was born. The partition process had attendant upon it incredible violence and, as the Literary Encyclopedia (a nice source) notes, this initial violent rift seemed to set a template for the region in the next sixty years:

An estimated half a million people perished while seventeen million people were forced to move across the freshly demarcated frontiers of India and Pakistan. The blood-stained legacy of 1947 has cast an enduring shadow on inter-state relations and domestic politics in post-colonial South Asia. There are few burning issues in the subcontinent which cannot be traced, directly or indirectly, to the fateful moment when the British struck the partitioner’s axe. India and Pakistan have fought two full-scale wars over the former north Indian princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. An undeclared war, also over Kashmir, following nuclear tests by both countries in May 1998, resulted in a deadly standoff in the Kargil heights during the summer of 1999. An earlier war in 1971, preceded by a civil war in which Muslims slaughtered Muslims, led to Indian intervention and the breaking away of Bangladesh. The rise of religious majoritarianism in secular India – highlighted by the razing of a sixteenth-century mosque by Hindu militants in December 1992 and the systematic brutalization of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 – is rooted in partition, as is Pakistan’s drift towards a militant and bigoted form of Islam, a by-product of its efforts to espouse an ideology in contradistinction to India’s secular identity.

Not only did it set a template, of course, but it turned Pakistan into a swirling soup of Islamic (and other) malcontent. As is so often the case, Mark Steyn, in taking apart Bill Richardson’s silly pronouncement that we should just set up a representative government in Pakistan, points out the core problems with Pakistan:

But, since Governor Bill Richardson brought it up, it’s worth considering what exactly “the interests of the U.S.” are in Pakistan. The most immediate interest is in preventing the country’s tribal lands from becoming this decade’s Afghanistan – a huge Camp Osama graduating jihadist alumni from all over the world. That ship, if it hasn’t already sailed, has certainly cast off and is chugging out the harbor. Something called “the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan” now operates a local franchise of Taliban rule in both north and south Waziristan, and is formally recognized by the Pakistan government in the Islamabad-Waziri treaty of just over a year ago. Officially, the treaty was intended to negotiate a truce, although to those unversed in the machinations of tribal politics it looked a lot more like a capitulation, an interpretation encouraged by the signing ceremony, which took place in a soccer stadium flying the flag of al-Qaeda.

Of course, the “Federally Administered Tribal Areas” have always been somewhat loosely governed Federal Administration-wise. In the new issue of The Claremont Review Of Books, Stanley Kurtz’s fascinating round-up of various tomes by Akbar Ahmed (recently Pakistan’s High Commissioner in London and before that Political Agent in Waziristan) mentions en passant a factoid I vaguely remember from my schooldays – that even at the height of imperial power, the laws of British India, by treaty and tradition, only governed 100 yards either side of Waziristan’s main roads. Once you were off the shoulder, you were subject to the rule of various “maliks” (tribal bigshots). The British prided themselves on an ability to run the joint at arm’s length through discreet subsidy of favored locals. As a young lieutenant with the Malakand Field Force, Winston Churchill found the wiles of Sir Harold Deane, chief commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province, a tad frustrating. “We had with us a very brilliant political officer, a Major Deane, who was most disliked because he always stopped military operations,” recalled Churchill. “Apparently all these savage chiefs were his old friends and almost his blood relations. Nothing disturbed their friendship. In between fights, they talked as man to man and as pal to pal.”

The benign interpretation of Musharraf’s recent moves is that he’s doing a Major Deane. The reality is somewhat bleaker: Today, even that 200-yard corridor of nominal sovereignty has gone and Islamabad’s Political Agent is a much shrunken figure compared to his predecessors from the Raj. That doesn’t mean “foreign” influence is impossible in Waziristan. Osama bin Laden is, after all, a foreigner, and so are many of the other al-Qaeda A-listers holed up in the tribal lands. Jihadists arrested recently in Britain, Germany and Scandinavia all spent time training in Waziristan, as do Chechen rebels. If another big hit on the US mainland is currently in the works, it’s safe to say it’s being plotted somewhere in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Interestingly, modern India, which was also carved out of the former British Empire, hasn’t devolved into this corrupt, violent soup of extremism. It’s had its moments, of course, and there are certainly aspects of Indian culture that don’t easily yield to Western admiration, but it is, on the whole, a successful Democracy. I’m too historically ignorant to draw any conclusions from that fact but, perhaps, some of you who better understand Indian, Pakistan, Islamic, Hindu, Cold War or Tribal history can do better in this regard than I can.

UPDATE: And a reminder that democracy, as we understand it, doesn’t exist in Pakistan, comes in this story about the “annointing” of Bhutto’s famously corrupt husband and her utterly untried teenage son as the new party leaders:

Pakistan’s largest and most storied political party chose Sunday to continue its dynastic traditions, anointing the 19-year-old son of slain former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto to be her ultimate successor but picking her husband to lead for now.

The selections mean that the Pakistan People’s Party, which casts itself as the voice of democracy in Pakistan, will stay in family hands for a third generation.

The word “dynastic” in the above quotation nails the situation and does not bode well for the future of Pakistan’s putative “democratic” party.

[Discuss this topic with Bookworm at Bookworm Room]

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto    Sphere: Related Content

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Fox News is putting together a forum of Republican candidates to take place two days before the New Hampshire Primary. The release indicates; «Participating in the forum will be Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.» Notice there is no mention of Ron Paul. Ron Paul’s people have contacted the NH GOP Chairman and asked if Paul would be invited and were told that this was unknown. The Chair indicated that this was in the planning stage but that the decision was ultimately Fox’s.

If this is a forum for Republican candidates then Ron Paul should be included as should any other person who is running for the Republican nomination. Fox would not consider excluding Romney or Giuliani and if they did there would be an uproar. The idea of the forums is for voters to get to know the candidates and to be better informed for when they vote. Eliminating any candidate tarnishes the process and makes it appear as if the media (in this case Fox) is deciding for voters who they should and should not hear.

Ron Paul has raised a great deal of money in this quarter and he has a lot of supporters regardless of what his poll numbers show (though money or not, all candidates should be invited). By ignoring him Fox is demonstrating that they are afraid of his candidacy and that they worry he might actually be the nominee. One would think Fox would be a little more sensitive to this considering how the Democrats refused to attend a debate sponsored by the network. Fox was none too pleased to have its credibility challenged and yet the network acts in a way that leaves it open to such criticisms.

Ron Paul deserves to be heard and the people who support him deserve to have their candidate at that event unless he chooses not to participate. All candidates should be invited and all candidates should be heard. Anything less is harmful to the election process and disenfranchises voters.

I did notice that in addition to Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter is not mentioned in the invite. I do not know if he was invited and declined or if he was excluded along with Paul.

[Discuss this topic with Big Dog at Big Dog's Weblog]

Republican, New Hampshire Primary, Ron Paul    Sphere: Related Content

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Sometimes, the nature of a complaint is much less important than how the complaint came to be. Some complaints materialize because they’re so important you can’t avoid them…some complaints come under consideration because someone was looking for a complaint to have. Imagine yourself as half of a married couple buying a car. You’re ready to sign and your spouse says hey — we discussed doing something we can’t do in this vehicle. Maybe it’s going off-road, and this isn’t a four wheel drive model. Maybe it’s driving the kids somewhere, and you can’t have a DVD player in the back seat. That’s in a completely different light, regardless of the substance of the complaint, than something like “I was looking for a complaint to have, since I have a hidden agenda I’m not willing to admit to you, and finally I stumbled across this thing I’d like you to take seriously even though I don’t.”

…which is exactly the nature of complaints against my favorite candidate. They’re all stupid complaints. They exist simply for the purpose of being there…because someone flailed around, looking for bad things to say about Fred, and finally settled on something that might be silly, but at least is better-n-nothin’. He entered late. He looks tired. He isn’t a Senator anymore. His wife is too hot. He made some bad movies.

This election has, among other candidates, an anti-Semite who regularly opposes things because they’re ostensibly contrary to the “Constitution,” without ever offering anything resembling an argument about how such things are in any way incompatible with the Constitution. Among those things, are efforts to safeguard the national security. So indirectly, this campaign has turned into a debate about whether national defense is constitutional…do we really give a rat’s ass whether one of the other candidates has a much younger wife or made some mediocre movies?

But the one complaint against Thompson that might possibly have some relevance to it — and in conceding that, by no means am I abandoning my contention that it has been vastly overplayed — is this assertion that he lacks ambition. Well if he does, then ambition must be defined as something short of ambition to pulverize. Because time after time, when Fred engages something, he engages to win. To beat. To maul. To grind into the ground. And then beat some more…eviscerate…rip the sinew from bone, grind the whole thing into dust to butter his bread…finis. No need for a tie-breaking rematch. The man has a long fuse, but he simply doesn’t believe in warning shots, and that makes him the very picture of what the country needs now.

Fred’s peace plan is to wait awhile before engaging the fight. Once the fight is engaged, it’s a quick one. He’s done this time after time; it is his style.

And in this column, he takes on the whole “lack of ambition” argument. It’s like watching a stick of butter gobbled up by a high-powered kitchen blender. Really high powered. Like some Tool Time contraption powered by a 10HP Briggs & Stratton ripped out of a rider lawnmower.

Just watch this guy go to work, and imagine this kind of dignified calm coupled with “in it to win it” in the Oval Office — exactly where it belongs.

My only problem with you and why I haven’t thrown all my support behind you is that I don’t know if you have the desire to be President. If I caucus for you next week, are you still going to be there two months from now?
:
I don’t know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I don’t know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, it’s all about fire in the belly. I’m not sure in the world we live in today it’s a good thing if a president has too much fire in the belly. I approach life differently than a lot of people. People, I guess, wonder how I’ve been as successful as I’ve been in everything that I’ve done. I won two races in TN by 20 point margins in a state that bill Clinton carried twice. I’ve never had an acting lesson. I guess that’s obvious by people who’ve watched me…

When I did it, I did it. Wasn’t just a lark. Anything that’s worth doing is worth doing well. But I’ve always been a little more laid back than most. I’m only consumed by very, very few things. Politics is not one of them. The welfare of our country and our kids and grandkids is one of them.

If people really want in their president super type-a personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about for years how they win the presidency of the united states, someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning, I ain’t that guy. So I hope I’ve discussed that and didn’t talk you out of anything. I honestly want – I can’t imagine a worse set of circumstances [than] achieving the Presidency of the United States under false pretenses. I go out of my way to be myself.

Ambition, it turns out, is a word that benefits from a variety of different definitions. According to some of those definitions, Fred’s got none of it; according to others, he’s got all of it. We need as much as we can get of what Fred’s got, and none at all of what he has not.

[Discuss This Post with MKFreeberg at House of Eratosthenes]

See also: Hot Air

Thompson    Sphere: Related Content

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

The conservative side of the internet has been enjoying the fact that Americans have rather consistently been rejecting the anti-War films oozing out of Hollywood. There’s a flip-side to this story, which is that Hollywood is slowly figuring out the wholesomeness sells:

The family values era is dead - with Britney Spears and her little sister doing their best to ensure that it isn’t coming back soon. But there’s at least one arena in popular culture where parents have been receiving a world free of drug use, sexual shenanigans and strong profanity: the movie theater.

Last weekend’s release of “National Treasure: Book of Secrets,” which made more than $88 million during its first seven days in theaters, is the latest PG-rated film to find success this year. If the trend continues over the next few weeks, seven PG movies could end up among the 20 highest-grossing films released in 2007 - the most since 1989, when Ronald Reagan left office and eight studio offerings including “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” and “Driving Miss Daisy” were on the list.

Next year looks even more geared toward 10-year-olds, with family-friendly releases including “The Spiderwick Chronicles,” “Where the Wild Things Are” and the latest “Chronicles of Narnia” film, “Prince Caspian.” Even the Wachowskis - best known for their violent and R-rated “Matrix” movies - are working on the colorful and kid-accessible “Speed Racer,” which could end up with a G rating.

The change comes as more parents are making their voices heard, especially online, about children’s movies. Common Sense Media founder Jim Steyer thinks the studios are listening; Steyer says he even heard “Kill Bill Vol. 1″ producer Harvey Weinstein say at a conference this year that he wants to make PG films.

“The bottom line is, it definitely seems like a trend, and I think that’s good,” said Steyer, who founded Bay Area-based Commonsensemedia.org , which offers family reviews and ratings of media and entertainment, in 2003. “It almost seems as if there’s a hunger out there for quality media for children.” (Emphasis mine.)

You can read the rest of the story about this trend here. As for me, I’m completely excited about the next Narnia move, having enjoyed the first one tremendously.

[Discuss this article with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room...]

Sphere: Related Content

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

The left is up in arms over the announcement that their favorite source of left wing propaganda will entertain, GASP, AN OPPOSING VIEW!!!! Yup, Bill Kristol, described on the Huffington Post as ‘Billy “the bloody” Kristol’ has agreed to write a column once per week for the New York Times.

We all know what this means, the Huffington Post will be forced to monitor and subsequently post the face saving “Comments for this post are now closed” gate at the running mouths of cry baby lefties that can’t stand to have their world view challenged let alone debated.

I love siphoning through the exasperatingly panicked comments over at Arianna central.

johnie2xs

When discredited and devious demons like ‘K’rystal, ‘K’arl Rove, and Tom DeLay continually get a forum in our MSM, we’re sunk. The “Old Grey Lady” takes on a discernably different coloration, (sh*t brown) is what I’m thinking, by taking on the likes of Billy Boy, here. The Neo-cons have had too prominent a place in the media, for far too long, already. A major shift is wanted and necessary if we’re ever going to pull ourselves out of the morass into which the Bush Cabal has taken us.
When will the media wake the hell up.

bluesky49876
Given this man’s complicity in the death of hundreds of thousands of people and destruction of an entire nation, it is galling of the NYT to confer upon him this respectability. But realizing that the U.S. corporate media is not looking for respectability but right wing mouth pieces to pursue their corporate agenda, it is not surprising.

Bluedanube
After Jason Blair, William Safire, Judith Miller, David Brooks, Thomas Friedman the NYTimes hiring of William Krystal proves that the NYT has finally jumped the shark.

The Daily Kos does no better, but what are we to expect with intellectuals such as the following:

The New York Times was a great newspaper way back when it was owned by the Sulzbergers, but now it’s just another plaything of the corporate whores on Wall Street.

Now that the Bancrofts no longer control the Wall street Journal, all the hard journalism that compensated for the wing-nut editorials will also disappear.

Media owned by American families served us fairly well for 200 years, because there was usually a little family pride that prevented really shameless whoring for the military-corporate establishment.

It’s pointless to complain about every little problem that comes along, like Joe Klein at Time and Kristol at the Times.

The only solution is to break these media conglomerates into much smaller pieces, which would be so much harder for the Wall Street bosses to control.

Kill me before I have to think again!

by Jacob Freeze on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 09:29:30 AM PST

No Jason, kill me before you try and think again. Last I checked Sulzberger still publishes the paper, dolt.

It will be interesting to see what impact if any this move has on the flagging MSM bastion of left wing activism. For me it is no big deal, I didn’t like the rag before and could care less if the op-ed section jumped the shark on all of their columnists. Nothing much will change with the main page and that is where the paper really could use a royal enema.

That being said it is fun to watch the “blogger’s heads explode” as Kristol was quoted as saying. Good luck Bill; just don’t try to fit in too much.

See Also : Right Voices, Memeorandum

Bill Kristol, New York Times    Sphere: Related Content

| Trackback URL | Comments (1 Comment)

Amid the many examples that supposedly substantiate the vacuous claim that the illegal immigrant “hustles to do hard work many Americans won’t do” and the equally specious statement that illegal immigrants “endure hatred and abuse by those of us who want the benefits of cheap labor but not the presence of illegal immigrants” is the Dallas Morning News editorial that awards the 2007 Texan of the Year title to “The Illegal Immigrant”. You can read the editorial essay here.

He is at the heart of a great culture war in Texas – and the nation, credited with bringing us prosperity and blamed for abusing our resources. How should we deal with this stranger among us?

He breaks the law by his very presence. He hustles to do hard work many Americans won’t, at least not at the low wages he accepts. The American consumer economy depends on him. America as we have known it for generations may not survive him.

We can’t seem to live with him and his family, and if we can live without him, nobody’s figured out how.

He’s the Illegal Immigrant, and he’s the 2007 Dallas Morning News Texan of the Year – for better or for worse.

Yes, the editorial staff at the Dallas Morning News wants you to know that they have studied your viewpoint - for better or for worse. But with all of that in mind they have decided to look past your convictions and praise the hard working law breaker as if the alleged benefits outweigh the consequences of illegal immigration. Forget the toll of human trafficking, never mind the drugs and weapons that travel the same route into the country as the coveted illegal worker, ignore the violent gangs from South America, side step the issue of non-English speaking students that burden our schools, give up on hospital emergency rooms that can not afford the benefits afforded to illegals and never, ever mention the broken bodies from families that would otherwise be in tact if not for the actions of some illegals that just wanted to come here without waiting in the same line that millions of other legal immigrants have decided to sit through.

This short list is part of a much longer list that the editors at the Dallas Morning News overlook in their quest to justify illegal immigration at the expense of “undependable, lazy and arrogant” Americans. (Yes, the editors actually included a quote from a business owner that calls Americans undependable, lazy and arrogant; more on that below.)

To their champions, illegal immigrants are decent, hardworking people who, like generations of European immigrants before them, just want to do better for their families and who contribute to America’s prosperity. They must endure hatred and abuse by those of us who want the benefits of cheap labor but not the presence of illegal immigrants.

Especially here in Texas, his strong back and willing heart help form the cornerstone of our daily lives, in ways that many of us do not, or will not, see. The illegal immigrant is the waiter serving margaritas at our restaurant table, the cook preparing our enchiladas. He works grueling hours at a meatpacking plant, carving up carcasses of cattle for our barbecue (he also picks the lettuce for our burgers). He builds our houses and cuts our grass. She cleans our homes and takes care of our children.

Yet to those who want them sent home, illegal immigrants are essentially lawbreakers who violate the nation’s borders. They use public resources – schools, hospitals – to which they aren’t entitled and expect to be served in a foreign language. They’re rapidly changing Texas neighborhoods, cities and culture, and not always for the better. Those who object get tagged as racists.

No, they are not essentially lawbreakers, there is no qualifier here, they are lawbreakers. We don’t get to pick and choose the laws we want to follow nor do we get to qualify the labels. They are illegal and that aspect of their existence on American soil poses a great problem.

Michelle Malkin hit the nail on the head when she noted that the newspaper ought to be honoring the faceless victims of crime perpetrated by illegals rather than the illegal worker that the editors of the Dallas Morning News chose to prop up as the model worker. Yet even Michelle seems to have missed the offensive one liners and sought after examples that are presented as a generalized sort of justification while at the same time taking pot shots at Americans.

Marty owns a North Texas construction company. He has come to view American workers as undependable, lazy and arrogant, while he finds illegal immigrants motivated and reliable.

“I’d rather employ them than Americans,” he confides. “In my line of work, I need the Mexicans, and I am for them being here. I need them because I can’t find anybody else to do the work.”

This is a lie. The truth is that “Marty” the business owner and others like him have created an atmosphere that is hostile to Americans. Marty and others like him shop for workers in the parking lot of day labor friendly businesses. They are not looking for hard working Americans because hard working Americans carry a tax burden, a competitive wage burden, a health care burden and all the other benefits that Marty the business owner is too undependable, lazy and arrogant to admit to. Not to mention that Marty himself is a criminal if he is circumventing the laws of the United States to run his business.

Perhaps the editors at the Dallas Morning News live too comfortably to be in touch with real Americans but their nursery school examples of hard working illegals discounts all of the hard working legal Americans that put in equally long hours in equally demanding jobs. Funny thing, I’m a hard working white collar professional yet along the way I cut the grass, tendered drinks at the bar, served food at the tables, cleaned dishes in the back, painted walls at the factory, poured metal at the die cast plant, flipped burgers at the grill and even put tore up the roofs for other legal workers to complete. Look around you and ask your friends if they did much of the same; my guess would probably be yes.

Perhaps our kids have it better because of our hard work or perhaps some jobs just don’t pay enough to make a living wage. But whose fault is that? It’s certainly not the worker who is edged out of a needed job because an illegal happens to be waiting in line to do it for less than the legal wage! This is not something that a newspaper should bestow an honor upon. It is an unlawful act that damages society, undercuts the premise of a living wage, depresses wages for legal Americans and worst of all makes it impossible for legitimate business owners and workers to compete on an even playing field. Hello, the American way calling; heard of it?

I understand that illegal immigrants want a better life and that most are in fact law abiding and hard working as the editors claim. But it is wrong to lump illegal immigrants in with past generations of European immigrants who waited in line, were screened at the border and assimilated once here legally. It is wrong to tout the benefits of illegal immigration without honestly discussing the true cost in terms of both the human and economic impact that comes along with the benefits. It is also wrong to talk about the illegal immigration problem as if it is a uniquely Mexican immigrant issue. Yet the Dallas morning news did just that by bestowing the simple title of Texan of the Year to the side of immigration they want celebrate at the expense of the side they wish to hide under the covers.

---

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing that points out topics such as the above… per the Watcher’s instructions, I am submitting this post for consideration in the upcoming nominations process because I can not fathom a bigger collection of weasels than the editors at the Dallas Morning News in light of their hapless lobbying for illegal immigration.
Here is the most recent winning council post (Congrats to Webloggin Contributor BookWorm!!), here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

illegal immigrant    Sphere: Related Content

| Trackback URL | Comments (2 Comments)

Merry Christmas!! An ass from California thought it was in her best interests to put herself on an international American Airlines flight from New Delhi to San Francisco despite being very sick and diagnosed with a highly resistant strain of tuberculosis. Thankfully she was too sick to go shopping on Christmas otherwise the CDC would be looking for more than the hundreds of people she came in contact with during her journey of sickness.

SATURDAY DEC 29, 2007 (News Locale) - A 30-year-old woman from California has been diagnosed with multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and kept in an isolation unit at the Stanford Hospital since December 19.

According to reports, the woman, whose name has not been revealed, was diagnosed suffering from the disease during her recent visit to India and flew back home in a commercial passenger. According to the authorities, they are at their wits end how the woman was allowed to travel by an international airlines with such a deadly disease that is highly contagious.

Amazingly, though the woman took the American Airlines Flight 293 from New Delhi to Chicago’s O’Hare airport on December 13, she did not report for further treatment until December 19 when she approached the Stanford emergency center for medical help.

While this is contrary to the rules that state that tuberculosis is a reportable disease in the US, the authorities now stress that all the passengers traveling with her in the same row of the aircraft need to be examined. Health officials in the US have already identified 44 passengers from 16 states who sat within two rows of the woman in the American Airlines Flight 293 and now the Centers for Disease Control is trying to contact all passengers who might have been exposed to the TB.

Meanwhile, authorities said that it is fortunate that the woman could not venture out for Christmas shopping owing to her acute illness. Had she been out, many others would have been affected by the deadly form of tuberculosis, they said. The health authorities have said that though the woman has been kept in isolation her condition was stable. They said that they have adopted all the precautions to protect the woman as well as the general public from the disease.

Note, the woman was actually sick when she was allowed on the airplane.

“She was sick when she got on her airplane,” said Joy Alexiou, a spokeswoman for Santa Clara County’s Public Health Department.

That was likely a good thing, said Dr. Marty Fenstersheib, the Santa Clara County health officer.

“She was really sick when she arrived in the Bay Area, so she wasn’t going out Christmas shopping or mingling with crowds,” he said. “She finally made her way to the emergency room at Stanford on Dec. 19.”

Put this on my list of reasons why I no longer fly. I don’t need to die because some idiot at the airport allows another bigger idiot who knows full and well that she is infected with a highly resistant strain of tuberculosis to fly and spread such disease throughout the airplane.

And guess what, California is a hotbed of activity for this particular strain. Funny though it seems that the CDC is only looking for people that traveled with the woman on the flight BACK from India. What about the people who shared a flight with the woman on the way TO New Delhi?

Note how the San Francisco Chronicle goes out of its way to downplay the threat (in bold)

While the multidrug-resistant strain of TB only accounts for a handful of cases each year in Santa Clara County, the disease itself is all too common in the Bay Area, Fenstersheib said. Santa Clara County had 228 cases of TB in 2006 and about the same number this year. About 90 percent of those infected are foreign born, often coming from countries where the disease is endemic.

“We work with TB all the time, so this is kind of routine for us,” he said.

The woman is in stable condition at Stanford Hospital, Fenstersheib said. She will be kept in isolation at the hospital until her disease is no longer infectious, which could take weeks.

The multidrug-resistant strain of TB isn’t any more virulent, but is much tougher to treat, since the typical frontline drugs don’t work, the doctor said. While the normal TB patient will take antibiotics for as long as nine months, the treatment can stretch out to two years for those with the less common version.

At least the chronicle notes that the strain is very common in the Bay area and that most of the cases come from foreign born individuals. Isn’t it time to change the rules for long international flights? Perhaps this can be a question for the campaign trail leading up to the 2008 elections; just don’t hold your breath, or maybe you should.

American Airlines, San Francisco, tuberculosis, CDC, multi-drug resistant tuberculosis    Sphere: Related Content

| Trackback URL | Comments (2 Comments)

Via Michelle Malkin:

Frustrated by the failure of the Dem leadership to carry through with impeachment, some Bush-haters in Brattleboro , Vermont want to subject President Bush and VP Cheney to arrest if they set foot in their town.

CNN (of course) is covering the non-story including allowing a Che Guevara like beanie wearing activist to compare the action to enter a petition of arrest to the Declaration of Independence.

President Bush may soon have a new reason to avoid left-leaning Vermont: In one town, activists want him subject to arrest for war crimes.

A group in Brattleboro is petitioning to put an item on a town meeting agenda in March that would make Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney subject to arrest and indictment if they visit the southeastern Vermont community.

“This petition is as radical as the Declaration of Independence, and it draws on that tradition in claiming a universal jurisdiction when governments fail to do what they’re supposed to do,” said Kurt Daims, 54, a retired machinist leading the drive.

First of all there is no such “universal jurisdiction” with regard to U.S. law. This is a precept rooted in international law that the activists believe can be used to expand the jurisdiction of the State of Vermont to supersede Constitutional limitations on their authority to prosecute the President and veep; especially while sitting in office. It is less radical than what they claim and CNN simply looks stupid reporting such nonsense (but then again mentioning stupid and CNN in one sentence is a bit redundant).

Second, let us assume that Universal Jurisdiction does apply in the United States. These idiots who went to the trouble of finding out about such notions must also know that the International Court of Justice ruled in 2002 that State officials did have immunity under international law while serving in office for the benefit of ensuring that a government can function without the interference of such prosecutions. This by the way is the same claim made by the Executive Branch of the U.S. government in protecting the President from prosecution while sitting in office. Either way the President can claim immunity.

But of course the United States is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court. Even if it was the criminal jurisdiction can only be exercised by an international organization under international law and not a state; thus this is not an option that can be exercised in the manner claimed by the activists.

Dispensing of the notion that Universal Jurisdiction can be applied in such a manner we then look to U.S. law as an alternative. The question boils down to the immunity of both the President and the Vice President in such cases. This is where it gets a little vague because the Constitution does not specifically mention such immunity with regard to the President and the VP. So we must move to case law which is again vague and often contradictory; offering something for everybody.

Many sides of the coin must be considered. Sequentialists argue that the President must be impeached before prosecution. Others argue that at best this would only apply at best to the President and not to the VP. Critics claim that the sequentialist argument is not held up by the Constitution pointing out that it explicitly offers privilege (limited immunity) from arrest to Senators and Representatives but is silent with respect to the President and Vice President.

As such the case is largely one that must be decided upon by the Supreme Court. In 1973 Solicitor General Robert Bork gave a sequentialist opinion to the Supreme Court; stating that a sitting President is immune from arrest and prosecution while sitting in office. In 2000 Randolph D. Moss, Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memo on A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution. In that memo he stated that “The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” based in part on Bork’s 1973 brief.

In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination. We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.

Some of course argue that the government can function if the President is prosecuted while sitting in office, pointing out that the Vice President could take over the President’s functions. Herein lies another problem with the activists. They are seeking to remove both the Vice President and the President. This of course would put Pelosi in charge but it could easily be argues that this would cause a huge upheaval and perhaps undermine the ability of the government to function. Further, neither the President of the Vice President can be prosecuted if such prosecution would divulge military secrets that could damage national security.

There are so many holes to this non-story that it amounts to nothing more than a bunch of Bush Derangement lefties beating their chest in a manner that will most certainly damage Democrats by placing a wedge down the middle of the party.

Ironically it was Democrats that laid much of this precedent in place with the defense of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky trial and subsequent cases from Paula Jones on down. It will be fun to watch such nonsense play out as the BDS crowd steps up their efforts in 2008 prior to the election. With the most recent progress in Iraq and voters looking for leaders to unite the nation nothing could make the left seem more petty and ignorant. As Bush said, “Bring it On”.

See also: Bloodthirsty Liberal » Destroy the Herd , JammieWearingFool , This ain’t Hell , but you can see it from here » Flatlander BDS in Vermont , Right Wing Rebel » Blog Archive » Impeachment fever at a all-time high in Vermont , Hot Air » Blog Archive » Extreme BDS watch: Vermont group wants to overthrow the Bush administration , Arresting the President? Impeachment? Go Right Ahead , Democrats! Let Your Freak Flags Fly. : The Sundries Shack , It’s called treason , folks. | BitsBlog , A NEWT ONE , Blogs For Victory » Extreme Bush Derangement Syndrome ,   Sheehan Lives!!!!! — Pirate’s Cove

impeachment, Brattleboro, Vermont, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, universal jurisdiction    Sphere: Related Content

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Luke the gay hairdresser? Yes, Mr Minhas has chosen a scientifically representative sample of early 21st century infidels: a gay hairdresser, a “glamour model” partial to flashing her breasts, an atheist taxi driver with a porn habit, etc. Evidently, Harrogate has changed somewhat from the genteel spa town it was when I took tea and crumpets there some years ago. Anyway, the gay coiffeur and the porno cabbie et al have to live without pork, alcohol, immodest ladies’ clothing and non-marital sex. Which pretty much eliminates every pillar of the Yorkshire infidel lifestyle.

Britain’s Channel 4 has decided to produce a reality TV show about British infidels living as Muslims under sharia law for the better part of a month. Who decided this was a good idea? Who wants to take bets on the amount of protesting and beheading that goes on once someone utters the word “Mohammed” without remembering to say “peace be upon him” after?

“We were a bit tired,” he explained wearily, “of seeing guys with beards who are a bit scary.” Indeed. Who among us has not found himself fighting vainly the old ennui at the umpteenth fire-breathing imam exhorting the lads to one more chorus of “Death to the Great Satan”? It was unclear from the publicity what happens if you find the three-week sharia tough-sledding. Do you get voted off the island? Or beheaded off the island?

There are so many reasons to hate this idea.

[Discuss this post with Right Girl...]

Sphere: Related Content

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

There was a huge push to help the Thompson campaign raise enough money to air an ad in advance of the Iowa caucus. The ad, called “Substance’ is airing statewide thanks to the diligent work of bloggers in Thompson’s corner; but all is not done. Thompson still has a way to go and I shudder at the thought of a Huckabee nomination.

Supporters of his campaign should pay attention to keep him afloat. The ad comes with the following byline:

In 1994 Fred climbed inside a red pickup truck and drove across Tennessee, taking his conservative message directly to the voters. Now he is traveling across Iowa, showing why he is the true conservative in the race. As you may have seen on the homepage, we have brought back the spirit of the red pickup to work its magic again. We need $248,846 to run the ad on the left while Fred campaigns relentlessly across Iowa. Can Fred count on you? Make a contribution today.

People who would like to contribute can do so here. The ad can be seen below: (Of course the Thompson people could make this easier by putting in the correct embed code on their site.)

Click To Play

See Also:

Flopping Aces - Fredhead Blogburst
Right Truth - Support Fred
Right Wing News
Fred File
JamieWearingFool - Getting on the Fred Thompson bus
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller
Right Wing Nuthouse
The Discerning Texan

Sphere: Related Content

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)