William Katz / Urgent Agenda
|
|||
|
SNIPPETS
SIZZLING SITES Power Line
|
SATURDAY, APRIL 18, 2009
COMMENT: Applause, applause. The conference is a farce. It has nothing to do with fighting racism. It's dominated by some of the world's worst gangster regimes. The president of Iran, that great fighter for freedom, will address the meeting when it opens Monday. There will of course be the usual charges that this decision was "dictated" by the Israel lobby. Well, cheers for the Israel lobby. People have a right to petition the government, and they're certainly correct on this one. Our participation would have been an embarrassment. You may recall that the Bush administration walked out of "Durban I" in 2001, a conference that degenerated into an anti-freedom, anti-West, and anti-Semitic rant. Naturally, the usual suspects are appalled by this courageous move. Marxist Congresswoman Barbara Lee, commissar of the Congressional Black Caucus, and the most left-leaning member of Congress, has registered her deep pain. Human Rights Watch, which is nothing of the kind, is also anguished beyond words. The AP story identifies "human rights advocates" as upset by the decision. The phrase is corrupt, and reflects lazy, biased journalism. Many of these "human rights advocates" never met a dictatorship they didn't like. Maybe some of the Obamans are learning about the real world and the way it works. We give credit where it's due. Good decision. We hope many other nations will follow. Let's see if Obama has coattails on this one. April 18, 2009 Permalink THE NEWS? - AT 3:47 P.M. ET: I was just doing a sweep of the cable news channels, as I do all the time, and I must tell you that the contrast between CNN and Fox seems to be getting greater. Watching CNN is like watching an ad for the Obama administration. The network is unashamed. This afternoon one of its anchorwomen guided CNN reporters and interviewees through a laudatory prayer meeting about the wonders of Obaman diplomacy and what it is achieving. Why, he's got the whole world in his hands. On Fox, though, matters were more sober and balanced. The most important comment I heard came from former Ambassador John Bolton, who said that there was some value in President Obama doing all these photo ops with people like Hugo Chavez. In a year, Bolton said, the administration will be embarrassed by those photos, and will have learned a lesson - that nations pursue their own interests, and won't be swayed by the personality of the man in the White House. Bolton is correct. But, if you're in a lighthearted mood and want to see what movie-fan magazines used to be like in reporting on screen stars, flip to CNN. April 18, 2009 Permalink
COMMENT: Peters is correct. We have to start measuring Obama's policies against their effect on the United States and our own safety. We're not against negotiations here. Reagan negotiated. We're against negotiations in which we lose. And we fear that there are people around Obama who have no problem with losing. April 18, 2009 Permalink
COMMENT: Secretary Clinton has made a pro forma appeal for her release. Big deal. This case could be resolved in minutes if the ruling mullahs wish it. We should make it clear that any talks with Iran will be affected by this outrage. Obama often comes off as weak, and he cannot simply let this stand without action. But I fear he'll employ the same approach here as with the recent North Korean missile test - some critical words, and nothing more. If that's true, we sink more and more into the quicksand. April 18, 2009 Permalink
COMMENT: This will undoubtedly cheer the thousands of political prisoners in Castro's prisons, just as Obama's groveling to the Muslim world undoubtedly thrills Muslim human-rights campaigners. Not. We'll withhold judgment for a time. The president also correctly warned that Cuba's repressive policies are on the table, and he warned that routine Latin American attempts to blame the United States for all problems south of our border must go. We did engage both the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War, so this is really nothing new. The issue is what we will give, and demand in return. A negotiation is just talk unless defined precisely. If human freedom suddenly disappears from the agenda, then we're in trouble. And that is my fear. The so-called "realist" school is back in town, with its moral-equivalency chorus. Mr. Obama must resist them. April 18, 2009 Permalink
COMMENT: This guy is listed in his bios as an "Austrian human rights lawyer." Ah yes, that great Austrian tradition of human rights. Oh well, let's not quibble over 1938-45. The problem is that his opinion will give added impetus to the left-wing loons in the U.S. who want to prosecute Bush-era officials and employees. Our techniques were enhanced interrogation methods, but I think the word "torture" really is over the top. With the real horrors going on all over the world, obsessing over Guantanamo Bay seems like hypocrisy at its worst. But the UN is hypocrisy defined. April 18, 2009 Permalink
FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 2009
COMMENT: We are a service-oriented site here at Urgent Agenda, and one of the services we provide is translations into English. We therefore provide the following English translation of the above AP selection:
Speaking truth to power. April 17, 2009 Permalink
COMMENT: Okay, we all want clean air. Anyone who doesn't? But we also want decisions to be based on real science, not "consensus" science or political science. And we must demand solutions, where required, that are thoroughly researched and examined, not the latest fad. I certainly don't deny that we sometimes abuse the planet. We have seen poisoned rivers and foul air. Conservatives must avoid knee-jerk opposition to environmentalists, must embrace "conserving" the Earth, but at the same time must resist fast-hustle operations by people who simply want everyone to live the way they do, or who have a financial interest in "new technologies," which may never work. Conservatives have an important role to play in environmentalism, by asking the tough questions that conservatives are so good at asking, and by stressing the economic implications of environmental decisions. Economic damage done in exchange for small or insignificant gains can result in poverty and hunger. We should join the discussion, not avoid it. April 17, 2009 Permalink
And...
COMMENT: Please read the whole piece. What we're dealing with here is a mindset in the Obama administration: We are partially at fault for terror; Bush was a fascist; this whole war on terror is childish, and will make matters worse; we're no better than anyone else. We are now officially back to September 10, 2001. Our enemies know it. Oh, wait. We don't have enemies - just people with whom we have a cultural difference. April 17, 2009 Permalink
COMMENT: Of course we have some problems with our own medical system. But there are an inordinate number of stories like this coming out of Britain, and other countries with socialized medicine. One great advantage our system has is speed. If there's an emergency, it's treated like one. Obviously, there may be failures and exceptions, even here, but we seem to do "critical" a lot better than anyone else. April 17, 2009 Permalink
COMMENT: Oh, can you just imagine! A pirate of color being tried in New York. You have no idea what's about to happen here. Every lawyer with leftist credentials will be vying to represent this misunderstood youth, whose only crime was to want to help his family and defeat American imperialism, colonialism, racism, sexism, and rheumatism. Oh, the injustice. Oh, the anguish. Watch for a lawyer named Cohen and another one named Warren. They're at the top of the list, now that Lynne Stewart has been sidelined by legal charges. And our juries! Not only would some New York juries have acquitted O.J. Simpson, they would have awarded him damages. And the demonstrators. We have the very best here, thoroughly trained by the Ramsey Clark School of Anarchy. I can't wait to see those CNN reporters show the human side of piracy. Another opening, another show. April 17, 2009 Permalink AND AGAIN - AT 6:51 A.M. ET: The man just can't seem to help it. From The Washington Times:
COMMENT: Will someone please explain to me, if we are responsible for Mexico's drug violence, why there is no similar violence in Canada? Drug gangs aren't roaming around Canada. Guns and illegals aren't flowing over the Canadian border. But once again, it's our fault. And the president seems to be misinformed. Although propagandists say that most guns used in Mexico's scourge of violence come from the United States, it turns out only that most traceable guns come from this country. And the great majority of guns used in Mexican gang warfare cannot be traced. April 17, 2009 Permalink
COMMENT: In Chicago this would be a "legitimate interaction for the public good." Let's see how tough the media will be in exploring this. The Times is to be commended for reporting it - especially as Rattner used to be a Times business writer. April 17, 2009 Permalink
|
"What you see is news. What you know is background. What you feel is opinion." THE ANGEL'S CORNER Part I of a two-part edition of The Angel's Corner was sent Wednesday night.
TO NEW SUBSCRIBERS: Some new subscribers have not yet registered for The Angel's Corner. You must register to get the service. For instructions, contact us at service@urgentagenda.com
SUBSCRIPTIONS Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary. Why subscribe to something you're getting free? To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all, and to get The Angel's Corner, which we now offer to subscribers and donators. Subscriptions sustain us. Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account. Credit cards are fine.
FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK: IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:
THE CURRENT QUESTION Last week we asked: President Obama is in his third month as president. From what you've seen, what frightens you most, or encourages you the most, about his presidency? You can view the answers here.
Was President Obama's use of force to free Captain Phillips a reflection of his true leanings, or a cynical move to deflect critics who see him as soft? Give reasons for your answer. If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
POWER LINE It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here. To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.
CONTACT YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS: If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click: If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
|
|
| ````` | ```````` | ||