New Orleans doesn't want the riff-raff back:

New Orleans doesn't want its poorest residents back — unless they agree to work.

That was the message from three New Orleans City Council members who said government programs have "pampered" the city's residents for too long.

The news that some New Orleans City Council members weren't keen on the city's poorest returning home added another layer of discomfort in Houston, where local residents and elected officials alike have stretched to meet the needs of thousands of Louisiana residents in the months after Hurricane Katrina.

...

"We don't need soap opera watchers right now," said New Orleans City Council President Oliver Thomas, during a housing committee meeting. "We're going to target the people who are going to work. It's not that I'm fed up, but that at some point there has to be a whole new level of motivation, and people have got to stop blaming the government for something they ought to do."

...

Some residents who lived in public housing before the storm will be able to return. Future residents, however, will have to comply with new restrictions, including a series of questions about employment history and job prospects.

In other words, people will have to express a willingness to work to qualify for public housing, officials in New Orleans have said.

Later in Monday's meeting, Thomas, who is black, reiterated that his remarks were intended for African-Americans.

"There's just been a lot of pampering, and at some point you have to say, 'No, no, no, no, no.' ... If our legs don't hurt, you can walk somewhere," he said. "I'm saying these things to motivate my people."

The idea that able-bodied people should, get this, at least try to work in order to qualify for public assistance is a good one, but can a city really pick and choose who it allows back? And dump all of its undesirables on Houston?

Posted by: Ace at 10:26 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

At some point, it becomes inevitable. And not necessarily a bad thing, either.

Assailants wearing uniforms detonated two bombs inside one of Iraq's most revered Shiite shrines Wednesday, blowing the top off its landmark golden dome and spawning mass protests and reprisal attacks against dozens of Sunni mosques.

The brazen assault — the third major attack against Shiite targets in as many days — threatened to enflame religious passions as talks among sectarian and ethnic parties on a new government have bogged down.

...

Shiite leaders called for calm, but militants attacked Sunni mosques and a gunfight broke out between Shiite militiamen and guards at the offices of a Sunni political party in Basra. About 500 soldiers were sent to Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad to prevent clashes between the sects, army Capt. Jassim al-Wahash said.

Shiite spiritual leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani sent instructions to his followers forbidding attacks on Sunni mosques, especially the major ones in Baghdad. He called for seven days of mourning, his aides said.

The Iraqi Islamic Party, the country's largest Sunni political group, said at least 60 mosques were attacked, burned or taken over by Shiites. A leading Sunni politician, Tariq al-Hashimi, urged clerics and politicians to calm the situation "before it spins out of control."

What did the Sunnis expect would happen?

I suppose this may presage the long-promised (long dreamt of by liberals) Iraqi Civil War. Or it might put the fear of God, finally, into the Sunnis. They are a minority in a country in which they do not control the military or the most powerful weapons systems. Further, they are simultaneously at war with the US Military, the most effective and deadly army in history.

Is this really the road they want to head down?

If the Shi'ites do in fact begin terrorizing them as they've terrorized for years, to whom, precisely, will they look to for protection? The United States? Hardy-har-har.

They'd better straighten up and fly right if they want to survive this thing.

And get a haircut, hippies. I can't tell if you're boys or girls.

Posted by: Ace at 09:47 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.

Fair and balanced, I am.

I disagree, though, that simply because this company will not be taking over port security (that remains in the hands of US Customs, Homeland Security, etc.) therefore this deal poses no national security risk.

Think about it: Would it be easier for you to break into your place of work, or your home for that matter, than a random building you know nothing about? Knowing how things work, and knowing the inevitable holes in security, gives someone a great advantage in defeating security. Thieves and terrorists may spend months collecting information surreptitiously about the workings of a targeted operation before going forward; if this deal goes through, there are going to be a lot of people, not all of them anti-terrorist, with an amazing scouting report on all of our major east coast ports simply because they're involved in the day-to-day management of them.

I don't necessarily think the UAE is the problem. People smarter than me keep saying they're one of the good guys in the War on Terror, and I guess I believe them. But... undoubtedly, there will be some UAE people, possibly high-ranking in the Dubai Ports company, with terrorist sympathies. Can we run the risk of them passing on blueprints, guard rotation schedules, and full security run-downs for our nation's ports to Al Qaeda?

The US Military controls the security at every one of its bases, obviously. But would we allow suspected Al Qaeda sympathizers to work at these bases, even in a non-security position, observing all security routines? Of course we wouldn't; detailed knowledge of the battlefield is half the battle.

More: Unauthorized Access and Terrorism. The UAE port deal will be "purely commercial" in their control of the ports. I assume, however, that that means the company can hire people. Not dockworkers, of course, who are unionized, and therefore less subject to pressure than even the US Government. And not security folks, either, who are hired and managed by the DHS.

But that allows a lot of people to be hired who will nevertheless have keys, security badges, and access to all the non-public areas of the ports.

It's hard to get into the non-public areas of an airport or port, but once you're in there, you're in there. The back halls and access hallways and such are lightly travelled and without significant security.

It doesn't take a powerful imagination to envision an Al Qaeda operative, hired on the say-so of a ranking Dubai executive with terrorist sympathies, yanking a deadly parcel out of a shipping container before it's inspected and then using his security clearances to avoid all the front-line (public-area) security of the port and then repose the package in his private employee locker, for later removal out of the port.

True enough, Britain used to control the ports, and, supporters of the deal point out, Britain has fundamentalist Muslims as well. However, Britain is not itself a Mulsim country and, while there may be terrorists therein, they have not permeated the highest levels of the financial community, as they almost certainly have in the UAE. The 7/7 terrorists were, we're told, angered at being locked out of "normal" British society; it does not seem likely, then, that Britiain will be producing many Muslim fundamentalists with the educational and social background to achieve high-level management or executive positions in a ports management company. The possibility is there, of course. It's just not very likely.

On the other hand... we know for a fact that some of the most rabid Al Qaeda supporters in Arab lands are Western educated, wealthy elites. The same sort of folks who just might find themselves making hiring decisions at a large Dubai-based ports management company.

Posted by: Ace at 09:06 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 639 words, total size 4 kb.

Gotta keep this broadcast Hindenburg from exploding before the 2006 elections:

Through an emergency bailout plan, a coalition of wealthy liberal political activists are poised to at least temporarily save Air America Radio. On the way: as much as $8 million in sorely-needed cash to fund ongoing operations.

...

Since the publication of this list, Soros (right image) and Lewis (below-left)are said to have taken more prominent roles in the Democracy Alliance, reducing support for other groups thought to be ineffective.

According to reports, instead of donating directly to candidates, the aim of the Democracy Alliance is to support a longterm "progressive" media and foundational infrastructure. That keeps it largely outside the Federal Election Committee's reach.

Where the eff is the right-wing George Soros? Yeah, I know, Richard Mellon-Scaife put up some sheckles during the Clinton years. But what has he done for us lately? More importantly, what has he done for me ever?

Hey, buddy-- promoting the causes of social injustice and international greed and evil, let alone flacking for the World Zionist Government, doesn't just happen. I gotta eat, same as anyone.

Jagoff.

Posted by: Ace at 08:43 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

Wonderful.

"A new film riding on a wave of anti-Americanism is attracting record audiences in Turkey and has drawn approving comments from the wife of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Gum-chewing U.S. soldiers shoot Iraqis in cold blood at a wedding in one scene from the movie. In another scene, set at that the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, a Jewish-American doctor harvests Iraqi prisoners' kidneys for sale to Israel and the West. (...) "I feel so proud of them all," said Emine Erdogan, wife of the prime minister, comfortably ensconced in a seat next to the actor playing Alemdar.

Although Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul insisted that the film was no worse than some of the productions of Hollywood studios, Turkish parliament leader Bulent Arinc praised its "realism."

Fuck Turkey. Can't wait until the Kurds declare their own state.

More... Film Faces Legal Backlash In Turkey:

"The movie commits the crime of separatism by trying to instill in the masses xenophobia, racism and the sick idea that the entire world is against Turkey," Nil Demirkazik, the head of NGO Cocuk-Der, told reporters outside the courthouse in Diyarbakir, southeast Turkey.

"It humiliates our nation by depicting Turks as people wracked by inferiority complexes and creates enmity between our people by encouraging them to use violence," she argued.

Gota say, I like the cut of this broad's jib, but you're going to continue being "wracked by inferiority complexes" when you view every possible slight as a "humiliation."

That's not really a word often used in American politics or foreign policy, much? We may speak of a loss of credibility, an erosion of foreign support, a defeat, etc. But we don't tend to personalize these set-backs as "humiliations." Whereas the Muslim mindset, tragically, seems to view every event through the prism of personal egotism.

Thanks to RLW for that last item.

Posted by: Ace at 07:57 AM | Comments (55)
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Killing, burning mosques.

I suppose I'm supposed to condemn the mob violence on both sides equally. But that's a lot of bullshit. The Muslim mobs killed, beat, maimed, and burned because of some cartoons published in small country thousands of miles of way.

The Christian mobs are killing, beating, maiming, and burning because they were themselves killed, beaten, maimed, and burned last week.

Every group of human beings has the capacity for this kind of vicious, random, xenophobic violence. Some are, let us say, more easily set to murderous frenzy than others.

Posted by: Ace at 05:49 PM | Comments (68)
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

The next logical step, actually:

A pro-abortion city councilwoman in Rotterdam says that forced abortions should be used to curb the "problem" of unwanted children in Holland and its territories.

Alderman Marianne van den Anker of the Leefbaar Rotterdam (LR) party says the forced abortion and contraception would reduce the incidence of child abuse.

Van den Anker has two children and is the official in charge of the city's health issues.

...

Van den Anker said Antillean teenage mothers, drug addicts and those who are mentally disabled should be forced to have abortions and use contraception if they are having sex.

Otherwise, an "unacceptable risk" of some children exposed to "violence, neglect, mistreatment and sexual abuse."

Thanks to Allah.

Posted by: Ace at 05:41 PM | Comments (83)
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

Suddenly, it seems like it is hazardous to your health.

It must be another Rovian(tm) plot to distract us from The Truth(tm) about George Bush!

Posted by: Harry Callahan at 01:54 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

A grievance a week, like clockwork:

Arab-Americans contended on Tuesday that bias and bigotry, not security concerns, lay behind the uproar over a deal that would place commercial operations at six U.S. ports in the hands of an Arab company.

The furor centers around the $6.8 billion acquisition by Dubai Ports World, owned by one of the United Arab Emirates, of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. P&O had been running operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia.

...

"I find some of the rhetoric being used against this deal shameful and irresponsible. There is bigotry coming out here," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute.

...

Rabiah Ahmed of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said members of her organization also believed anti-Arab bigotry was driving the debate.

"The perception in the Arab-American community is that this is related to anti-Arab sentiment," she said.

The idea that a large number of Americans would have any suspicions about Arab Muslims controlling ports is just absurd.

Why, it's almost as ridiculous at feeling anxiety about such people taking unauthorized control of airplanes.

Posted by: Ace at 12:57 PM | Comments (153)
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.

Genius:

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

Ummm... I don't really want to treat them "fairly," if "fairly" is to mean "ignoring everything you know about them in order to pretend the UAE is just as anti-terrorist and trustworthy as the UK."

He says he'll veto any attempt by Congress to scuttle the deal.

For this he threatens a veto.

Thanks to Dorkafork.

Posted by: Ace at 12:50 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.