This week’s installment of the Life, Liberty, Property community’s Carnival of Liberty is up over at Below the Beltway. Go read another fine collection of posts from a libertarian slant.
Month: December 2005
-
Supremes to Judge Campus Recruitment Dispute
Trust me, more hinges on this pending case than the future of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
The Supreme Court confronts a gay rights issue this week, in a case that asks whether law schools can bar military recruiters because of the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
Each fall recruiters of all types jam law schools seeking top students in job fairs, receptions and interview sessions.
Justices will decide whether universities that accept government money must accommodate the military even if the schools forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.
It is the first time that the court has dealt with a gay-rights related case since a contentious 2003 ruling that struck down laws criminalizing gay sex. In 2000, the court ruled that the Boy Scouts have the right to ban leaders who are openly gay.
The latest appeal pits the Pentagon against a group of law schools and professors. The justices hear arguments on Tuesday.
The government contends if it provides financial support to a college – with grants for research, for example – then in exchange it should be able to recruit “the very students whose education it has supported.” In this case, that means having the ability to recruit students, a tool made more essential since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Federal financial support of colleges tops $35 billion a year.
Law schools say they would welcome military recruiters if the Pentagon dropped its policy against openly gay personnel. Gay men and women may serve only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.
The outcome turns on the First Amendment and whether schools can be made to associate with military recruiters or promote their appearances on campus.
No one is advocating that the schools are being made to associate with any governmental policy; federal assistance can always be declined by an institution if federal recruiters, specifically military recruiters, are unwanted for any reason. That is the choice currently in the hands of the universities, who apparently want to continue to suck on the federal tit while arbitrarily dictating to the military how it should manage itself during its defense of our nation if it merely wants access to those suckling.
While the previous two gay-rights decisions mentioned in the article do not bode well for the government in this matter, it should be noted that, at least to my understanding, there is a long-standing history of rulings in favor of the restrictions on some constitutional rights by members of the military, especially in times of an all-voluntary force. That those same restrictions could be used to prevent the government from seeking members seems rather flawed, especially when one considers that the universities have an out (refuse money based on principles if, indeed, those principles are that strong) and any participation by individuals is not compulsory.
Still, the Supremes have disappointed me very badly and very recently, so this one’s a crap shoot.
-
Looking Around the Blogroll
I just thought I’d stall on any possible blogging tonight by throwing up a few links from some of the fine folk on my blogroll.
War on Islamic Terror Updates
First, the campaign in Iraq graphically compared to Viet Nam, courtesy Bastard Sword. No comparison. I may have to swipe … err … borrow this chart.
Second, Jay Tea at Wizbang! examines the bankruptcy of strategy in Iraq, but he isn’t talking about the good guys or President Bush. Instead, he’s nailing the insurgents and terrorists. Okay, yeah, there’s a swipe or two at the Democrats.
Third, In the Bullpen‘s Chad Evans points to a story that Iran may only be months away from atomic weapons. Well, that’s comforting.
Fourth, Mrs. Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette is asking for Christmastime support for our wounded soldiers via the very worthy Soldiers’ Angels.
2005 Weblog Awards
Finalists for the Wizbang‘s Bloggies, 2005 style, have been named and voting is open. No, Target Centermass is neither a finalist nor even a nominee (as far as I bothered to notice), and that’s quite understandable given the worthy blogs on the ballot.
Unsurprisingly, my favorite category is the Best Military Blog. John at finalist Argghhh!!! pays a brief, humble tribute to the competition and a few not on the ballot.
Eric of Eric’s Grumbles Before the Grave, founder of the Life, Liberty, Property community, almost sounds like a proud father listing the six members of the community that have been named finalists.
Also, the Llama Butchers, finalists for Best Culture/Gossip Blog, have started a rather interesting campaign.
Miscellaneous
Protein Wisdom‘s Jeff Goldstein waxes poetic, doing that haiku voodoo that only Jeff can do so well.
-
9/11 Families, Others Oppose Sharp Objects on Planes
Air safety standards are being loosened, and many are justifiably not happy about it.
The government’s proposal to allow small scissors and some other sharp objects back onto airliners is causing an uproar among flight attendants, families of victims of the Sept. 11 hijackings and several lawmakers.
Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley on Friday outlined the proposal as part of a broader shift in airport security. The plan will allow airline passengers to carry scissors less than 4 inches long and wrenches and screwdrivers less than 7 inches long. The plan is scheduled to go into effect Dec. 22, just in time for the Christmas travel rush.
Hawley also revealed that there is intelligence suggesting that terrorists study the screening procedures at airports in order to evade them.
“We do have intelligence that terrorists do watch our screening process, it doesn’t matter how much they survey because it will be unpredictable and they will not know what to expect at any time,” he said.
Passengers should expect more randomness at security gates so would-be terrorists won’t know for sure what they will see. For example, an airport might require all passengers to remove their shoes one day but not the next.
“It is paramount to the security of our aviation system that terrorists not be able to know with certainty what screening procedures they will encounter at airports around the nation,” Hawley said. “By incorporating unpredictability into our procedures and eliminating low-threat items, we can better focus our efforts on stopping individuals who wish to do us harm.”
Yes, you want to use randomness to throw off potential terrorists. Here’s an idea: target likely terrorists. Yes, I advocate profiling. We are facing a global enemy, that is true, but that enemy has predominantly had certain identifying characteristics.
Among the items no longer prohibited from airliner cabins: scissors 4 inches or less, and tools such as screwdrivers, wrenches and pliers that are smaller than 7 inches.
Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., said Thursday they intend to introduce a bill called the “Leave All Blades Behind Act” to preserve the current prohibition on sharp scissors, tools and knives in airliner cabins.
“On Sept. 11, we witnessed the devastation and death that can be perpetrated onboard a plane with commonly-used items like boxcutters, and TSA wisely took action to ban such sharp objects. Now is not the time to overturn this ban, since we know that Al Qaeda continues to put passenger plans near the top of its terrorist target list,” Markey said. “The Bush administration proposal is just asking the next Mohamed Atta to move from box cutters to scissors as the weapon that’s used in the passenger cabin of planes.”
Crowley noted that he lost his cousin, a former FDNY chief, on Sept. 11, “and the fact is that we are no safer today than we were 4 years ago.”
“Flight attendants and airline passengers put themselves at risk everyday. There are more effective ways of increasing efficiency without compromising security,” he added.
The TSA has said that small, sharp objects do not pose as much of as risk now that airplane cockpits have fortified doors.
Hawley has complained that airport screeners spend too much time confiscating small objects from innocent passengers. He wants them to focus instead on searching for what the TSA views as a more serious threat: improvised explosive devices.
While Hawley said Friday there is no intelligence suggesting IED attacks are imminent in the United States, there is significant concern this style of strike is not out of the question.
Airlines generally support the plan. So does the pilots’ largest union, the Air Line Pilots Association.
Bob Hesselbein, the union’s national security committee chairman, said pilots think it’s more important to focus on passengers’ intent rather than what they’re carrying.
“A Swiss army knife in the briefcase of a frequent flyer we know very well is a tool,” Hesselbein said. “A ballpoint pen in the hands of a terrorist is a weapon.”
Okay, there’s a logic to last last quote, but it’s a logic quickly overcome. The frequent flyer should know to adapt to the rules and remove his Swiss army knife from his carry-on baggage. The terrorist can find a variety of potential weapons — why expand the menu?
TSA screeners this year alone have confiscated 12.6 million prohibited items, including 3 million sharp objects, according to the Homeland Security Department.
They’ve also taken away 8.1 million lighters, the only item prohibited by law. Congress, concerned that terrorists would have an easier time igniting a bomb with a lighter than with matches, enacted the ban. It took effect April 14.
Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House Transportation Committee’s aviation panel, agrees with Hawley that screeners should be looking for explosives rather than small, sharp objects that could be used as weapons.
“You have a huge army of pilots that are now armed, you have significant numbers of federal air marshals, you have secure cockpit doors, you have an alert public,” Mica said. “Terrorists aren’t dumb, they can see what the weakness in the system is.”
More than 18,000 screeners have been trained on advanced explosives detection techniques, Mica said.
But Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee’s aviation panel, objected to the policy shift. In a letter to Hawley, she wrote that the change “could undermine the progress we have made in securing our skies since the 9/11 attacks. Security demands vigilance; we cannot become complacent.”
Markey said the TSA is presenting the public a false choice. If there aren’t enough screeners to check for sharp objects and bombs, he said, then more screeners should be hired.
The Association of Flight Attendants supports Markey’s initiative, as does The Southwest Airlines flight attendants’ union, Transport Workers Local 556.
“Under no circumstance should potentially dangerous weapons be allowed onboard an aircraft,” said Patricia Friend, Association of Flight Attendants-CWA International president.
“I have not spoken to a flight attendant at any airline that isn’t outraged by this,” added Thom McDaniel, the president of the Southwest Airlines flight attendants’ union. “They want to focus more on explosives, but they’re not even mentioning that the biggest threat to commercial aviation right now is still the fact that most cargo is not screened.”
Justin Green is an attorney for the families of three flight attendants who died aboard American Airlines Flight 11, which Sept. 11 hijackers crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City. Two of the flight attendants, Bobbi Arestegui and Karen Martin, were stabbed by the terrorists. The third, Betty Ong, reported what was happening during the hijacking in a telephone call to authorities on the ground.
“The families are outraged that the TSA is planning on letting weapons back on board,” Green said.
As I have previously stated, so am I.
We cannot roll back the clock to a time we pretended we were safe, even with supposed cockpit security. Are those cockpits secure against blood being repeatedly shed outside while the pilots hear the screams? Are we certain that the doors are safe against tools allowed, along with anything missed? Can we get an update on the air marshall program to alleviate concerns about the relaxation of rules?
This is not a matter of constitutional liberties, as they are not involved; instead, it is a question of convenience during a matter of travel of choice, travel in which lives may be at stake.
-
Mass Grave Discoveries Shock Lebanese
The loosening of the Syrian hold on Lebanon has led to grisly findings.
Mass graves which were dug up in Lebanon over the weekend are believed to hold the bodies of Lebanese soldiers killed during the Civil War. The number of bodies is expected to reach a total of 40 as the Lebanese authorities continue to dig in the third and largest mass grave to be exhumed within a month. “Some of the bones in the graves are more than 20 years old,” said forensic expert Fouad Ayoub, who has been designated by the public prosecutor to officially investigate the latest mass grave in an onion farm on the Nabi Azir hilltop in Anjar. The graves are about one kilometer from the former headquarters of Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon and are located in territory formerly occupied by Syrian troops.
Lebanese troops have been working since Friday using bulldozers and a team of forensic experts to exhume the remains of 28 human skeletons. The bodies, which were exhumed from two mass graves beside each other, had traces of underwear, clothes and military uniforms still attached to the bones.
Ayoub said DNA tests will be conducted on the remains and the results will be compared with a list of missing civilians and soldiers.
[…]
Some security officials have said that they could be Lebanese soldiers killed during an October 1990 Syrian military offensive against Lebanese Army units led by then interim-President Michel Aoun.
There has been no official response from the Syrian government. However, a statement on Syrian News Web site quoted an “informed Syrian source” as saying “the victims were part of 400 Lebanese and Palestinians whom Abu Nidal’s Fatah-Revolutionary Council had summarily executed in the Bekaa in the latter years of the Civil War between 1986 and 1991.”
Abu Nidal was then fighting with late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat’s Fatah mainstream faction and victims of their clashes were said “to have been buried in several locations in the Bekaa.”
This may be feasible, and the dirtnap-taking terrorist Nidal would be a great fall guy, but there are signs reported that point back to Syria.
The mayor of the nearby town of Majdel Anjar, who helped lead security forces to the graves, said he believed up to 40 bodies were buried in the area.
“These bodies have been buried near the shrine of Nabi Uzeir since 1993. I have known since 1999 but kept silent,” Shaaban al-Ajami told reports. He said he kept quiet out of “fear” of prosecution by the Syrian intelligence, which had a tight grip on Lebanon during its 29 years of tutelage.
“One of the skulls had the remains of a sock in it, which is proof of the torture tactics used by Syrian intelligence,” he said.
[…]
“This is the biggest proof that the crime is very big and touches the lives of hundreds of Lebanese families,” said Ghazi Aad, head of Support of Lebanese in Detention and Exile (SOLIDE).
Aad, who has been calling for an international probe into the case of the Lebanese detainees in Syrian jails, demanded a thorough international investigation into the mass graves and other killings allegedly carried out by Syrian occupation troops.
“This is a serious crime against humanity and hence I call upon the Lebanese government to react and hold an immediate session in Cabinet to discuss the discovery,” said Aad.
Human rights groups and families have said that they have evidence of more than 176 Lebanese detained in Syrian jails, many of whom have been there for more than a decade. Another 17,000 Lebanese remain unaccounted for since the 1975-90 Civil War.
Well, that certainly makes Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo seem like a blip at worst on the inhumane radar screen. I await, trembling in anticipation, for the weeks of screaming coverage from the New York Times.
-
Quote of the Week, 4 DEC 05
Flexibility: A large general-purpose tent under which chaos, confusion and incompetency are kept well hidden.
—Creighton Abrams
-
Blue on Blue: Dems’ Split Surfaces
Back in June, I blogged about red on red. That’s American military jargon for enemy fighting, intentional or incidental, among and between our opposing forces. In that post, I mentioned the obvious fact that colors play key roles in other areas, specifically naming gangs and American political demarcations. Well, digging into the latter, lets take a little look at some developing blue on blue.
First, I want to point out that the Democrats, as the party in opposition, have had two tremendous political advantages to date in their stances on the campaign in Iraq. Those advantages are as follows:
- A generally all-too-friendly mainstream media, both to the Dems and to our enemies — a media that long allowed has allowed the Dems to oppose President Bush without offering alternatives, that exalts Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan with exposing the extremism of her beliefs or her attention addiction
- An administration and military that has done a poor job (unfortunate assist to that same mainstream media) in terms of communicating our military successes and progress in rebuilding an Iraq devastated chiefly long before the invasion
Unfortunately for the Democrat party, they have had some sizable hurdles to clear, hurdles that insist on cropping up again and again:
- A far-left base comprised of elements that root for defeat, will accept defeat, wish to redefine defeat from how the Islamic world would define defeat, or want to pretend there would be no defeat from early withdrawal based on the fact that fighting Islamic terrorists in Iraq does not make the campaign part of the war against Islamist terror
- A large portion of Americans who are ashamed of the way we have, in our recent history, cut and run, be it from Viet Nam, from Beirut or from Somalia, and recognize that these abandonments did not result in recognitions of supposed mistakes and good will when viewed through the eyes of our enemies, but rather clear signs of weakness — bloody America and America will run
- A stubborn majority-party president that seems certain of his course of action
- A military that has succeeded at every turn with casualties below most predictions, dominant when needed (the initial conquest of Iraq was amazing by military history standards but should be overshadowed by the amazing November 2004 urban assault on Fallujah, an offensive that redefined urban-warfare success) while maintaining an unprecedented degree of professionalism (despite the occasional bad apples, a card that has been way overplayed by the mainstream media [see the approximately 43 consecutive frontpage Abu Ghraib headlines in the NYT for example] without any historical context)
Those are certainly some complexities to overcome for a group that wishes to be viewed as pro-American, pro-military and pro-War on Terror. Those hurdles can only be managed if the advantages that I stated earlier carry the day.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the GOP in the Senate decided to show a little spine and force the Dems to lay down their cards. Then, the administration decided to get just a little vocal about both plan and progress.
With just this slightest provocation, the Dems were forced on the defensive and the media was forced to cover the great big blue crawdad move, as Dem pols scattered in different directions and their weaknesses were exposed. Here’s some media coverage of the anarchy currently under the Dem banner.
Democrats divided over Iraq timetableDemocrats nationwide generally say that the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq but remain divided over how and when.
Like their party leaders in Washington, members of the Democratic National Committee offered a range of opinions Friday about the recent call from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a Vietnam War veteran and strong military ally, for a complete pullout within six months.
“I think the presence of American troops are incendiary to all parties in Iraq,” said Robert Bell, who agreed with Murtha’s proposal. “I think eventually there’s going to be a civil war. It’s time for the Iraqis to take care of their own problems.”
The DNC was holding a three-day meeting in Phoenix.
[…]
Democrats seemed split over whether the party has been able to capitalize on problems nagging the administration, including the war in Iraq and federal response to Hurricane Katrina.
[…]
Gaetan DiGangi, a committee member from New Hampshire, said the Democrats shouldn’t take a mean-spirited approach in pointing out Bush’s failings.
“We are looking to offer something that’s an alternative, and I think we are moving towards that,” DiGangi said.
Democratic Lawmakers Splinter on Iraq (hat tip to Captain’s Quarters and its coverage of the article)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s embrace Wednesday of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq highlighted the Democratic Party’s fissures on war policy, putting the House’s top Democrat at odds with her second in command while upsetting a consensus developing in the Senate.
For months now, Democratic leaders have grown increasingly aggressive in their critiques of President Bush’s policies in Iraq but have been largely content to keep their own war strategies vague or under wraps. That ended Wednesday when Pelosi (D-Calif.) aggressively endorsed a proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, leaving only a much smaller rapid-reaction force in the region.
The move caught some in the party by surprise. It threw a wrench into a carefully calibrated Democratic theme emerging in the Senate that called for 2006 to be a “significant year of progress” in Iraq, with Iraqi security forces making measurable progress toward relieving U.S. troops of combat duties. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last month that “it’s time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government.”
What’s more, House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) issued a statement Wednesday that was in marked contrast to Pelosi’s. “I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation’s security and credibility,” he said.
Catering to all is a losing strategy
DEMOCRATS, especially those with presidential ambitions, think they’re being so clever. They have devised a line of argument they believe will help them benefit politically from President Bush’s troubles in Iraq.
But it turns out they aren’t so clever after all. What they’ve come up with stands a good chance of backfiring and doing Democratic candidates more harm than good. Even though Iraq seems to be a huge liability for the president and the Republicans, it’s possible that the war will eventually hurt the Democrats as much as anyone.
That’s a shame. The Bush administration has made plenty of mistakes in Iraq — starting with the fact that it didn’t send enough troops, and didn’t provide adequate supervision for some of the troops it did send. Remember Abu Ghraib? This country could stand an honest and vigorous debate, not about how we got to this point but about where we go from here.
But this much is certain: If a debate comes, it’ll be no thanks to Democrats. The best they could dream up goes something like this: “We were hustled. Sure, we voted to authorize President Bush to use military force to invade Iraq, but we were misled. Not that we regret toppling Saddam Hussein. We only regret that we weren’t given all the necessary information to make a more informed decision.”
The “we were hustled” approach offers something for everyone. If you support the war, you can applaud Democrats for backing the president. If you oppose the war, you sympathize with them for being conned by what you’ve probably already decided is a devious bunch.
But Democrats are forgetting one crucial detail, something they should have learned from recent presidential defeats: Americans hate politicians who duck responsibility for their actions by relying on parsed phrasing and other word games.
Dems Split on Iraq War Approach
A day after his latest speech detailing progress in Iraq, Bush stood next to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who wants U.S. troop withdrawals to begin before the end of this year.
“You don’t need 160,000 people to be doing what we are doing in Iraq today. This is not World War II, this is not Korea, this is not Vietnam,” Kerry said after the White House ceremony commemorating the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.
Kerry is using his Web site and billboards in New Hampshire and Indiana to push his proposal to bring 20,000 troops home before Christmas and “bring home most of our combat troops in 2006.” He seemed to contradict himself, however, when speaking with reporters Thursday at the White House.
“The truth is, yes, it is going to take a lot longer and many of us believe that, in fact, that goal is not the most realistic one in the short term, that you’re going to have a longer-term struggle in that regard. Now, what we need to do is provide a sufficient level of security and stability so that American forces can begin to come home,” Kerry said.
That is in essence what the president argued Wednesday and for the last two years. Reinforcing that the White House already had that in mind, spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday that some troop withdrawals could come after the Dec. 15 election in Iraq.
“We fully expect, as the Pentagon has indicated, that we’re going to be able to reduce some of the troop levels that we increased heading into the elections after the elections take place,” McClellan said. “I think some have talked about how next year could be a period of significant transition.”
While that might seem to be what Kerry wants, the Massachusetts senator said he and his fellow Democrats are largely united in their opposition to Bush strategy.
“There is much greater agreement between all of the Democrats, then there is a difference between all of us,” Kerry said.
But Kerry’s assertion doesn’t follow the recent call for troop withdrawal in six months by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa
And the Democrats wonder why they are considered weak on national security? It’s not because anyone doubts their patriotism. It’s because a lot of people doubt their judgment and toughness.
As if to prove the skeptics right, Democrats have been stepping forth to renounce their previous support for the liberation of Iraq even as Iraqis prepare to vote in a general election. Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, John Murtha — that’s quite a list of heavyweight flip-floppers.
[…]
There are some honorable exceptions to this defeatism — Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark have remained stalwart supporters of the war effort — but they are clearly in the minority of a party steadily drifting toward Howard Dean-George McGovern territory.
Just a few years ago, it seemed as if the Democrats had finally kicked the post-Vietnam, peace-at-any-price syndrome. Before the invasion of Iraq, leading Democrats sounded hawkish in demanding action to deal with what Kerry called the “particularly grievous threat” posed by Saddam Hussein. But it seems that they only wanted to do something if the cost would be minuscule. Now that the war has turned out to be a lot harder than anticipated, the Democrats want to run up the white flag.
They are offering two excuses for their loss of will. First, they claim they were “misled into war” by a duplicitous administration. But it wasn’t George W. Bush who said, “I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons [of mass destruction] again.” It was Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998. As this example indicates, the warnings issued by Bush were virtually identical to those of his Democratic predecessor.
The Democrats’ other excuse is that they never imagined that Bush would bollix up post-invasion planning as badly as he did. It’s true that the president blundered, but it’s not as if things usually go smoothly in the chaos of conflict. In any case, it’s doubtful that the war would have been a cakewalk even if we had been better prepared. The Baathists and their jihadist allies were planning a ruthless terrorist campaign even before U.S. troops entered Iraq. Their calculation was that if they killed enough American soldiers, the American public would demand a pullout.
So far the terrorists’ plan seems to be working. Even most Republican senators are demanding a withdrawal strategy. But it is the Democrats who are stampeding toward the exits. Apparently the death of about 2,100 soldiers over the course of almost three years is more than they can bear. Good thing these were not the same Democrats who were running the country in 1944, or else they would have pulled out of France after the loss of 5,000 Allied servicemen on D-day.
Even as a self-proclaimed Reagan revolutionary, I voted for the Libertarian Party candidate in every presidential election I was able to until 9/11. Yes, I voted Libertarian in 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000.
I voted for George Bush in 2004.
I cannot respect the Libertarian Party’s view of international realities, and I cannot believe for a moment that the bulk of today’s Democrats care more about the future hopes I hold for my possible children and grandchildren and the state of our republic than they do about their own temporary political gain.
-
WHO Stops Hiring Smokers
Alright, as the steady drumbeat of smoking bans has banged over and over the last several years, raise your hand if you didn’t eventually expect to see a story about an anti-smoking hiring policy. Anybody?
Smokers need not apply, according to the World Health Organization which has stopped hiring smokers as part of its campaign to eradicate the habit.
“WHO has taken a very public lead in the fight against tobacco use,” said the UN agency’s spokesman Iain Simpson.
The policy comes into effect Dec. 1 and all notices of vacancy will include this line: “WHO has a smoke-free environment and does not recruit smokers or other tobacco users.”
Applicants will be asked if they smoke or use other tobacco products, i.e. chewing or snuff tobacco, and if they answer “yes,” their application process will be stopped.
Simpson says the ban is legal under international law, which governs operations at all UN agencies. WHO is based in Geneva but also has offices around the world including New York city. It employs 2,400 people.
Staff who currently use tobacco will be encouraged to quit. They can also smoke in designated outdoor areas
[…]
When asked whether the agency would consider eliminating obese people or those who drink alcohol from its staff, WHO officials said smoking was more of a “black and white” issue.
“There is safe sex, one can drink alcohol in a reasonable way and one can attempt eating in a balanced fashion,” said WHO official Fadela Chaib. “But with tobacco, there is no middle ground … it kills half of those consuming it.”
Actually, all of the distinctions between tobacco usage and the likes of dangerous sexual practices, alcohol consumption and obesity fall apart at some level, especially when the zero-tolerance policy during the application process is taken into account. Safe sex can be had, but so can frequent and unprotected anonymous sex. Social drinking is acceptable, but will they inquire about frequent binge drinking? Sure, the obese can eat a balanced diet, but many tend to reach the obesity issue by exactly not doing that.
Actually, I would have no problem in such a hiring policy being put into place by any private entity, though a lot of ways in which I feel should privately-owned business shoulld be allowed to discriminate, possibly to their own detriment, are already deemed illegal. However, I certainly would have an issue with a governmental body enacting such an arbitrary standard. That the U.N. is allowed to act outside of our laws on our soil, laws that foreign companies are subject to, is quite simply not right. Then again, that is the case of so much about the U.N.
-
Attack on Marines Worst in Iraq Since Aug.
There was bad, bloody news out of Iraq today.
A roadside bomb killed 10 Marines and wounded 11 while they were on a foot patrol near Fallujah, the Marine Corps said Friday, in the deadliest attack on American troops in nearly four months.
Thursday’s bomb, which was made from several large artillery shells, struck members of Regimental Combat Team 8 of the 2nd Marine Division near the city about 30 miles west of Baghdad, the Marine Corps said.
[…]
Of the 11 who were wounded, seven have returned to duty, the Marine Corps said. It added that Marines from the same unit continue to conduct counterinsurgency operations throughout Fallujah and surrounding areas.
My best wishes and condolences for the families and comrades of these fallen Marines.
-
Pager-forced Link Dump
I have been owned by the oncall pager, but here’s some reading for y’all.
‘This is our Belgian kamikaze’
Belgians were trying to come to terms Thursday with the news that a working class woman from an industrial southern city had turned from a “nice” shop assistant into a suicide bomber who blew herself up in Iraq.
“This is our Belgian kamikaze killed in Iraq,” headlined the newspaper La Derniere Heure on Thursday over a picture of a thoroughly normal-looking, smiling girl looking into the camera.
When her mother, Liliane Degauque, saw police coming to her doorstep on Wednesday, she immediately knew what it was about. The evening before, she had heard the reports there had been a terrorist attack on Nov. 9 by a Belgian woman.
“When I saw the first pictures, I said to myself, ‘it is my girl.’ For three weeks already I tried to contact her by telephone but I got the answering machine,” she told the RTBF network on Thursday.
Authorities on Thursday formally arrested 5 of the 14 suspects they detained in dawn raids the day before and charged them with involvement in a terrorist network that sent volunteers to Iraq, including Degauque’s daughter Muriel, who died at 38.
Nine were released. Those placed under arrest were a Tunisian and four Belgians, three of whom had foreign roots.
“This action shows how international terrorism tries to set up networks in western European nations, recruit for terror attacks in conflict areas and look for funds to finance terrorism,” said Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt.
In her younger years, Muriel lived a conventional life in the Charleroi area. Media reports said she finished high school before taking on several jobs, including selling bread in a bakery. “She was so nice,” said her mother. The picture in the paper dated from that time.
She told media, however, that her daughter could easily be influenced.
Muriel changed first when she married an Algerian man and later one with Moroccan roots. She was increasingly drawn into fundamentalist religion.
“It is the first time that we see that a Western woman, a Belgian, marries a radical Muslim, and is converted up to the point of becoming a jihad fighter,” said federal police director Glenn Audenaert.
Belgium. France. The Netherlands. All have been served notice of the Islamist danger in their midst. None yet have taken their individual national wake-up calls seriously enough yet. This is not just a condemnation of these three countries but also of all around them. After all, to paraphrase Otto von Bismarck, any fool can learn from his own mistakes, but it is preferable to learn from the mistakes of others, as well.
Ramadi Insurgents Flaunt Threat
Armed fighters claiming allegiance to Abu Musab Zarqawi took to the streets of a western Iraqi provincial capital Thursday in a fleeting show aimed at intimidating Iraqi Sunni Arab leaders taking part in dialogue with U.S. Marines in a stronghold of the insurgency, provincial officials, residents and other witnesses said.
The scene — lean figures, many in masks and dark tracksuits lugging shoulder-mounted rocket launchers or wielding AK-47 assault rifles — reinforced what the U.S. military has acknowledged is the strong insurgent presence in the Euphrates River cities and towns of Anbar province, an overwhelmingly Sunni area near the Syrian border. The appearance of the fighters dismayed many of the residents of Ramadi, the war-blighted provincial capital.
[…]
The armed fighters on the streets left statements in the name of Zarqawi’s group, saying their show of force was in response to negotiations between the “Sunni midgets and the stooges of the occupation forces.” The statements contained pledges to kill each Sunni leader participating.
The U.S. military, which maintains Marine bases and thousands of troops on the outskirts of Ramadi, denied the accounts of unrest, saying that the city was largely calm Thursday and that insurgents were manipulating the news media. “Today I witnessed inaccurate reporting, use of unreliable sources, media using other media as sources, an active insurgent propaganda machine, and the pack journalism at its worse,” Capt. Jeffrey Pool, a spokesman for the 2nd Marine Division, said in an e-mail to news organizations.
Witnesses in Ramadi said they saw some of the armed fighters instruct a journalist for an Arabic-language news outlet to report that Zarqawi’s group, al Qaeda in Iraq, had taken over the entire city. The Arabic outlet by late Thursday was reporting only that the fighters had held some streets of the city center — a description of events in line with the eyewitness accounts and reports from other news organizations. News directors for the organization did not respond to requests for comment. The news organization is not being identified for security reasons.
This is about as clear evidence as you can have that there are two wars being conducted — on the battlefield and in the media. The terrorists know this and, unfortunately for them, showed themselves to be truly crippled if little stunts like their assaulting and briefly holding a couple of city blocks comprise their current hope to pull of a Tet offensive-type media success.
Germany: No ransom for Iraq kidnappers
German leaders said Thursday they still have had no contact with the kidnappers of a German woman seized in Iraq and Chancellor Angela Merkel said considering paying a ransom was “not up for discussion” at this time.
Susanne Osthoff and her Iraqi driver were taken last Friday, and were pictured in a videotape blindfolded on a floor, with militants – one armed with a rocket propelled grenade – standing beside them.
The militants are reportedly demanding that Germany cease its dealings with Iraq’s government or they will kill the hostages. Germany was an ardent opponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and has refused to send troops there, but has been training Iraqi soldiers and police outside the country.
Merkel indicated in a speech Wednesday that Germany will not change its Iraq policy, stressing that the country “will not let ourselves be blackmailed” over Osthoff’s abduction.
On Thursday, Merkel told reporters that the government was “doing all its can to save her life and that of her companion.”
Asked if Germany would consider paying a ransom, Merkel said that was “not up for discussion at all now.”
“At the moment it is about very elementary questions … First of all, we are interested in finding out how to make contact” with the kidnappers, Merkel said.
Well, that’s not actually a very strong stance. Hopefully, Merkel will prove to have more of a spine than to cave in to terror and help finance future bloodshed for short-term political gain. You know, like the Philippines. Or allegedly the Italians and French.
Finally, two blog must-reads:
The Telegraph’s Nose Just Grew Ten Feet
Should we hold newspapers accountable for exagerating or just lying? No, I do not mean legally, but as consumers we do drive their paychecks to print out blatent lies and mischaracterizations. Take for instance the following article in The Telegraph [headlined US ‘paid journalists to lie about war’]
[…]
As a member of the free press, that is unless George Soros has purchased The Telegraph, the rag should know how the same press they operate under works. Apparently they do not. First things first though in this abysmal piece of journalism. Even though The Telegraph cites the Los Angeles Times for breaking the story, no where in the LA Times piece is there any information regarding the United States “paid journalists to lie about war†as stated in the title. I urge everyone to read the original LA Times piece to verify.
Read it all. This story is growing and needs to be seen for its absurdity as early as possible.
Here are recent (already outdated) poll numbers put into picture form of President George W. Bush’s approval ratings as seen on numerous Leftist websites.
Not a good show for Chimpy-Bushitler, that is for sure!
Too bad their data is no longer accurate. The current and respected Rasmussen Report has his approval rating back to 46%.
These earlier polls do make you assume that if “W” is having such a hard time, then surely his democratic opponents are reaping the benefits. Right?
But, looking at Congressional Democratic approval ratings you get this…
Go see Gateway Pundit’s collection of red-blue maps. Interesting and unheralded, though not surprising.