Political Science

Political Science

LIBERAL	You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful and offer to share the milk from your cows for her children Barbara Streisand sings for you
CONSERVATIVE	You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So?
SOCIALIST	You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
COMMUNIST	You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE	You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE	You have two cows. Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.
AMERICAN CORPORATION	You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one. You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses. Your stock goes up.< /SPAN>
FRENCH CORPORATION	You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. You go to lunch and drink wine. Life is good.
JAPANESE CORPORATION	You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Most are at the top of their class at cow school.
GERMAN CORPORATION	You have two cows. You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour. Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.
ITALIAN CORPORATION	You have two cows but you don’t know where they are. While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman. You break for lunch. Life is good.
RUSSIAN CORPORATION	You have two cows. You have some vodka. You count them and learn you have five cows. You have some more vodka. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.
TALIBAN CORPORATION	You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two. You don’t milk them because you cannot touch any creature’s private parts. You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.
IRAQI CORPORATION	You have two cows. They go into hiding. They send radio tapes of their mooing.
POLISH CORPORATION	You have two bulls. Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.
BELGIAN CORPORATION	You have one cow. The cow is schizophrenic. Sometimes the cow thinks he’s French, other times he’s Flemish. The Flemish cow won’t share with the French cow. The French cow wants contro l of the Flemish cow’s milk. The cow asks permission to be cut in half. The cow dies happy.
FLORIDA CORPORATION	You have a black cow and a brown cow. Everyone votes for the best looking one. Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one. Some people vote for both. Some people vote for neither. Some people can’t figure out how to vote at all. Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION	You have millions of cows. They make real California cheese. Only five speak English. Most are illegals. Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.

And The Walls Came Tumblin’ Down…

Carter Center built on quicksand? 

ATLANTA (AP) – Fourteen members of an advisory board to Jimmy Carter’s human rights organization resigned on Thursday to protest his new book, which criticizes Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories. The resignations from The Carter Center board are the latest backlash against the former president’s book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” which has drawn fire from Jewish groups, been attacked by fellow Democrats and led to the resignation last month of Kenneth Stein, a center fellow and a longtime Carter adviser.

“You have clearly abandoned your historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side,” the departing members of the Center’s Board of Councilors told Carter in their letter of resignation.

The 200-member board is responsible for building public support for the Carter Center. It is not the organization’s governing board.

The board’s members “are not engaged in implementing work of the Center,” Carter Center Executive Director John Hardman said Thursday in a news release.

Deanna Congileo, a spokeswoman for Carter and the center, issued Hardman’s statement in response to The Associated Press’ request for comment from Carter.

The book follows the Israeli-Palestinian peace process starting with Carter’s 1977-1980 presidency and the peace accord he negotiated between Israel and Egypt. It doles out blame to Israel, the Palestinians, the United States and others, but it is most critical of Israeli policy.

Steve Berman, an Atlanta real estate developer among those who resigned, said members have “watched with great dismay” as Carter defended the book, especially as he implied that Americans might be afraid to discuss the conflict in fear of a powerful Jewish lobby.

Berman said the religious affiliation of the resigning members, which include some prominent Jewish leaders in the Atlanta area, didn’t influence their decision.

The resignations came a day after Congileo and officials at Brandeis University said Carter will discuss the book at the Waltham, Mass., campus. The Nobel Peace Prize winner will not, however, debate the book with outspoken Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, as Brandeis originally proposed.

Polonium, Burkinis, Fatwas And Aussies

‘Polonium Nation’?- Dozens test postitive…

Rape Sheikh: Muslims have more right to Australia 

Veils and violence- in Lebanon.

Can a Little Mosque On The Prairie fatwa to watch be far behind?

Under the Burkini.

“America and the west cannot be held responsible for the moral toxicity that embraces tyranny over freedom.”

We have not failed in Iraq.

Iraq has failed itself.

We went into Iraq to eliminate the threat Saddam Hussein posed to the region and to the stability of the world. That threat was recognized by the United Nations and Bill Clinton, long before George Bush was president.

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons…

In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq’s prohibited weapons program.”

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam’s deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance…

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm’s way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them…

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that…

Those words were spoken by Bill Clinton.

The maelstrom of misinformation, deceit, spin and just plain stupidity has got to end- and in fact, only highlights the moral implosion of administration critics. “To Tell The Truth” is only a game show to this Democrat controlled Congress.

We have no more ‘lost’ the war in Iraq anymore than we ‘lost’ the war against Nazi Germany or Japan.

Germany and Japan were devastated by war, but that war was a byproduct of the devastation wrought upon those countries by years of tyranny. When the Second World War ended, those nations chose to arise from the ashes and rebuild themselves into free and democratic societies that have become ‘a lamp unto the nations’ of the world.

If the Iraqis fail to learn from the devastation brought upon them by the tyranny of Saddam and the war that rid them of the hated tyrant, they will have made a very different choice than the Germans or Japanese.

America and the west cannot be held responsible for the moral toxicity that embraces tyranny over freedom.

It is Iraqis that will have to clean their own house. It is Iraqis that must turn in foreign fighters and it is Iraqis that must choose between freedom that will bring progress and a future to the next generation of Iraqis or the tyranny that will insure generations of failure and misery.

In speaking of the Iraqi ‘insurgents’ we wrote

Terrorists do not regard their political ideologies as primary considerations. For them, it is about power and nothing else. In Iraq and other parts of the Middle East, the power grab by terrorists might be draped in religious garb, but in fact, there is no pretense of political respectability. There are no ‘insurgent representatives’ at the UN claiming to represent the people of Iraq. There are no examples of the terrorists in Iraq that declare national unity as an ideal and there is no pretense of offers to help anyone via social services or programs.

The terrorists are not rallying people to their cause or orchestrating mass demonstrations to bring attention to their cause, as would a political ‘insurgent.’ There are no dramatic and sympathetic leaders paraded in front of willing cameras and their are no legions of ’spin doctors’ appearing on FNC or CNN. There are no discernible liberation movements- only movements that openly proclaim their love of Islam and their love for death (most often directed at other Muslims).

The violence in Iraq is not widespread. Only Baghdad and a few other small regions face daily violence. Many, if not most of the terrorists are not Iraqis, but rather, from outside the country- hardly the foundations of a ‘civil war.’

Nevertheless, the media insist on characterizing events in Iraq as a ‘civil war.’

The so called insurgents cannot and will not ‘defeat’ America. We will remain a free and democratic society, irrespective of what happens in Iraq. Our way of life and values are deeply rooted and will not be dislodged by threats made by the revolutionary du jour.

Dr Sanity notes in Hail Mary, that

The outcome of the game is up in the air, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Surprisingly to some, the President wants his team to win.

Which is much more than the opposition desires, as seen by their scramble to put in place a radically different field strategy:

here’s a chance to finally win this game…it won’t be easy…it requires determination and grit and a desire to win. But there are many who are determined to stop the team in its tracks and give it all away, no matter the consequences.

The President’s ‘team’ isn’t America or the Coalition forces. The team Mr Bush refers to are the Iraqis themselves. The last quarter of this last game being played will determine the outcome for the Iraqis- and not for the Americans or Coalition partners. Regardless of the outcome, America and her Coalition partners have given Iraq and the Arab world a once in a generation opportunity to rewrite their own destinies and the destinies of their children. The choices they make are their own.

We are giving the Iraqis a final chance to take control of their lives. If they choose to remain immobilized or only half committed, we can go home with a clear conscience. We offered them a Marshall Plan and long term commitment of partnership and opportunity. We offered them a future.

A ‘win’ by the Iraqi insurgents (criminals, really) is no more than the ‘win’ claimed by Hizbollah in their war with the Israelis that left southern Lebanon and parts of Beirut in a cloud of concrete dust.

Like the Israelis, America and her coalition partners will shrug their collective shoulders and go home. If there are threats that come from Iraq down the road, we will just go back and remove the threat, once more- and once more, the Iraqis will have no one to blame for their misery but themselves.

The Iraqis will ponder what could have been and the Arab world will remain under the thumb of dysfunctional leaders, falling further back into the dark ages.

Of course, it will be the fault of the Jews, Americans and western Europeans.