This is an effective rendering, posted on NRO's Phi Beta Cons website, of the core issue involved in the recent Natfhe boycott of Israeli scholars. It's drafted by the president of the National Association of Scholars:

The decision by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, one of Britain's two professor unions, to call for a boycott against Israeli academics and universities unless they disavow its "apartheid policies", has been rightfully denounced as an affront to the free exchange of ideas, comity among scholarly truth-seekers and, not least of all, common decency. But it is also a most ugly instance of that habit of collective stigmatization now second nature in academe. White Guilt may not seem a very threatening concept when applied to cosseted, non-lacrosse playing, middle Americans, but when—with effortless mutation—it is visited upon a nation of Jews, things turn ominously dark. A demonized majority may, as a whole, seem safe from immediate danger, but it can be sliced and diced to isolate fragments for exemplary treatment. This is an especially inviting maneuver when victims can be cut out on the basis of thinly disguised prejudice.

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:08 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

In an essay for Time, Peter Reinart, enfant terrible of the "new" Left, argues that the proper response to Islamist terrorism is no response other than the "containment" the US used during the Cold War. Beinart would use the example of Iraq to encourage containment of Iran. The trouble is, containment assumes a halfway rational foe. JFK could threaten the USSR with nuclear annihilation and be taken seriously; the mad mullahs of Iran know that Allah will protect them from such a circumstance, and in fact, superstitious dread among the American populace makes even a tactical nuclear deterrent unbelievable.

Besides assuming facts not in evidence - that Saddam was an impotent tyrant who would have fallen eventually under the weight of sanctions without military intervention, that he possessed nothing with which to threaten the West - Beinart ignores inconvenient facts.

He doesn't mention French and Russian perfidy in the Oil-For Food Program, doesn't even acknowledge that decades of hands-off diplomacy in the Middle East served only to entrench and further radicalize anti-Western regimes; regimes that controlled oil resources vital to the survival of Western civilization. The Soviet Union and its natural resources could have disappeared overnight and barely registered a blip on the American and European economies.

Beinart also errs in comparing a nineteenth century atheist ideology to the fervor of a primitivist, and rapidly growing, major religion.

Most significant of all, Beinart does not mention 9/11, an attack most certainly endorsed and cheered by Saddam Hussein and his ilk, if not actively supported. It is 9/11 that should inform Beinart that he is pursuing the wrong paradigm: we face another World War II, not a repeat of the Cold War.

Of course Beinart's claim to fame is a book whose premise is that only liberals can fight terror, proof enough of delusional thought patterns.

Originally posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:27 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

Eight Westerners, including one American, working in Nigeria's oil fields have been taken hostage. Unlike other attacks which are usually claimed by the separatist MEND group within hours, this one was not. Whoever is behind the hostage-taking, we demand their immediate and unconditional release.

Reuters:

Gunmen abducted eight foreign workers in a night-time raid on an oil rig off the coast of Nigeria on Friday, raising new security fears after a series of militant attacks that cut output from Africa's top oil producer...

"Some unknown persons boarded the rig at 3 a.m. (0200 GMT) and took eight workers. They are six from the UK, one Canadian and one from the U.S.," said an executive from one of the companies that operate the Bulford Dolphin rig. He denied reports that eight Nigerians were also abducted in the attack.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

AllahPundit has the scoop on a raid conducted by British police on a suspected chemical weapons lab in London:

Hotair.com—Sky News uses the C-word: “Police are not expecting to find conventional weapons. They are looking to find chemical ingredients of some kind.”

They had “specific intelligence” following months of surveillance, according to BBC sources. The search of the house will apparently take days. One of the residents was shot in the shoulder and taken to the hospital, where he was arrested on suspicion of terrorism.

Is Sky sure they were looking for chemical weapons? The report from AustraliaÂ’s Sunday Times includes an ominous detail, "Police said the operation followed close liaison between security services and the Health Protection Agency, a body charged with guarding against infectious diseasesÂ…

"Officers wearing chemical, biological and radiological protection were sent to the scene in the ethnically mixed Forest Gate area of the capital while nearby roads were cordoned off."

Cross-posted at OpinionBug.com

Resources:

Google Maps: Lansdown Road in East London

Posted by: OpinionBug at 08:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 2 kb.

The Times of India is carrying the Lina Sinha story under the title "Lusty Lina Charged with Rape." Interestingly, the article quotes the entry posted on Interested-Participant and The Jawa Report. They didn't mention I-P specifically and they misspelled The Jawa Report calling it The Java Report instead.

Nevertheless, it's nice to be recognized.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:13 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Stein hoist to the blog grandfather. The pic speaks for itself.

Posted by: Vinnie at 09:33 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Stop the ACLU reports on the latest ACLU pro-pedophile lawsuit, this one aimed at an Indianapolis city ordinance that requires convicted sex offenders to stay at least 1,000 feet from facilities like playgrounds and swimming pools when children are present.

The ACLU claims that the new law could prevent convicted sex offenders from attending church or going to work, but kiddy molesters are allowed to approach closer if accompanied by a non-molesting adult.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 05:36 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

1 >>>>The ACLU claims that the new law could prevent convicted sex offenders from attending church roflmao! yeah, like the ACLU cares if somebody can't go to church.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 01, 2006 06:04 PM (8e/V4)

2 If you're out of prison, you should be a free man. This kind of ordinance is patently against the spirit of a rational justice system. Just shoot the bastards, if they can't fix themselves. This half-free/half-not kind of arrangement is not only against any sort of reasonable response to a crime, but letting such people back out only gives them another opportunity to molest kids. Put it this way: If you have a mental disorder where getting near little old ladies gives you the irresistable urge to mug them, what is the point in letting you out of prison, and then saying you have to stay 1,000 feet from any nursing homes?

Posted by: MiB at June 01, 2006 06:19 PM (RwDCC)

3 Also, technically, if they're so mentally ill that they have to be watched over by the gummit, don't they at least belong in a mental facility? Not, you know, 1,001 feet from a playground?

Posted by: MiB at June 01, 2006 06:20 PM (RwDCC)

4 Weird - I agree with MiB. Bluto - you should know that laws like this are virtually identical to ones reference firearms. Believe the NRA is involved in an oddly similar case reference the 1000 ft crap. Either way - both are a dumb approach to often serious problems.

Posted by: hondo at June 01, 2006 06:45 PM (el7nZ)

5 I too think that MkB has a point, but restrictions on sex offenders aren't the only lifelong penalties that criminals face. For instance, felons can't vote or legally own firearms. Society never completely forgives some crimes.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 01, 2006 07:37 PM (RHG+K)

6 Bluto as usual your blanket covering statements are not entirely correct. Felons are able to vote, in most states after they have finished their supervised release (parole). In some states they are never able to recover their right to vote, The total in jail or on parole is now just under 4% of the population. I wasn't able to find a figure on the total disenfranchised but it is probably some multiple of that like 2x or4x. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm Oh and Bluto I noticed that AFTER I got banned from posting comments on your site a total of only one comment was posted. Was I the only one who bothered to comment ?

Posted by: john ryan at June 01, 2006 08:44 PM (TcoRJ)

7 I disagree with that stuff, too. Punish them appropriately - and so they don't forget, instead of this namby-pamby prison stuff, where you pay them to loaf, exercise and fraternize with other criminals - and then turn them loose. Once you're done being punished, you should be done being punished.

Posted by: MiB at June 01, 2006 08:45 PM (RwDCC)

8 The ACLU is the best defense that any radical terrorist or pervert could affford and its HQ are in HANOI ON THE BAY right here in california SAN FRANCISCO

Posted by: sandpiper at June 01, 2006 09:50 PM (QagY6)

9 John Ryan is factually correct about felons and voting. In fact, only six backwards states deny felons the right to vote for life. Imagine--you break the law at 18, you get out of prison at 19, you live 60 years without ever breaking the law again, become a minister, serve in the military...whatever--and can never vote again. When I explain this to Europeans, they look at me like I come from an incredibly backwards country. Also--on the sex offender issue: I'd favor the law over the ACLU, depending on how they define sex offender. If it is very tightly defined to apply to true pedophiles, I'd favor it. But so many of these laws cover people who were caught having sex in the back seat of a car (public indecency, public nudity, sodomy, etc) or streaking (I knew kids who had offical sex offender status from streaking--should they not be able to walk within 1000 feet of a school? Even though their records were expunged within a year, for year they had to report in...crazy) Urinating in public? If anyone on this blog comments section is innocent of outdoor sex, urinating outdoors, streaking, skinnydipping, then fine. I doubt it. Also--sometimes people get SO status for something that we might think is a mistake, but they are no threat. There was a famous case of a man of 19 who had consensual sex with a 16 year old, then married her two years later. But in the interim, her mom started criminal proceedings for statutory rape. He was clearly guilty. He was convicted. So he has to report as an SO, for what he did with the wife who lives with him. These laws are far too broad in most states. Narrowly targeted at true pedophiles, I don't think they do any harm, and might do some marginal good.

Posted by: jd at June 01, 2006 09:56 PM (JJJx/)

10 The ACLU claims that the new law could prevent convicted sex offenders from attending church or going to work Or maybe he'd want to go to a mosque. After all was not Mohammed also a pedophile?

Posted by: dcb at June 01, 2006 10:14 PM (8e/V4)

11 I'm no expert but I don't think these freaks are every "cured" of this stuff. Just because they've done their time doesn't mean they're not still a danger to kids. They need to be kept as far away from kids as possible. If that inconveniences them in any way, well that too fckin bad.

Posted by: Richard at June 01, 2006 10:31 PM (7KF8r)

12 I can go back to many posts on this blog where adult women took sexual advantage of male children. The response from most of the regulars here was something like “ wish that had happened to me” The reason these predators feel free to molest OUR kid is that we don’t punish them. Lock these freaks (male or female) up for life for molesting a child (under 1 . I realize I am in a dream world and this will never happen. Even conservatives get a hard on over a 40 year old woman on a 12 year old kid. Sick bastards. We get what we deserve, we let these pervs off with a few months and they go out an ruin another kid’s life. Society really challenges me here. I am a Catholic who does not believe in abortion or the death penalty. But what is a good man to do when a child molester gets off again and again? If my kid male or female were molested by one of these people I think it might be my duty to TCB. Don’t I have an obligation to protect my neighbors and friends from the sub human who molested my kids? The libs and conservatives (which is shocking to me) in this country seem to insist on the right to prey on kids. Makes me sick.

Posted by: B rad at June 01, 2006 11:36 PM (BJYNn)

13 only six backwards states deny felons the right to vote for life. Imagine--you break the law at 18, you get out of prison at 19, you live 60 years without ever breaking the law again, become a minister, serve in the military Did the Military issue them a waiver for that Felony Jd? because the Military doesn't allow Felons to join without one either. Normally the only people I hear whining about not being able to vote because of a felony, is liberals with their felony possession of Marijuana charge... You are correct in respect to the SO status that sets restrictions that pertain to proximity to children, should only apply to convicted child molesters.

Posted by: davec at June 01, 2006 11:55 PM (CcXvt)

14 "If you're out of prison, you should be a free man. This kind of ordinance is patently against the spirit of a rational justice system." The best thing I can do here is to quote Theodore Dalrymple: "When prisoners are released from prison, they often say that they have paid their debt to society. This is absurd, of course: crime is not a matter of double-entry bookkeeping. You cannot pay a debt by having caused even greater expense, nor can you pay in advance for a bank robbery by offering to serve a prison sentence before you commit it. Perhaps, metaphorically speaking, the slate is wiped clean once a prisoner is released from prison, but the debt is not paid off." In a way though I agree with some here. Sexual predators and child molesters are never reformed. They just grow to be old offenders and the system is too easy to scam and skip out on. Letting them out never works. And while we're insisting on not using "blanket statements", states which rescind a felon's right to vote or bear arms also have a process by which they can have their rights restored. I have a friend much like jd described. A guy I hired to work anyway because he was honest about it and his probation officer confirmed that he told the truth. At 19 he had consentual sex with a 16 year old girl. The girl's parents pressed charges and he spent a year in prison and had to register as a sex offender afterwards. I think that's wrong too. But ... after a few years of a clean life he was able to have that status removed by a judge who used common sense and rationality after reviewing his case. There is always recourse so our system is not totally un-forgiving. It's unfortunate that he had to go through that, but he was able to get it fixed.

Posted by: Oyster at June 02, 2006 05:05 AM (YudAC)

15 dave, good point. It's only a hypothetical not referring to any specific case. and Oyster, yes, states have processes so people get their voting rights back. But the problem is, some of them are really arcane/difficult. Some require legislation in the state house. Some require governor's action. A lifetime ban on voting seems absurd.

Posted by: jd at June 02, 2006 07:45 AM (aqTJB)

16 Regarding the 19 year old who had "consensual sex" with the 16 year old. Legally, it's not possible to have "consensual sex" with a minor under the age of consent. jd, is the guy really reformed, or is he compounding his original crime by continuing a relationship with a girl who was too immature to make the original decision to start a relationship with him?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 02, 2006 09:09 AM (RHG+K)

17 Sorry guys - this is about the 1000 ft. schools/etc approach to to solving a "problem". Its not a solution and serves no purpose except BS for the public. The reason this upsets me is that this type of approach/solution is being applied and advocated in other areas too - notably municipal gun control laws with some serious potential ramifications.

Posted by: hondo at June 02, 2006 11:02 AM (el7nZ)

18 I stand corrected, DPB, your definition of consensual is correct. I don't know the case personally, so I don't know the answer. I will say that, as per the other thread here on this, that such marriages were not at all uncommon in our national past. Many a 14 year old girl was married on the American frontier, and in other parts of our country well into the 20th century. Feminists (who got the age raised in a coordinated campaign) argued that this was abusive. I tend to agree, but it's important to acknowledge this is a moving target. I also don't think a 19 year old who has sex with a 16 year old is a "sex offender" in the same way that a 45 year old who has sex with a ten year old (actually, ANYONE who has sex with a ten year old). When I was 19, I certainly would have dated some 16 year olds. Unfortunately, I was too busy getting turned down by women my own age...

Posted by: jd at June 02, 2006 12:05 PM (aqTJB)

19 jd, I'm of the mind that if a felon wants his/her rights back he/she should have to work for it and prove they are a benefit to society rather than the detriment they've been in the past. Serving a prison sentence does not mean they are reformed and prepared to make sound decisions which affect the lives of others. Especially repeat offenders. If the system by which they can regain certain rights is "arcane/difficult" it should be addressed by state legislators and reformed. The answer is not to just say "Well, it's too hard, so let's abolish it." And again, federal entities are trying to wrest states' rights from them with this issue. And incidentally, what of those felons who were convicted of voter fraud? Should they be allowed to vote again?

Posted by: Oyster at June 03, 2006 06:58 AM (YudAC)

20 Actually, that's a good idea--I think people who break election laws should never be allowed to vote again. I'd vote for that law. It troubles me, though, that most of the remaining ban on felon voting states are Southern states with a history of both racist judicial systems AND clever ways to deny voting rights to blacks. Let me give you one example of how that works against black rights even today. Studies show that black and white youth smoke marijuana at about the same rate. But blacks are about 5 times more likely to be criminally penalized for teenage marijuana use. There are MANY complex reasons for this (greater police surveillance, income inequality, etc.). But the result frequently is a higher rate of felony convictions among blacks than whites for this. Moreover, it helps create a climate of fear, which many unscrupulous republicans (and a few Dems) have exploited in elections going back several decades. They hand out fliers the week of the election "Don't forget to vote on Nov 7th!!! Remember to clear all your parking tickets before voting if you don't want to get arrested!" I don't think former felon voting is the most important problem in our electoral system (it's partisan gerrymandering in my opinion). But I'd support a federal amendment to take away the right of states to ban felon voting (actually, you wouldn't need that, you could do it by statute for federal elections). I'm a pretty strong federalist (for example, I oppose the gay marriage ban on federalist grounds) but when it comes to federal elections, the feds should make the rules if the states can't handle it. And those six have shown they can't.

Posted by: jd at June 05, 2006 07:12 AM (l5lV5)

21 JD: Because the black teenagers are also selling it.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 06, 2006 07:05 AM (PV2nq)

22 The study I saw controlled for users and dealers, but even assuming it didn't, I would be surprised if such a stark difference arose from a single cause. Like most examples of racial disparity, it is probably multi-causal.

Posted by: jd at June 06, 2006 09:46 AM (7QCpZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Not happy with being mocked in his feature film debut, Abu sends this one straight to audio:

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi called on fellow Sunnis to reject any reconciliation with "infidel" Shi'ites, according to an audio tape posted on the Internet on Thursday.

"O Sunnis! Prepare to get rid of the infidel snakes and their poison ... and don't listen to those advocating an end to sectarianism and calling for national unity. This is a weapon to get you to surrender," said the speaker on the tape who sounded like Zarqawi.

I don't know, my memory could be hazy, but I seem to recall that Zarqawi's bungled his mission in Iraq so bad he peeved off the Sunnis to the point that they're out to get him as well.

Eh, someone's going to shut him up eventually, I guess. Abu does have a comic streak in him though:

The speaker blasted Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, as the "leader of infidelity and atheism" and said his followers were more concerned about honoring their own saints than protesting against cartoons of Islam's Prophet Mohammad published in Danish and other European newspapers.

"We did not see them rise up with the same fervor when blasphemous pictures of the Prophet were published because they prefer their own leaders to God and his Prophet," he said.

This is the atheistic infidel Ayatollah who advocates killing homosexuals on his website. Sure, right. Abu, you're on the waterskis, almost to the ramp that'll take you over the spot where the shark is swimming.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

(Garden City, New York) A 39-year-old putative "soccer mom" and married mother of two, Lisa M. Frodella (pic), culled a 16-year-old boy from her daughters' friends and groomed him for sex. At 16, the boy was old enough to deliver pizzas and, sure enough, soon he was regularly supplying the pepperoni deluxe to Ms. Frodella.

And, check this. Frodella would even call the boy's high school "pretending to be his mother, and say he was sick" so the pair could have sex during school hours.

In return, a gratified Ms. Frodella rewarded the boy with a souped-up black 2002 Mercedes-Benz S430, valued at $35,000. Understandably, the boy's mother was suspicious and alerted the police.

Yesterday, Lisa M. Frodella was arrested on two counts of rape and two counts of criminal sexual acts, each count carrying a maximum penalty of four years in prison. Bail was set by the Nassau County First District Court at $40,000 cash or $120,000 bond. Last I checked, she was still in the pokey.

By the way, the kid didn't get to keep the Mercedes.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 11:58 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 2 kb.

...isn't through his stomach.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - More Guantanamo Bay detainees protesting their indefinite confinement joined a hunger strike, raising the number of those refusing food to 89 from 75, the U.S. military said Thursday. Six of the hunger strikers at the isolated U.S. naval base in southeast Cuba were being force-fed, said Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand.

Force feedings? Why? Haven't they heard that starvation is euphoria? Besides, suicide by starvation doesn't blow up 20 other people, and I'm not totally sure, but I don't think it gets anyone a virgin in Paradise.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:32 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

I apologize for posting that rambling, semi-coherent piece that just disappeared. It should have gone in the comments section instead of a stand alone post.

Also, I should know better than to post something when I'm angry.

So, once again, I apologize.

Update: That should say rambling, semi-coherent piece of crap. And a special apology to those who took the time to comment, I'm sorry I wasted your time with it.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:03 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.