Feminists Argue For Affirmative Action, but Obviously Women have Advantages in Free Capitalism

Labels: »

...Fatima al-Sayegh notes, the fishermen’s protests had little to do with time and everything to do with money, because women could sell fish at far higher prices than their male colleagues. They simply had a better understanding of the market than did their husbands. Since fishermen would want to strive to get the best price for their fish, they understood that the best people for the job were their women.

Affirmative Action is the problem! Obviously Women have Advantages in Free Capitalism! Enlightening gender study on Arabs. Apparently our http://xrl.us/feminists got the Arabs wrong as well. 

“gender questions” in the Gulf will no longer focus exclusively on women, the veil, and other related issues—as they have for generations. Instead, they will revolve around how to integrate young men (including those in their twenties and thirties) into society and make them productive individuals before they engage in behavior that is dangerous to themselves and others.

A Saudi college dropout told the Washington Post in 2007 that young Saudi men yearn to be equal with young Saudi women and many face severe restrictions: “Young men are oppressed here [in Saudi Arabia]…All I want is equality with girls.”
...These insights take on greater importance when one bears in mind that Saudi society looks at marriage as a socioeconomic alliance between families or between tribes. Within this arrangement, brides have substantial say in marriages and wide latitude to reject potential spouses. Furthermore, when it comes to picking marital partners, families expect young men to defer to the judgment of others in their family, including their mothers and other female family members. The comparative weakness of Saudi men of all ages appears in Saudi novelist’s Raja’a al-Sanea’s 2006 work, The Girls of Riyadh. Throughout the novel, the male characters, including the most powerful and educated, cannot overcome their families’ various objections to their desire to marry the Saudi and non-Saudi women they love. Commenting on the state of Saudi men, one female character notes that they are “passive and weak…just pawns their families move around the chessboard.” Even in the most conservative of Gulf societies, Saudi Arabia, Islamic patriarchy clearly can have limits." 
By contrast, indigenous Arab Gulf women offer an alternative solution to employing expatriates, especially those with skills. In Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait, female enrollment in higher education significantly exceeds that of men, sometimes by as much as 24 percent. Women dominate a variety of disciplines in the liberal arts and journalism, in which they represent as much as 90 percent of the students.  Female students work far harder than their male counterparts and regularly outperform them in secondary and postsecondary institutions. In Kuwait, women’s success at the college level has been a political issue, with Islamist politicians claiming that it is unfair and demoralizing for Kuwaiti men to have to compete with female students.  In Bahrain, female high school students have a long tradition of outperforming their male counterparts. In 2007, for example, the girls graduated at a rate of 74.36 percent, compared to only 53.37 percent for the boys
http://xrl.us/ArabGenders Finally, it is significant that the problems of men in Gulf societies are analogous to those faced by men in the United States and elsewhere during the current economic downturn. A white paper produced by the Georgia Department of Labor in July 2009 called for the state radically to alter how it delivers social services to men, a significant percentage of whom are in grave danger of becoming “structurally unemployed.” The report noted that men in Georgia and in other parts of the United States—much like men in the Arab Gulf states—lack basic modern skills and lag far behind women in educational achievement. The report also noted the striking statistic that the percentage of students who are female in Georgia’s universities, colleges, and technical institutes is approximately 60 percent, a number that is in line with the percentages in the Gulf.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

UNRWA double standards [UPDATED]

Labels: » »

John Ging, UNRWA Secretary-General said he supported the Free Gaza flotilla of ships that will be sailing towards Gaza later this month:
UNRWA REGULATION 1.4 
"...They shall avoid any action and in particular any kind of public pronouncement which may adversely reflect on their status, or on the integrity, independence and impartiality which are required by that status..."
UNRWA REGULATION 1.7
"Staff members may exercise the right to vote but shall not engage in any political activity which is inconsistent with or might reflect upon the independence and impartiality required by their status."

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Ging, speaking with a Norwegian newspaper earlier in the week, urged the world to send ships to the shores of Gaza, saying "We believe that Israel will not intercept these vessels because the sea is open, and human rights organizations have been successful in similar previous operations proving that breaking the siege of Gaza is possible."

Urging nations to send ships to Gaza is as political a statement as any. He is advocating doing something against Israeli (and Egyptian) policies. He is saying that shipments to Gaza require no oversight as to their contents, something that the EU has disagreed with in the past by setting up the EUBAM monitoring station in Rafah before the Hamas coup. He is also evidently advocating the ability of Iran or Syria to freely ship weapons to Gaza, as opposed to the clandestine shipments they are already doing.

In addition, he is characterizing Free Gaza as a "human rights organization" which is again a lie - it is purely a political organization dedicated to pressuring Israel. In fact, Free Gaza has explicitly said that it is against sending humanitarian aid to Gaza and against UNRWA's style of aid by cooperating with Israel! They stated that they would rather spend money pressuring Israel than on goods for Gazans. This is not a human rights organization - they only exist for a political purpose.

UNRWA is not impartial at all, and John Ging has just proven it again.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

that special bond of trust the UN had with Hamas last year: Hamas stole tons of explosives, weapons and unexploded bombs that it was guarding for the United Nations, which gathered the ordinance during Operation Cast Lead. The Hamas guard has disappeared along with the bombs and explosives.
The discovery of missing weapons, first revealed by British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC), is the latest in a number of embarrassing episodes for the U.N. and United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Israeli military spokesman Peter Lerner charged Hamas with "commandeering" the bombs, explosives and artillery shells.
maybe we should move the United Nations to Gaza?

You are Guilty of Not Being Liked by the Government

The tax code has countless thousands of pages which we are responsible for, again under penalty of law and imprisonment. Its job is to make the tax law as confusing as possible for a purpose -- not only to maximize revenue, but also to make examples of whoever they pick and choose. 

Even farmers know what it is like. The reporting requirements required by the Agriculture Department require almost a full-time employee to make sense of it all. Along with the debacle of the '70s, when the Agriculture Department encouraged farmers to leverage their own land, the paperwork requirements helped drive out the family farmer. "Get big or get out" was the motto, and they made it impossible for the family farmer to stay in. 

All those divergent industries tightly controlled by the discretion of the government to have mercy. Your guilt is they don't like you

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Obama keeps distance from international court

Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A pushback from the military and a skeptical secretary of defense have dashed the hopes of some Obama administration officials for closer cooperation with a global war-crimes tribunal that some fear could prosecute American service members, current and former U.S. officials say.

Although the United States has rejoined the meetings of the International Criminal Court (ICC) member states after an eight-year absence, it has taken little new action to work more closely with the court.

In fact, many international legal analysts argue that there was a more significant change in U.S. policy toward the ICC from the first to the second term of President George W. Bush than there has been since President Obama took office last year.

"The administration has been very cautious and slow, and has not made dramatic changes in approach towards the ICC," said John B. Bellinger, the State Department's legal adviser under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"During a 10-month policy review last year, they made no changes in policy, and in November they announced rather tepidly that they would attend the assembly of state-parties ... as an observer, but emphasized that they had continuing concerns about the possibility of politicized prosecutions of Americans," he said.

President Clinton signed the ICC treaty in 2000 but made clear that he had no intention of submitting it to Congress for ratification. He had serious concerns about potential prosecution of U.S. officials and soldiers, after Washington's failure to amend the treaty to secure certain protections for Americans. Still, he wanted to send a message to the world that the United States believes in international justice.

The Bush administration later said that such messages had little meaning and "unsigned" the treaty in 2002. During its second term, the administration became much more supportive of the ICC and helped in its prosecution of Sudanese President Omar Bashir for crimes in Darfur.

"The Bush administration went too far during its first four years in distancing itself from and criticizing the ICC, which made the rest of the world think that the administration didn't support international justice," Mr. Bellinger said. "During the second term, we took a more pragmatic approach of offering to help the court's Darfur investigation, and the policy shifted significantly to one of selective engagement."

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC prosecutor, recently said that Mr. Bush pursued a "policy of constructive engagement" in his final years in office, "for which we are grateful."

When Mr. Obama won the 2008 election, many Democrats, including members of his administration, hoped he would rejoin the ICC statute and step up U.S. support and cooperation with the court. Some even thought he might try to ratify it. However, the president has done none of those things.

One of the most passionate advocates of the tribunal has been Harold Koh, Mr. Bellinger's successor at the State Department, administration officials said. But Mr. Koh's efforts to strengthen Washington's relationship with the court, they said, have met resistance from the Pentagon's civilian and military leadership, including Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Army Secretary John M. McHugh, a former Republican congressman.

Spokespeople for Mr. Koh, Mr. Gates and Mr. McHugh declined to comment, but officials familiar with the issue said Mr. Obama has been siding with the Pentagon.

In a speech before the American Society of International Law in March, Mr. Koh said the administration is looking for ways to cooperate with the court as an observer.

"We would like to meet with the prosecutor at the ICC to examine whether there are specific ways that the United States might be able to support the particular prosecutions that already [are] under way in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Central African Republic and Uganda," he said.

Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense, said he is not surprised that Mr. Obama has maintained most of Mr. Bush's policy on the ICC because the president is "pretty fully engaged with his domestic agenda" and this year's midterm elections. Next year, that could change, he said.

Administration officials said Mr. Koh and Stephen Rapp, the State Department's ambassador at large for war crimes, will head the U.S. delegation to the ICC 10-year review conference in Kampala, the capital of Uganda, this month.

Washington's main concern is that some ICC members could push for giving the court the authority to prosecute aggression as a crime, similarly to genocide and other war crimes.

"In particular, we are concerned that adopting a definition of aggression at this point in the court's history could divert the ICC from its core mission, and potentially politicize and weaken this young institution," Mr. Koh said in his March speech.

Ahead of the Kampala conference, the Council on Foreign Relations released a report saying that adding aggression to the court's jurisdiction "could endanger U.S. interests and risk embroiling the court in political disputes over investigations."

The report also recommended that the Obama administration increase its cooperation with the ICC.

"The United States should consider boosting its cooperation with the court in such areas as training, funding, the sharing of intelligence and evidence and the apprehension of suspects," it said.

hmmm.... Obama has his bones to pick, but even he knows this is a bad idea

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Nick Clegg

Labels:

I'm very concerned about the UK elections. 
http://xrl.us/Clegg harbors strong anti-Israeli views. 
Foreign secretary Clegg, according to the privately expressed view in Jerusalem, would be quite problematic for Israel. Clegg, who visited “Israel and the occupied territories” five years ago, according to the official MPs’ register, on a trip funded by the Council for Arab British Understanding, is said to have certain Arab contacts with unsavory ideologies. He is perceived to underestimate the threat posed internationally by a nuclear Iran. In recent comments to the Jewish Chronicle regarding the assassination in Dubai of Mahmoud Mabhouh, Hamas’s Gaza missile-importer-in-chief and self-confessed murderer of two Israelis, Clegg declared that while “I understand Israel’s unique security predicament, my view is that this kind of killing would be completely counter-productive to the peace process.”
And then there’s his stance on Gaza.


To describe Clegg as a vociferous opponent of Israel would be an understatement — I’ve written in greater detail on this issue here. Clegg has penned a number of articles condemning Israel’s handling of Gaza, and has been the most prominent British critic of Israel’s response to Hamas attacks. He has alleged that the Israeli government “continues to imprison 1.5 million Palestinians and prevent the rebuilding of its shattered infrastructure,” and supports the U.N.’s use of the highly offensive term “collective punishment.” Clegg has drawn parallels between Israel’s defensive actions and the terrorist campaigns of groups such as Hamas, and has urged the European Union in the past to isolate and even sanction Israel.
via corner.nationalreview.com
And what a coincidence that Clegg has been advised by Nicholas Blincoe, a former ISM activist, who writes for the Guardian and was a staffer for a time. Blincoe’s insights about Israel include this one:
Israeli archaeologists are like the fireman in the novel Fahrenheit 451; their job is to erase the traces of non-Jewish civilizations, not to investigate them.
And look how Nadhmi Auchi, an anti-Israel Iraqui billionaire, is close to Clegg and organised a fundraising dinner for a LibDem candidate.
Then there is Jenny Tonge, famous for saying “The pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the western world, its financial grips. I think they’ve probably got a grip on our party.” Until very recently she was a Patron of the viciously antisemitic Palestine Telegraph. Only when it posted a David Duke video did she resign. But she has not been thrown out of the LibDem Party – as she surely should be.
You can see here what Tonge and a LibDem MP Sarah Teather say about Israel.
Here you can see the LibDems’ response to the questionnaire sent to candidates by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (the only party – as opposed to individual candidates – to respond). (The response has been taken off the PSC site). They call for a ban on settlement goods, suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and an arms embargo on Israel).
33 LibDem candidates have so far put their name to this. A further 25 LibDem candidates signed the PSC’s pledges.
One LibDem candidate said that the only reason that there was not an arms embargo on Israel was “the power of the Jewish lobbies in Washington and Britain”.  She also echoed Tonge’s call for an inquiry to disprove allegations that Israeli army medical teams in Haiti “harvested” organs of earthquake victims.
And the LibDems’ spokesman on foreign policy, Shadow Foreign Secretary Ed Davey MP, thinks the Goldstone Report is “balanced” and wants the UN to act on it.
More still: Over 80% of the LibDem MPs in the Parliament which has just been dissolved are happy to see Israelis arrested in the UK on politically motivated false “War Crimes” charges.
Finally …….. remember Chris Davies? He was the LibDem MEP who told a constituent that he hoped she enjoyedwallowing in her own filthafter she wrote to disagree with his views on Israel. He remains a LibDem MEP though he was forced to resign as the Party’s Leader in the European Parliament.
Updated May 1st 2001 - Interview in the JC:
What is your position on Israel's actions in Operation Cast Lead and what should Israel do to calm international opinion on this issue?
Israel has a right to take action to protect its civilians. That is beyond question. I understand that the constant attacks from Gaza on innocent families living in Sderot was and is intolerable and Israel rightly seeks to defend its citizens.
But the truth is that Operation Cast Lead did not work. It was self-defeating. There are still attacks on Israeli citizens from Gaza.
Israel is more isolated internationally, the people of Gaza are more embittered and Hamas strengthened as a direct result of Operation Cast Lead. It has made it harder not easier to achieve Israel’s long term peace and security and that is deeply regrettable.
I think Israel could do a great deal to reassure international opinion by holding an independent inquiry into Operation Cast Lead.
What is your view of the current state of UK-Israel relations in the light of Israel’s use of British passports in Dubai? What further action should be taken if the investigation of the Dubai authorities confirms that Israel was responsible for the assassination of the Hamas operative?
Clearly relations between Israel and the UK have been affected. It is unacceptable for British passports to be abused in this way. We will have to wait and see what the Dubai authorities conclude.
While of course I understand Israel’s unique security predicament, my view is that this kind of killing would be completely counter-productive to the peace process. I just don’t see how this fits into a long-term security strategy for Israel.
via thejc.com
Someone needs to tell him that the number of rocket attacks from Gaza has dropped over 90% since Operation Cast Lead ended, and that we're not making peace with Hamas, and therefore the liquidation of a Hamas terrorist (even if the Mossad did it) can only bring good and happiness to the World.
No, I'm not impressed, and I sure wouldn't vote for him.
via israelmatzav.blogspot.com
Clegg will be singing a different song when England completely adopts Sharia law shortly. Israel isn't just the Canary in coal mine. it is also the guiding light against a Jihad.

...another condemnation for bombing Iraq's power plant in 1982... again and again and again.

no more American or English promises of how they can knock SCUDS out of the sky. ignore the egos... they don't know better then those who are really fighting to survive.

Other concerns:
nadhmiauchinickclegg
Iraqi Billionaire Israel-Hater is Money Bags for UK’s Nick Clegg
Clegg is tight with Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi Muslim billionaire who supports HAMAS and helped fund a boat convoy to Gaza to provide aid and comfort to the terrorist group.  And he funds one of the most anti-Semitic, anti-Israel websites in Great Britain.  That’s not to mention that the sleazy Auchi is part of the Tony Rezko/Barack Obama axis and was involved in some of their many improper dealings.
other details and frauds detailed at debbieschlussel.com
If Clegg wins, the UK's policy on Israel could go from bad to worse:
1. Clegg’s outlook is anti-American.
Clegg, a major opponent of the Iraq War, has made a number of statements calling for a completely new relationship with the United States and an end to what he mockingly calls London’s “subservience” to Washington.

2. His party manifesto does not even mention NATO

3. Clegg does not believe in a nuclear deterrent.

4. Clegg is a NWO kind of guy and likes Internationalist tyrannies like the U.N.
“Globalization requires us to formulate a system of supranational governance capable of controlling forces which escape the limitations of the nation state.”, he says.

Clegg firmly believes that Britain must give up key aspects of national sovereignty in Europe, including the pound, and supports the EU having a unified foreign policy and defense identity.


he might be worse then Obama!

Popular Analysis