Shire Network News #98 has been released. The feature interview is the second half of a conversation with Professor Deborah Lipstadt about the resurgence of anti-semitism worldwide, and why it’s not just Jews who should be afraid. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary segment.

Hi, this is Doug Payton with Shire Network News, asking you to “Consider This”.

This week, we take a run through headlines of the recent past, starting with this Associated Press headline, “Shuttle crew practice countdown”.

10…9…8…7…6…5…4…3…2…1…0

See, I knew I was astronaut material!

Next up, we have a story from the NY Times, discussing the progress in the war in the area of Ramadi in Anbar Province. You don’t hear much about Anbar these days, probably because it’s going so well there. Here’s a clip from that story.

Now, a pact between local tribal sheiks and American commanders has sent thousands of young Iraqis from Anbar Province into the fight against extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The deal has all but ended the fighting in Ramadi and recast the city as a symbol of hope that the tide of the war may yet be reversed to favor the Americans and their Iraqi allies.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Oddly, the story appears to be invisible to the editorial writers who wrote these sentiments on the very same day.

“It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit. . . . Milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. . . . Whatever [President’s Bush’s] cause was, it is lost. . . . Keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse.”

It’s like the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is writing. If these folks do indeed read their own newspaper, what does it say about the quality of reporting if even their own editorial writers don’t believe it?

Also from the terrorism front comes this headline atop an article from ABC New’s Investigative Team; “Exclusive: Terror Commander: New Attack Will Dwarf Failed Bomb Plot”. OK, maybe something big is indeed coming, but how big does it have to be to dwarf a “failed bomb plot”? Sounds like the Taliban are setting the bar rather low for the future.

CNN is reporting that the United States wants ex-Panamanian dictator, Manuel Noriega, extradited to France. This sounds like some sort of prisoner rendition. Isn’t there a law against torture?

And finally we have an assurance from Senator John Kerry that our knowledge of history, of 165,000 dead in Vietnam and 2 million in Cambodia, was not as bad as we thought it was. (Click here for the video.) He responds to a caller to CSPAN who wants us to leave Iraq but is concerned that the aftermath in Iraq might mirror Vietnam.

Let me just say to the first part of your question with respect to boat people and killing, everybody predicted a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There was not a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There were reeducation camps, and they weren’t pretty and, you know, nobody, you know, likes that kind of outcome. But on the other hand, I’ve met lot of people today who were in those education camps, who are thriving in the Vietnam of today.

So there you have it. While reeducation camps aren’t pretty and generally distasteful, the fact that some survived it means that they couldn’t have been all that bad. One wonders if they were pretty, if a little more attention had been paid to the decor, they might have been just marvelous. Next week on CSPAN, Senator Kerry brings an Auschwitz survivor in to show how they’re thriving.

And those are the headlines from “Consider This”. Back to you, Brian.

Technorati Tags: Shire Network News, podcast, space shuttle, Ramadi, Anbar, New York Times, Taliban, France, Manuel Noriega, John Kerry, Vietnam, Cambodia

Shire Network News #97 has been released. The feature interview is with American academic, Professor Deborah Lipstadt, about the resurgence of anti-semitism worldwide, and why it’s not just Jews who should be afraid.. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary segment.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to “Consider This”.  In a recent video, Al Qaeda’s number 2 guy, Ayman Zawahiri, warned of impending doom, praised jihadi fighters, offered his “reflections” on the status of Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere, and even cracked a joke. Looks like he’s trying to connect more with the common man while still bolstering his jihad creds. More of a kinder, gentler hate, or, if you will, compassionate crusaderism.This was a well-produced video, with Zawahiri sitting in front of a studio background rather than the typical camouflage sheet. But however good it looked, it wasn’t professional. A piece of paper on the desk in front of him was easily visible and what video experts have been able to pull from that shows that this is not the last we’ll see of a softer presentation and more engaging content. So then, from the home office in Camillus, New York, and avoiding any copyright violations, here are the top 9 ideas Ayman Zawahiri has for the next Al Qaeda video!

Number 9: Instead of usual headgear, hire US Presidential candidate John Edwards’ celebrity hair stylist.

Number 8: Offer a free “I (heart) O B L” T-shirt to the first 5 callers to the throw-away cell phone number on the screen.

Number 7: Audition his band “Ayman and the Masked Gunmen”, singing “Global Warming from the War on Terror”, for a spot in Al Gore’s Live Earth concert.

Number 6: Appeal to conservatives by introducing “No Infidel Left Behind…Alive”.

Number 5: Appeal to liberals with their “socialized ammunition” policy.

Number 4: Get Michael Moore to produce next video. Working title: “Nutso”.

Number 3: Paris Hilton in a burka.

Number 2: Issue a fatwah against that Brian guy from the Shire Network News podcast.

And the number 1 idea Ayman Zawahiri has for the next Al Qaeda video:

Preview his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. (Heh, well, if Yassar Arafat could win one…)

And now, back to Brian.

Shire Network News #96 has been released. The feature interview is with Nick Cohen, Guardian writer and now the author of What’s Left: How Liberals Lost Their Way. He talks to Tom Paine about how he’s been using his journalism in the UK to try to convince the Left not to drink the “Bush is Hitler and America is the re-born Roman Empire” kool-aid. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

I have no segment this week since I was on vacation last week.

Shire Network News #94 has been released. The feature interview is with Holland Taylor, the CEO of the Libforall Foundation, which held a conference in Indonesia last week, specifically to challenge Muslim Holocaust denial.. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

I have a segment this week, and normally I post the full text here, with the links to the articles I cite. Unfortunately, today when I started writing notes for my next segment, I saved them over the old file and thus have lost it. If I’m able to find a backup copy anywhere, it’ll show up here. Enjoy the show anyway.

Technorati Tags: podcast, Shire Network News, Holland Taylor, Libforall Foundation

Shire Network News #93 has been released. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice. I had this week off, so no commentary text here.

Shire Network News #92 has been released. The feature interview is with Venezuelan blogger Daniel Duquenal about Hugo Chavez and the way he’s killing democracy. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary segment.

Hello, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to Consider This.

He’s been called a generous man. He’s a patron of the arts. He’s considered by some to be a supporter of life and peace.

He’s also appropriated oil companies for control by the government, closed one opposition TV station and has his eyes on another.

He is, of course, Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela. He may be a man of stark contradictions, but for those on the Left, like Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover and Cindy Sheehan, they are contradictions they can live with; just petty disagreements, really. Surely, the evil oil industry and a couple of media outlets are a small price to pay for the good of the people, right comrade? Or should I say camarada?

Chavez recently managed a stunt that not even Bush or Blair have been able to accomplish. While he won the last election with 60% of the vote, his closure of RCTV, a single act, got 70% of the people peeved at him all at once, rioting in the streets. They’re shocked–SHOCKED–that a socialist leader would shut down opposition voices. That’s never happened before, has it? Well, OK, you can probably name one or two, or a few dozen, but this time it’ll be different. The temporary absolute power given to him by the Venezuelan Congress has just gone to his head for a moment. He’ll be better soon, right?

And over here in the corner of the bookshelf, a history book is crying, “Read me, read me!” One hundred years of socialist and communist history would beg to differ.

RCTV called Chavez a “dictator”. OK now fellas, isn’t that just a little over the top? I mean, technically, Chavez is not a dictator; he was democratically elected. Here’s what Merriam-Webster Online considers a dictator:

1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively

So you see, while Chavez may have complete autocratic control, and uses it oppressively against his opponents, he was granted it by the Venezuelan Congress, not the senate of ancient Rome. That make me feel a whole lot better. Nothing to see here. Hey look, a picture of Castro holding today’s newspaper!

The best indication of what is to come came from Venezuela’s Communication Ministry itself. The Inter-American Press Association put out a statement saying that the closing of RCTV would result in “a very bleak outlook for the whole hemisphere.” María Alejandra Díaz, the social responsibility director at the Communications Ministry (who’s motto is, “Shutting down free speech is socially responsible”), asked news organizations to refrain from reporting on the association’s statement, since it could allow viewers, readers or listeners to think Mr. Chavez’s government was “tyrannical.”

Certainly sounds like the stifling of dissent to me, much like what the anti-war Left claims is happening in America. And what do we hear from Chavez’s high-profile supporters now?

>crickets chirping<

Shh, they’re asleep. They’re asleep at the wheel. Don’t they look so cute when they’re oblivious? Back to you, Tom.

Technorati Tags: Shire Network News, Daniel Duquenal, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, Cindy Sheehan, RCTV, Inter-American Press Association, María Alejandra Díaz

Shire Network News #91 has been released. The feature interview is with Itamar Marcus of Palestinian Media Watch, talking about Farfur the Mouse, which is what my segment was about last week. (I got this week off.) Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Shire Network News #90 has been released. The feature interview this week is with filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney, whose documentary, “Indoctrinate U”, examines the extent of political bias in American higher education. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary segment, complete with links.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to Consider This:

Paul Harvey has a phrase he uses to introduce some of his news stories. “Self-government without self-control is self-defeating.” I think that phrase fits quite well with this story.

Earlier this month, the German magazine “Der Spiegel” reported that the Hamas-backed al-Aqsa TV station was broadcasting a new children’s show into the Palestinian territories. It involved an obvious copy of Mickey Mouse, named “Farfur” which means “butterfly”, and a little girl named Saraa, and is called “Tomorrow’s Pioneers”. What brought this innocent-sounding show to the attention of the world was that its two loveable characters were engaged in cutesy things like showing how to hold an AK-47 and inciting violence against Israel and America. How positively charming!

Later on, Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti said the program had been yanked and was “under review”. He complained that “some American television stations” were still covering the story after it was supposedly resolved. The mouse, named “Butterfly”, was no longer on the air.

Except that wasn’t the case. Hamas announced that it would defy Barghouti’s request and show the mouse, named “Butterfly”, according to schedule. Barghouti then decided that this “review” would take place on the air, while he watched the show. Recently, Fathi Hammad, Chairman of the television station defended the program saying it didn’t violate any moral or professional standard, and that it would not be withdrawn, nor would its content be modified.

So to recap: Saraa and her friend Farfur the Mouse, or Butterfly, tell kids how Islam will militarily conquer the world, on a TV station owned by Hamas. Israel reacts. The Palestinian government, who’s senior partner is Hamas, says that they’ll take it off the air and review it, while complaining that this is a non-story. Hamas defies its own government and continues to run the show, thus making this non-story a story. The Palestinian government, trying not to look irrelevant, says, “Well, OK, but it’s still under review”, but the TV station continues to demonstrate that the government is, in fact, irrelevant.

Self-government without self-control is self-defeating. And sometimes becomes self-parody.

This isn’t an isolated incident. “The Children’s Club” was another program in this vein, that mimicked “Sesame Street” but included kids shouting for jihad against Israel and one little girl singing, “”When I wander into Jerusalem, I will become a suicide bomber.”

“Hey kids, today we’re going over to the trash can of Schlomoe the Grouch and teach him a lesson. After that, we’ll find our 72 vir…er…playmates.”

And there have been others. If Israel were doing this, there’d be a UN resolution. In the meantime, the mouse called “Butterfly” merrily continues to influence the next generation of jihadis.

I’d have more to say, but I’m currently reading “The Protocols of the Muppets of Zion”, and I’m just getting to the chapter on Miss Piggy. Should be interesting.

Back to you, Tom.

Technorati Tags: Shire Network News, Evan Coyne Maloney, Hamas, Farfur, Mustafa Barghouti, Tomorrow’s Pioneers, Fathi Hammad

Shire Network News #89 has been released. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary segment.

Hi, I’m Doug Payton, and this is “Consider This” for Shire Network News.

First off, I’d like to apologize for the sound of my segment last week. I try to make it obvious when I’m quoting someone else by giving it that AM radio sound; a bit tinny. Well, apparently, I accidentally applied that to the whole segment. As an effect, tinny is OK. After a few minutes, it’s grating. Anyway, just wanted to make sure the blame was placed properly. It wasn’t Brian of London’s fault. It was Dick Cheney.

Moving on…

You know how you’re always being told to “vote your conscience”? Well, there’s a coalition of religious leaders out there that doesn’t want you to do that anymore. Well, it’s a religious coalition at least according to Reuters. You know Reuters. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”? Yeah, that Reuters. I’ll get back to that characterization in a moment, but first, here’s what the group “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice” got Reuters to report.

“With the April 18 Supreme Court decision banning specific abortion procedures, concerns are being raised in religious communities about the ethics of denying these services,” the group said in a statement.

“They are imposing their points of view,” Barbara Kavadias, director of field services for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, told reporters in a telephone briefing.

I have news for these folks. Every decision by the Supreme Court is an imposition on somebody. There are two parties involved, so someone doesn’t get their way. I daresay the KKK thinks civil rights laws are an imposition on them, but I also daresay this religious coalition approves of this imposition of a point of view. Whether or not something is an imposition has no bearing at all on its fitness as a law or a legal decision.

Next we get some serious name-calling and sexism. No proper left-wing rant would be complete without it.

She noted that the five Supreme Court justices on the majority in the 5-4 decision were all Catholic men — Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia.

All were appointed by conservative Republican presidents who oppose abortion, including President George W. Bush.

If this religious coalition were conservative or Republican, this would be hate speech. As it is, they can get away with this characterization.

Basically, they want Catholic men to vote the conscience of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, not their own. But I would point out that the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice does not sit on the Supreme Court. Those that do sit there were appointed by duly-elected Presidents, who themselves were elected by the people. So by extension, you are not allowed to vote your conscience, at least if it is at odds with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

And let’s not forget that this law that the Supreme Court upheld was voted for by 281 House members and 64 Senators from both parties, both genders, and a combination of religious persuasions, who themselves were elected by the people they represent. So by extension…well, OK, you know the drill.

But wait, there’s more! Not only are government officials not allowed to represent their constituents in this matter, neither are private citizens and businesses.

The group also complained about Catholic-owned hospitals that refuse to sterilize women who ask for it, refuse to let doctors perform abortions and do not provide contraception.

“Doctors, pharmacists and nurses are also increasingly exercising a so-called ‘religious or moral objection,’ refusing to provide essential services and often leaving patients without other options,” the group said in a statement.

Catholic doctors and Catholic-owned businesses should not, according to this religious coalition, be allowed to stay true to their religious convictions. Quite an ironic statement to make. If they’re so concerned about this, instead of imposing their views (sound familiar?) on others, they’re more than free to open their own “Abortions R Us” and provide those options. In the meantime, whining about religious freedom doesn’t really give much weight to their views about a court that decides constitutional issues.

OK, so about this “religious coalition”. In paragraph 11 of the story, Reuters finally gets around to telling us the make-up of this religious coalition.

The group includes ordained Protestant ministers, a Jewish activist, an expert on women’s reproductive rights and several physicians.

So we have Protestant ministers (no clue how many), one Jewish activist (so that you can call it a “coalition”), an expert on women’s reproductive rights (again, one, and not apparently representing a specific religion), and “several” (however many that is) physicians (who, again, aren’t representing a religion). Given their group’s name, and how Reuters initially refers to them as a “coalition of religious leaders”, there does seem to be two things at work here. Number 1, there’s a desire for the group to appear as though it represents a broad range of religious beliefs, when in reality it includes only left-wing Protestants and a single left-wing Jewish activist (not “leader”). Number 2, Reuters seems more than happy to promote this misconception until the very last minute, over halfway into the story, just before the point where they start talking about other groups’ reactions to these statements. Nope, no agenda there.

OK, full disclosure. I’m an evangelical, Protestant Christian who finds more in common with those 5 Catholic men than this “coalition of religious leaders”.

Brian, take it away.

Technorati Tags: Shire Network News, podcast, abortion, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Protestant, Judaism, Catholic

Shire Network News #88 has been released. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary segment. Actually, this is the full text of what I was going to say, until I timed it and it came to over 6-1/2 minutes. SNN commentaries are generally kept to something under 3 minutes, so this one was way too long. As it is, the version I wound up using was still over 4 minutes. Apologies for the lack of humor in what is normally a satire show, but this subject is rather seasonal, and I wanted to make some points during the time of year where folks would be more inclined to really listen to it. Hopefully, the next segment will be less dour.

Hi, I’m Doug Payton, and this is “Consider This” for Shire Network News.

This past week in the US, the deadline came for settling up our income tax bill with the government. Normally, people either fill out their own tax forms, sometimes with the help of computer software, or they take it to a tax preparer. But Jim Geraghty, writing in the New York Sun, reports that John Edwards, Democratic candidate for US President, thinks that the Internal Revenue Service itself ought to be able to fill out your tax forms. Now, in addition to the huge conflict of interest issue this brings up, there are some practical considerations. Here’s how it’s described:

For Americans whose employers and financial institutions send all of their relevant tax data to the government, the IRS would calculate their bills and mail them completed returns, which he called “Form 1.” Filers could sign the form and return it, or reject it and file their own return if they disagreed with anything in the IRS’s calculations. Form 1 would not be an option for taxpayers with more complicated returns.

First of all, the IRS would only be relieving the burden of those with the absolutely simplest returns, and generally those with lower incomes. Sure, no pandering there, right? Secondly, who would pay for this new governmental feature? We would, likely in higher taxes. Even if this was all or mostly computerized, the government is notorious for winding up paying more for stuff than it costs in the private sector.

So now we’d have another income redistribution program of sorts. We’d all be paying an inflated cost for those who can’t seem to figure out what John Edwards admits are the simplest tax situations. This says more about the complexity of the tax system than anything else I can remember. The problem with the tax system isn’t that people who have the simplest situations have to pay others to figure it out for them. The root cause, if you will, is the complexity itself. But Edwards would rather make this onerous tax code easier for you to bear than deal with tax reform. Say, how about we go back to the old Roman empire days when tax collectors just came by and told you how much to pay? Simple, convenient, and certainly free from graft, right? Right?

And then just a few years down the road, of course, we’d hear liberals defending this program as a basic human right. If the government pays for it, we simply can’t do without it.

Matt Stoller, of the left-wing blog MyDD, is quite proud to pay his taxes, whatever the amount. Now in fairness, he, too, doesn’t like having less money to spend and is upset at the complexity. But he’s simply overjoyed to send in that check and calls it “the price of democracy”. Well, nobody’s denying that taxes are the price we have to pay, but let’s not forget that you can be overcharged for things, and that you can be force to buy things you don’t think are helpful to our democracy. Of course, in saying that, I’m proclaiming my hatred of democracy. Matt said so.

The right-wing likes to pretend as if taxes are a burden instead of the price of democracy. And I suppose, if you hate democracy, as the right-wing does, then taxes are the price for paying for something you really don’t want. Personally, I find banking fees, high cable and internet charges, health care costs, and credit card hidden charges much more abrasive than taxes, because with those I’m just being ripped off to pay for someone’s summer home.

What Matt conveniently fails to point out is that costs for those items, even to some extent, health care costs, are all voluntary, whereas taxes are not. You’re not required by law to purchase them. If you decided you don’t want to pay your taxes, however, you’ll likely find your wages getting garnished at best, or find yourself behind bars at worst.

And your taxes can be just as busy paying the mortgage for some bureaucrat’s summer home.

He’s also got a problem with understanding how we ever managed without an income tax.

Patriotism is about recognizing that we are all connected in a fundamental moral and physical sense, that the war in Iraq is our war, that poverty in New Orleans is our poverty, that public funding to cure cancer comes from each of us and not just the scientists who have made it theirs. The tax burden we face is a very small price to pay for the privilege of taking responsibility for our own freedom and our own society. And the hatred of taxes on the right comes from a hatred for this responsibility. It’s childish and immoral and unAmerican.

Yes, we do own all these things about our country, but then how did we pay for the War of 1812, and the Great Chicago Fire, and any of those medical breakthroughs that were discovered before the 16th Amendment in 1913? Truly amazing.

Tariffs were the general means for the government to raise money, and what’s interesting is that the tariff increases for the War of 1812 are credited with the strengthening of US industry. Has the income tax ever really done that? The city of Chicago was rebuilt mostly by private donations from around the nation, as well as business leaders, not government, going around the country getting other businesses to invest in Chicago. Hopefully, it’s obvious to Mr. Stoller that Chicago has indeed come back from that in a big way, and before the federal income tax.

Were these folks unAmerican for working it out for themselves rather than begging from Washington, DC for money? Or is it just right-wing, anti-democratic, unpatriotic and unAmerican to speak ill of taxes, to consider them burdensome? Then we need to consider the folks who said these things and what we should think of them.

“It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth part.”
…
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
…
“If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds… [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account”
…
“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”
…
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending,
on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
…
“The power to tax involves the power to destroy.”
…
“No matter what anyone may say about making the rich and the corporations pay taxes, in the end they come out of the people who toil.”

I think I’d like to be counted with “unpatriotic”, “unAmerican” “childish” “right-wingers” like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, or Calvin Coolidge, among many others. Yes, democracy-haters all, right Matt? More likely, they had a healthy skepticism of government–any government–and its power to destroy.

Back to you, Brian.

Technorati Tags: Shire Network News, podcast, taxes, John Edwards, Matt Stoller, MyDD, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Marshall, Calvin Coolidge