Friday, December 30, 2011
Copper Thievery
Bringing it closer to home... In case you hadn't noticed, copper theft has grown rampant. As a Public Defender, I get to see firsthand just how common this crime is. If you have an AC unit visible from a road or public area, it definitely wouldn't hurt to fence it in. Many (most?) victims of theft are simply the low-hanging fruit. Make your stuff a little more difficult to steal the next guy's, and you will likely avoid becoming a victim. Seriously, you don't want a "client" walking off with your two grand ac unit so he can get $100 worth of copper.
U.S. to Sell Fighter Jets to Friendly Absolute Monarchy in Middle East. Sounds Familiar...
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/12/30/US-to-sell-fighter-jets-to-Saudi-Arabia/UPI-44181325262204/?spt=hs&or=tn
If this story sounds familiar, it's because this isn't the first time the U.S. has done something like this. The sale of F-14 fighter jets (advanced weaponry at the time) to Shah-led Iran immediately comes to mind. Iran was led at the time by a West-friendly (and CIA-installed) monarch, whose regime wasn't exactly pro-freedom. Of course, the CIA's well laid plans went horribly awry when the Iranian Revolution toppled the Shah and installed a vehemently anti-West, anti-Israel totalitarian theocracy.
The Obama administration is of course assuring Israel that this deal will actually increase their security. It probably will, unless the Saudi regime were to be toppled and replaced by anti-Western leadership. of course this will never happen in the ultra-stable Middle East (and the birthplace of Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers). In the words of former President George W. Bush (noted friend to and supporter of the Saudi regime), "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
If this story sounds familiar, it's because this isn't the first time the U.S. has done something like this. The sale of F-14 fighter jets (advanced weaponry at the time) to Shah-led Iran immediately comes to mind. Iran was led at the time by a West-friendly (and CIA-installed) monarch, whose regime wasn't exactly pro-freedom. Of course, the CIA's well laid plans went horribly awry when the Iranian Revolution toppled the Shah and installed a vehemently anti-West, anti-Israel totalitarian theocracy.
The Obama administration is of course assuring Israel that this deal will actually increase their security. It probably will, unless the Saudi regime were to be toppled and replaced by anti-Western leadership. of course this will never happen in the ultra-stable Middle East (and the birthplace of Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers). In the words of former President George W. Bush (noted friend to and supporter of the Saudi regime), "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Are the Palestinians really an invented people?
As you likely know, Newt Gingrich recently made the bold (read: inflammatory) statement that the Palestinian people are an invented people. This post isn't going to delve into the global ramifications of such a statement, though I believe it was a very bad idea to make it. Instead, I will look at the historical basis for such a comment and whether it was really justified.
Prior to World War I, the land now known as Israel, including the Gaza Strip and West Bank, was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire, centered in modern day Turkey, had ruled over most of the Middle East and parts of Eastern Europe for centuries. During World War I, the Ottomans allied themselves with the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, etc.) This, of course, proved to be an unwise choice. The Central Powers were defeated by the Allies, the Ottoman Empire broke up, and the modern, secular state of Turkey was formed at its historic heart. Great Britain obtained control of modern day Israel, which it called the Palestine Mandate.
Who were the people residing in the Mandate at this time? Well, the majority identified themselves as Arabs. Some identified as Jews, and there were other minorities. Arab culture had spread to the area shortly after the rise of Islam in the seventh century A.D. The traditional notion was that the Arabs invaded and pushed out the resident populations. Some research is showing, however, that most of the people stayed and merely adopted Arab culture and converted to Islam (from Judaism or Christianity). So, from a genetic standpoint, the Palestinian people are likely the same people who have been in the region for centuries. Genetic research has confirmed that modern European Jewish populations are largely descended from inhabitants of this region as well. They have obviously maintained a much different culture away from their historic homeland than those who remained behind (if you accept the theory above).
So where does Newt's comment come from? I mean, he is a history professor after all. Well, there was never an independent state called Palestine. From the Roman Conquest up until the British withdrew from the Mandate, the area had been part of different empires; Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Ottoman. But, so what? The same thing could be said for Greece. Have you ever heard of the "invented Greek people"? The people running the Ottoman Empire (Turks) were admittedly a different ethnicity with a different language than the Palestinians. It appears that Newt thinks because Palestinians self-identify as Arabs (whose culture stretches across the Middle East), their status as "Palestinians" is invented. This argument simply doesn't hold water. Egyptians, Saudis, Lebanese Arabs and others all identify as Arabs, and yet, they all have unique cultural traditions.
I think Newt knew better than to make this comment and was merely trying to score cheap points with the pro-Israel lobby. To be clear, I am not anti-Israel. I simply think that the Israel-Palestine argument should be guided by accurate assumptions and not politically-charged talking points.
Prior to World War I, the land now known as Israel, including the Gaza Strip and West Bank, was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire, centered in modern day Turkey, had ruled over most of the Middle East and parts of Eastern Europe for centuries. During World War I, the Ottomans allied themselves with the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, etc.) This, of course, proved to be an unwise choice. The Central Powers were defeated by the Allies, the Ottoman Empire broke up, and the modern, secular state of Turkey was formed at its historic heart. Great Britain obtained control of modern day Israel, which it called the Palestine Mandate.
Who were the people residing in the Mandate at this time? Well, the majority identified themselves as Arabs. Some identified as Jews, and there were other minorities. Arab culture had spread to the area shortly after the rise of Islam in the seventh century A.D. The traditional notion was that the Arabs invaded and pushed out the resident populations. Some research is showing, however, that most of the people stayed and merely adopted Arab culture and converted to Islam (from Judaism or Christianity). So, from a genetic standpoint, the Palestinian people are likely the same people who have been in the region for centuries. Genetic research has confirmed that modern European Jewish populations are largely descended from inhabitants of this region as well. They have obviously maintained a much different culture away from their historic homeland than those who remained behind (if you accept the theory above).
So where does Newt's comment come from? I mean, he is a history professor after all. Well, there was never an independent state called Palestine. From the Roman Conquest up until the British withdrew from the Mandate, the area had been part of different empires; Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Ottoman. But, so what? The same thing could be said for Greece. Have you ever heard of the "invented Greek people"? The people running the Ottoman Empire (Turks) were admittedly a different ethnicity with a different language than the Palestinians. It appears that Newt thinks because Palestinians self-identify as Arabs (whose culture stretches across the Middle East), their status as "Palestinians" is invented. This argument simply doesn't hold water. Egyptians, Saudis, Lebanese Arabs and others all identify as Arabs, and yet, they all have unique cultural traditions.
I think Newt knew better than to make this comment and was merely trying to score cheap points with the pro-Israel lobby. To be clear, I am not anti-Israel. I simply think that the Israel-Palestine argument should be guided by accurate assumptions and not politically-charged talking points.
Introduction
I suppose I should have posted an introductory post before I got into anything substantive, but I will now. My goal here is to provide an outlet for my thoughts on current events and our government's law and policies. As an attorney, I have a unique view of the inner workings of the legal system. As a criminal defense attorney, I work daily with Constitutional interpretation. Comments are of course welcome. I don't mind different viewpoints. I just ask that any comments be civil and issue-focused.
Optional Taxes? Awesome!
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/1227/Obama-s-new-tax-on-the-poor-Internet-gambling-by-states
So, the CS Monitor has decided to repeat an oft expressed view that any kind of state-sanctioned gambling is a "tax" on the poor. You know, the poor lack the ability to stop themselves from gambling if given the opportunity. The big, mean government should, of course, step in to protect them from themselves. Nevermind that this is merely an interpretation of an existing law or that no one is being forced to buy lotto tickets or dump quarters into slot machines. Don't you wish that you had the choice to not pay your taxes?
So, the CS Monitor has decided to repeat an oft expressed view that any kind of state-sanctioned gambling is a "tax" on the poor. You know, the poor lack the ability to stop themselves from gambling if given the opportunity. The big, mean government should, of course, step in to protect them from themselves. Nevermind that this is merely an interpretation of an existing law or that no one is being forced to buy lotto tickets or dump quarters into slot machines. Don't you wish that you had the choice to not pay your taxes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)