SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (13890)10/26/2003 6:54:54 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793687
 
You probably read my earlier comment about my "ex" reducing her pill intake from $1000 a month to $100 a month in anticipation of her coming bad insurance fortune. Steyn has fun with the Sudanese this week, with a much deeper point. Mark is great at keeping his columns humorous. I love the Victorian period. The Romantic in me. I just got through reading about an exchange between Mark Twain and Winston Churchill on the subject of Imperialism. Happened on one of Churchill's early visits to New York, circa 1905. Winston came off a bad second, I understand.
_________________________________________________

suntimes.com

Muslim paranoia: Enemies made us impotent!

October 26, 2003

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST


I haven't really followed Sudanese current events closely since, oh, Gen. Kitchener's victory over the Mahdi at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898. But a recent story from that benighted land happened to catch my eye. Last month mass hysteria apparently swept the capital city, Khartoum, after reports that foreigners were shaking hands with Sudanese men and causing their penises to disappear. One victim, a fabric merchant, told his story to the London Arabic newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi. A man from West Africa came into the shop and "shook the store owner's hand powerfully until the owner felt his penis melt into his body."

I know the feeling. The same thing happened to me after shaking hands with Sen. Clinton. Anyway, as Al-Quds reported, "The store owner became hysterical, and was taken to the hospital." The country's "Chief Criminal Attorney General" Yasser Ahmad Muhammad told the Sudanese daily Al-Rai Al-A'am that "the rumor broke out when one merchant went to another merchant to buy some Karkady [a Sudanese beverage]. Suddenly, the seller felt his penis shriveling."

The invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute, in its exhaustive coverage, noted that the penises of Khartoum were vulnerable not merely to handshaking. "Another victim, who refused to give his name, said that while he was at the market, a man approached him, gave him a comb, and asked him to comb his hair. When he did so, within seconds, he said, he felt a strange sensation and discovered that he had lost his penis."

Tales of the vanishing penises ran rampant round the city, spread by cell phones and text messages. Sudan's Attorney General Salah Abu Zayed declared that all complaints about the missing penises would be brought before a special investigative committee, though doctors had determined that the first plaintiff was "perfectly healthy." The health minister, Ahmad Bilal Othman, said that the epidemic was "scientifically groundless," and that it was "sorcery, magic, or an emotional problem."

By now you're probably saying, "Oh, come on, Steyn, this Sudanese penis thing is all very well, but you're supposed to be a columnist. There's some big geopolitical argument behind all this tittering at shriveling manhoods, isn't there?"

Absolutely. For one thing, a week after the Malaysian Prime Minister told an Islamic summit that their "enemies," the Jews, control the world and got a standing ovation from 56 fellow Muslim leaders, it's useful to be reminded that the International Jewish Conspiracy is comparatively one of the less loopy conspiracies in the Islamic world. That said, they'll probably figure out a way to pin the disappearing penises on some or other agent of Zionism. After all, according to reports in Middle East newspapers, Israel laces Arab chewing gum with secret hormones to make Muslim men hot for Jewish babes who turn out to be Mossad agents. Come to think of it, remember those stories in the National Enquirer after 9/11 about Osama bin Laden being, ah, somewhat underendowed in the trouser department? He spent much of the '90s in Sudan. Who's to say some Zionist didn't sneak up and shake his hand while he was on a shopping trip to Khartoum?

It is, in that sense, the perfect emblematic tale of Islamic victimhood: The foreigners have made us impotent! It doesn't matter that the foreigners didn't do anything except shake hands. It doesn't matter whether you are, in fact, impotent. You feel impotent, just as -- so we're told -- millions of Muslims from Algerian Islamists to the Bali bombers feel "humiliated" by the Palestinian situation. Whether or not there is a rational basis for their sense of humiliation is irrelevant.

One of the things I'd feel humiliated about if I lived in the Arab world is that almost all the forms of expression of my anti-Westernism are themselves Western in origin. Pan-Arabism was old-school 19th century nationalism of the type that eventually unified the various German and Italian statelets. Nasserism was transplanted European socialism, Baathism a local anachronistic variant on 'tween-wars Fascist movements. The Arabs even swiped Jew hatred from the Europeans. Though there was certainly friction between Jews and Muslims before the 20th century, it took the Europeans to package a disorganized, free-lance dislike of Jews into a big-time ideology with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Mein Kampf and all the rest.

Even Islamic fundamentalism, though ostensibly a rare example of a homegrown toxin, has, as a practical matter, more in common with European revolutionary movements than with traditional expressions of Islam -- an essentially political project piggybacking on an ancient religion to create the ideology of choice for the world's troublemakers.

There's something pathetic about a culture so ignorant even its pathologies have to be imported. But what do you expect? The telling detail of the vanishing penis hysteria is that it was spread by text messaging. You can own a cell phone, yet still believe that foreigners are able with a mere handshake to cause your penis to melt away.

Aside from its doubts in its collective manhood, Sudan is no laughing matter. Two million people have been slaughtered there in the last decade. The Christian minority is vanishing a lot faster than that fabric merchant's privates. Osama certainly found the country fertile ground for his ideology: Sudanese mujahideen have been captured as far afield as Algeria, Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan. An economic basket case with a 27 percent literacy rate has managed to find enough spare cash to export revolutionary Islam to many other countries. And they've got half-a-billion dollars' worth of state-of-the-art Chinese weaponry from Iran.

A handshake-fearing guy with a cell phone is one thing; what happens when the handshake-fearers have cell phones and a suitcase nuke? It's at the intersection of apparently indestructible ancient ignorance and cheap, widely available western technology that the dark imponderables of the future lie.

In 1898, after Kitchener slaughtered the dervishes at Omdurman, Hillaire Belloc wrote a characteristically pithy summation of the British technological advantage:

"Whatever happens

We have got

The Maxim gun

And they have not."

But the dervishes have cell phones now. Those and some dimestore boxcutters and a couple of ATM cards were all they needed to pull off 9/11.

And there are plenty of people out there willing to help them get the cheap knock-offs of the 21st century's Maxim gun.

suntimes.com



To: Lane3 who wrote (13890)10/26/2003 11:37:45 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793687
 
Editorial from the Post

Medicare Impasse

Sunday, October 26, 2003; Page B06

TO UNDERSTAND JUST WHY it has been so difficult for Congress to come up with a bill to reform Medicare, look no further than two letters that members of Congress have written in recent weeks. One was signed Thursday by 39 Senate Democrats as well as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) -- enough senators, in other words, to stage a successful filibuster. The letter objects, in particular, to a plan to allow seniors to choose between traditional Medicare and private Medicare plans offered by insurance companies. Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), the minority leader, denounced this idea as the "privatization" of Medicare, while Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said it "does away with Medicare" altogether.



The other letter was sent in September, and it came from a group of 13 conservative House Republicans, later joined by more, whose votes are no less crucial to the passage of a final bill. All had voted for the Medicare bill in June, when it passed by a single vote. All declared that if the traditional Medicare plans were not going to be competing directly with private health plans, as envisioned in the original House bill, they would not support the final legislation. Not only do they directly oppose the Senate Democrats, in other words, they too have the power to stop the bill from passing.

Other differences exist between House Republicans and Senate Democrats. The former insist that there must not be price controls on the drug industry. The latter, in the words of Mr. Daschle, insist that issues of price controls "have to be addressed in the bill." House Republicans also want the bill to include language stating that $400 billion is the outer limit of what Medicare can spend on prescription drugs. Senate Democrats have made it clear that they find this unacceptable. In Mr. Daschle's words, "we also think that putting caps on Medicare spending eliminates the very character of Medicare itself as an entitlement program."

These differences are not minor, narrow or easily resolved: They represent fundamentally different understandings of what this bill is supposed to be about -- whether it is merely an expansion of Medicare to include prescription drugs or a much deeper reform of Medicare, aimed, among other things, at making the program cost less over time. In the original House and Senate bills, this deep difference was papered over by a compromise that gave one faction a cheaper, and much less satisfactory, drug benefit in exchange for shallower, and probably more ineffective, reforms. Now, it appears, that compromise has come unglued, which is hardly surprising.

From the time these bills were first discussed, we have argued that there is no point in passing another major piece of Medicare legislation that does not halt the growth in the program's costs: This one does not. We have also argued that Medicare must change to reflect the health care revolution of the past four decades: This one does not do that either. During the course of the conference debate about Medicare, negotiators have discussed some ideas that do have the potential to address Medicare's deeper problems -- such as a plan to means test at least a part of the program and ask wealthier seniors to pay slightly more for their care. Others have proposed much simpler, and more easily controlled, forms of drug benefit that would go only to low-income seniors who have no other coverage. This is the direction the debate should be headed, if Congress's Medicare reformers are serious about compromise and about their original plan to use the "carrot" of a new benefit in order to implement the "stick" of reforms.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company