Considering that this is the 16th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing, China, one would expect human rights groups to highlight the egregious violent crackdown by the Chinese Communists on protestors who only sought to have a voice in how they were governed.
Anywhere from a couple hundred to several thouand Chinese were killed in the crackdown by Chinese troops. Thousands more were wounded.
Instead, there is a widespread silence.
I guess Amnesty International is waiting to unleash its g-bomb on the US the next time someone mistreats a copy of the Koran.
UPDATE: 2:43PM EDT
Added a clarification to the title [ed: was that really necessary?]
Further update. Ran a search for Tiananmen Square on CNN and returned no hits for a story on the anniversary. CNN has a story about how the crackdown was one of the top moments from the last 25 years, but nothing on the actual impact on human rights, democracy, and freedom for a billion people. MSNBC is a little better with several stories of protests marking the anniversary. FoxNews doesn't have anything either. It's absolutely shameful that this awful chapter in history is not conveyed to a new generation of people who may never have heard of it.
Technorati: Human Rights, Tiananmen Square, China
Hat Tip: Occasional Reader at LGF
Friday, June 03, 2005
The Times Misses The Big Picture
The Times is trying once again to undermine support for the NYC 2012 Olympic bid. You can agree or disagree with the merits of the bid, but this article is so partisan that it leaves out so much basic information that one has to wonder whether they're on the Cablevision payroll.
For example, the article spends much time talking about the costs associated with the arenas and stadiums after the Olympics wrap up in 2012. The article complains that the host cities in Athens and Sydney are forced to subsidize the operations of certain venues, and that other venues have fallen into disrepair.
Well, there are a couple of differences between NYC, Athens and Sydney.
Difference #1: Population. The population in NYC is 8 million, and that number is millions higher taking into account the surrounding metropolitan area. The population of Athens, Greece is 750,000 and the surrounding area has about 3.5 million. Sydney's population is 170,000 and the surrounding area has a population of about 4 million. Higher populations mean that more people are in a position to use the venues.
Difference #2: The Olympic stadium. The NFL NY Jets would own and operate the stadium, which would also serve as an extension to the existing convention center. That is a significant cost that wouldn't be incurred by the City on an ongoing basis. Other venues would require upkeep, but all public spaces require ongoing upkeep. International level competitive facilities will have an easier time of generating interest in competitions because of the higher profile in NYC than in the aforementioned cities.
UPDATE:
The latest stadium vote is supposed to take place today. Silver and Bruno aren't sure if they want this jobs producer, which includes the expansion of the 7 line, the expansion of the convention center, and all the economic benefits associated with the stadium. Then again, this is NY and what makes sense economically is often overlooked.
Technorati: Olympics
For example, the article spends much time talking about the costs associated with the arenas and stadiums after the Olympics wrap up in 2012. The article complains that the host cities in Athens and Sydney are forced to subsidize the operations of certain venues, and that other venues have fallen into disrepair.
Well, there are a couple of differences between NYC, Athens and Sydney.
Difference #1: Population. The population in NYC is 8 million, and that number is millions higher taking into account the surrounding metropolitan area. The population of Athens, Greece is 750,000 and the surrounding area has about 3.5 million. Sydney's population is 170,000 and the surrounding area has a population of about 4 million. Higher populations mean that more people are in a position to use the venues.
Difference #2: The Olympic stadium. The NFL NY Jets would own and operate the stadium, which would also serve as an extension to the existing convention center. That is a significant cost that wouldn't be incurred by the City on an ongoing basis. Other venues would require upkeep, but all public spaces require ongoing upkeep. International level competitive facilities will have an easier time of generating interest in competitions because of the higher profile in NYC than in the aforementioned cities.
UPDATE:
The latest stadium vote is supposed to take place today. Silver and Bruno aren't sure if they want this jobs producer, which includes the expansion of the 7 line, the expansion of the convention center, and all the economic benefits associated with the stadium. Then again, this is NY and what makes sense economically is often overlooked.
Technorati: Olympics
Kudos to Claudia Rosett
Ms. Rosett won the prestigeous 2005 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism. It is richly deserved considering her efforts to uncover the huge UN Oil for Food scandal (UNSCAM).
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Hudson Yards Stadium Legal Challenges Thrown Out
Cablevision Systems Corp. had sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, contending it conducted “a sham bidding process” in selecting a bid by the New York Jets to purchase the property. The NFL team wants the stadium to become its new home.While the Judge called on the City and Jets to give Cablevision time to appeal, this is another positive sign that the stadium may go through.
Cablevision, owner of Madison Square Garden, the arena near the proposed stadium site, had submitted a higher bid for the property.
But Judge Herman Cahn sided with the Jets, saying the MTA “did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” His decision also dismissed three other lawsuits brought against the stadium plan by politicians and watchdog groups.
Cablevision has long objected to the stadium, not for altruistic reasons, but purely economic - a stadium would eliminate Cablevision's monopoly on large events in Manhattan. The new stadium would be huge competition for events ranging from concerts to conventions.
The stadium would also open up land for development in Midtown Manhattan, and would call for more housing and office space to be built. The stadium plan includes an MTA plan to extend the 7 line to the Javits Center, which is sorely in need of subway linkage.
Technorati: Real Estate
Open Letter To Amnesty International
I am writing to get an answer to a very simple question. Ms. Irene Zubaida Khan, head of the organization has stated that what is ongoing at Gitmo is a gulag.
On further clarifications, she has stated (in news articles):
My question is thus: Is Gitmo a gulag?
I would remind you that a gulag is not a single facility handling some 500 enemy combatants taken off battlefields in Afghanistan or Iraq who were under arms against US soldiers. A gulag was a systematic prison system that killed millions of people in the former Soviet Union and can best be seen in places like modern-day North Korea and under Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Therefore, if you continue to defend the statement that Gitmo is a gulag, you will have lost whatever credibility your organization had left with people who are genuinely concerned with human rights abuses around the world, not perceived slights and unsubstantiated accusations by those prisoners who are trained to lie and exaggerate treatment at the hands of non Muslims to further their jihadist agenda.
It is indefensible to claim that using terminology like gulag to define, explain, or characterize US treatment of prisoners at Gitmo is acceptable because your organization needs a dramatic way to highlight the crisis. What dramatic steps have you used to highlight the genocide in Dafur? Similarly, what dramatic steps have you taken to highlight the cruel and barbaric regime in North Korea that continues to starve the North Korean population. The fact that you fail to use terms like gulag to characterize a real gulag shows that your political sensibilities trump your actual concern for human rights around the world.
I await your prompt reply.
Technorati: Human Rights
On further clarifications, she has stated (in news articles):
Khan rejected a suggestion that Amnesty’s use of the emotive term “gulag” had turned the debate into one over semantics, and distracted attention from the situation in the detention centers.
“What we wanted to do was to send a strong message that ... this sort of network of detention centers that has been created as part of this war on terrorism is actually undermining human rights in a dramatic way which can only evoke some of the worst features of human rights scandals of the past,” she said.
My question is thus: Is Gitmo a gulag?
I would remind you that a gulag is not a single facility handling some 500 enemy combatants taken off battlefields in Afghanistan or Iraq who were under arms against US soldiers. A gulag was a systematic prison system that killed millions of people in the former Soviet Union and can best be seen in places like modern-day North Korea and under Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Therefore, if you continue to defend the statement that Gitmo is a gulag, you will have lost whatever credibility your organization had left with people who are genuinely concerned with human rights abuses around the world, not perceived slights and unsubstantiated accusations by those prisoners who are trained to lie and exaggerate treatment at the hands of non Muslims to further their jihadist agenda.
It is indefensible to claim that using terminology like gulag to define, explain, or characterize US treatment of prisoners at Gitmo is acceptable because your organization needs a dramatic way to highlight the crisis. What dramatic steps have you used to highlight the genocide in Dafur? Similarly, what dramatic steps have you taken to highlight the cruel and barbaric regime in North Korea that continues to starve the North Korean population. The fact that you fail to use terms like gulag to characterize a real gulag shows that your political sensibilities trump your actual concern for human rights around the world.
I await your prompt reply.
Technorati: Human Rights
AI's Leadership's US Agenda
The leadership of Amnesty International gave thousands of dollars to the 2004 Kerry campaign. Does the leadership's political bent translate into an agenda? Quite possibly. When the 2004 report is highly critical of the US while virtually silent on nations whose transgressions would make any reasonable person blush, it makes you wonder whether that political bent rubbed off on those involved in assembling the report. Like minds do think alike.
Technorati: Human Rights
Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
...
Joe W. "Chip" Pitts III, board chairman of Amnesty International USA, gave the maximum $2,000 allowed by federal law to John Kerry for President. Mr. Pitts is a lawyer and entrepreneur who advises the American Civil Liberties Union.
Technorati: Human Rights
A Google News Experiment Continued
Publiuspundit ran a Google search on hits for human rights abuses combined with countries.
Now, my readers know that some countries are known for human rights abuses while others are known for their tolerance and respect for human rights. You tell me what is wrong with this picture. As Publius notes, the US scored more than 2,000 hits (2,740 to be exact).
Here are a few more searches generated:
Israel 228 - Israel is a perennial whipping boy on the international stage for their defense against terrorists who routinely violate the human rights of Israelis (killing and maiming Israelis doesn't quite count as a human rights violation by Palestinian terrorists according to world opinion).
Palestinians get 188 hits, though most are in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
North Korea 108 - see my comments below.
South Korea 68 - an interesting comparison between a country that actually has a gulag system, and its southern neighbor.
Egypt 204 - Egypt systematically persecuted Islamists, denies free speech for government opponents, and has not had open, free, and fair elections.
Yemen 8 - slave trade doesn't mean much to the world media elites, and neither does rough and poor treatment of women.
Iraq 1,108 - most of these are likely to be outgrowths of US treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and not the treatment of Iraqis and others by Saddam Hussein, the former tyrant who killed more than 300,000 in his bloody rule.
North Korea, as my dear readers know, is home to the modern day gulag archipelago, while Cuba has a sunny version of the Stalinist vision of work setting you free (well, you'll be released when you die).
UPDATE
I had come across this excellent post at The Jawa Report yesterday. Kudos to Dr. Rusty for assembling a story that the media failed to do - namely a critique of the AI report that presents factual information to readers about what a gulag really is (and was).
Technorati: Human Rights
Now, my readers know that some countries are known for human rights abuses while others are known for their tolerance and respect for human rights. You tell me what is wrong with this picture. As Publius notes, the US scored more than 2,000 hits (2,740 to be exact).
Here are a few more searches generated:
Israel 228 - Israel is a perennial whipping boy on the international stage for their defense against terrorists who routinely violate the human rights of Israelis (killing and maiming Israelis doesn't quite count as a human rights violation by Palestinian terrorists according to world opinion).
Palestinians get 188 hits, though most are in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
North Korea 108 - see my comments below.
South Korea 68 - an interesting comparison between a country that actually has a gulag system, and its southern neighbor.
Egypt 204 - Egypt systematically persecuted Islamists, denies free speech for government opponents, and has not had open, free, and fair elections.
Yemen 8 - slave trade doesn't mean much to the world media elites, and neither does rough and poor treatment of women.
Iraq 1,108 - most of these are likely to be outgrowths of US treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and not the treatment of Iraqis and others by Saddam Hussein, the former tyrant who killed more than 300,000 in his bloody rule.
North Korea, as my dear readers know, is home to the modern day gulag archipelago, while Cuba has a sunny version of the Stalinist vision of work setting you free (well, you'll be released when you die).
UPDATE
I had come across this excellent post at The Jawa Report yesterday. Kudos to Dr. Rusty for assembling a story that the media failed to do - namely a critique of the AI report that presents factual information to readers about what a gulag really is (and was).
Technorati: Human Rights
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
So These Are The Insurgents
Forty percent of the terrorist attacks in Iraq are conducted by Saudis who have infiltrated across the border. These aren't homegrown terrorists - Minutemen according to Michael Moore, but international terrorists who want to die in jihad at the hands of the US military and Iraqis who are sick and tired of being targeted by terrorists.
When will the US and Iraqis wake up to the fact that besides the Syrian and Iranian threat, the Saudis continue to pose a serious threat to the stability of the region. The Saudis claim to be on our side in the War on Terror, yet they handle their end of the bargain by exporting the terrorists into Iraq, where they inflict casualties on US forces.
When will the US and Iraqis wake up to the fact that besides the Syrian and Iranian threat, the Saudis continue to pose a serious threat to the stability of the region. The Saudis claim to be on our side in the War on Terror, yet they handle their end of the bargain by exporting the terrorists into Iraq, where they inflict casualties on US forces.
Coughing Up A Name: Deep Throat Is W. Mark Felt
The long national nightmare is over.
We now know who Deep Throat was. Whew.
No more speculation over whether it was Assistant Attorney General Henry Peterson, deputy White House counsel Fred Fielding, ABC newswoman Diane Sawyer, who then worked in the White House press office, Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary, speechwriters Ray Price and Pat Buchanan, and John Dean, the White House counsel, or even a composite of several different people.
Let the speculation begin over why Felt felt it was time to unveil his alter-ego to the world at this time as well as why Felt went to Woodward and Bernstein. Was it to get back at others for being passed over for a promotion at the FBI? Was it personal? Was it to protect the FBI? Or was it out of some sort of belief in due process of law?
We may never know considering the fact that the 91 year old had recently suffered a stroke and his mental facilities aren't what they once were. And, his medical condition also sparked speculation as to why Felt came out now to someone he recently met, instead of going to Woodward or Bernstein to make the final scoop on the Watergate scandal.
More than 30 years later, and simply stating the name Watergate conjures up images of a doomed presidency, gossip, scandal, and Deep Throat.
Now, we have a name.
We now know who Deep Throat was. Whew.
No more speculation over whether it was Assistant Attorney General Henry Peterson, deputy White House counsel Fred Fielding, ABC newswoman Diane Sawyer, who then worked in the White House press office, Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary, speechwriters Ray Price and Pat Buchanan, and John Dean, the White House counsel, or even a composite of several different people.
Let the speculation begin over why Felt felt it was time to unveil his alter-ego to the world at this time as well as why Felt went to Woodward and Bernstein. Was it to get back at others for being passed over for a promotion at the FBI? Was it personal? Was it to protect the FBI? Or was it out of some sort of belief in due process of law?
We may never know considering the fact that the 91 year old had recently suffered a stroke and his mental facilities aren't what they once were. And, his medical condition also sparked speculation as to why Felt came out now to someone he recently met, instead of going to Woodward or Bernstein to make the final scoop on the Watergate scandal.
More than 30 years later, and simply stating the name Watergate conjures up images of a doomed presidency, gossip, scandal, and Deep Throat.
Now, we have a name.
Trump Owned West Side Parcel Selling For $1.8 Billion
Donald Trump isn't a fool. He's made (and lost) billions in real estate. He had scooped up a large parcel near his recently built Trump Place (Riverside South) for $100 million a few years back. Now, he's going to try and sell it for $1.8 billion.
He'll probably get it because there is high demand for residential property in Manhattan, especially with river views. The parcel is a 77-acre property that will include a 21-acre public park that slopes down to the Hudson River.
In other words, a tremendous opportunity for anyone purchasing the property. It also underscores the huge runup in prices over the last decade, as well as the pitfalls in building and developing the Hudson Yards parcel. That's where the City and the NY Jets want to build their stadium and mixed use facilities - including thousands of housing units.
There are several key differences between the properties, including the fact that the City doesn't have to rezone the Trump property, and there is no need for the City to put any money towards that deal. The property is essentially ready for building. That isn't the case with the Hudson Yards property because a platform must first be built over the MTA train yards, and the MTA has to be compensated for the air rights. Hundreds of millions of dollars will have to be spent by the City to get the Hudson Yards property ready for construction of any sort, while the Trump property is ready for construction immediately.
He'll probably get it because there is high demand for residential property in Manhattan, especially with river views. The parcel is a 77-acre property that will include a 21-acre public park that slopes down to the Hudson River.
In other words, a tremendous opportunity for anyone purchasing the property. It also underscores the huge runup in prices over the last decade, as well as the pitfalls in building and developing the Hudson Yards parcel. That's where the City and the NY Jets want to build their stadium and mixed use facilities - including thousands of housing units.
There are several key differences between the properties, including the fact that the City doesn't have to rezone the Trump property, and there is no need for the City to put any money towards that deal. The property is essentially ready for building. That isn't the case with the Hudson Yards property because a platform must first be built over the MTA train yards, and the MTA has to be compensated for the air rights. Hundreds of millions of dollars will have to be spent by the City to get the Hudson Yards property ready for construction of any sort, while the Trump property is ready for construction immediately.
Extell, which is building the 60-story Orion condo tower on 42nd Street and owns the W Hotel in Times Square, is buying the three rental buildings at the site, as well as lots to build eight more apartment houses and nearly 3,000 apartments.Thousands of new housing units may help stabilizing the ever-rising prices, but the fact is that people are willing to pay the higher prices and sellers are able to demand higher premiums for their houses/condos/co-ops.
The deal also includes a five-acre parcel between 59th and 62nd Streets that real estate executives said could be rezoned for an additional 1,500 apartments. There are four condo buildings at the site that are not part of the deal.
It is unclear whether any new buildings on the site will bear Mr. Trump's name in characteristic gold letters.
Real estate executives said that the new buyers would have to pay the developer for using his name.
"I think the potential for this site is huge, because in the aftermath of Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle, the redevelopment of the Far West Side is happening at an extremely rapid rate," said Nancy Packes, president of Feathered Nest, a residential broker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)