Thinking Meat

Protesters bare meta-asses

The usual bunch protested the biotech conference in Sacramento, with tactics that so successfully prevented the Iraq War:

Demonstrators included chefs in aprons and white hats banging utensils on saucepans, as well as activists dressed as giant ears of corn, butterflies and tomatoes. Protesters carried large puppets, signs such as "Feed the needy, not the greedy," and trumpeted urban food programs, veganism and organic farming.

After the planned march, about 20 protesters doffed their clothes, danced on the Capitol steps and began an unauthorized march through downtown. The naked protesters dispersed when the highway patrol brought in buses and threatened to arrest them.

Well, I sure am convinced. Veganism über Alles.

I'm usually not very interested in loud arguments over race relations in the U.S., and particularly affirmative action. My own views on the subject are ambivalent, and I can understand both the motivation for the program, and the negative consequences of it -- so I tend to stay away from the topic.

But sometimes the demagoguery gets to be too much:

CHICAGO - Democratic presidential hopefuls say they will continue to promote affirmative action regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in a case challenging the constitutionality of programs to help minorities in college admissions.

The court is expected to rule any day whether affirmative action programs at the University of Michigan are constitutional. The case was a main topic of discussion Sunday at a candidate forum sponsored by Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.

"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," said Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri.

Whoa! Let me get this straight: Gephardt will use use the power of the presidency to push through a policy even if the Supreme Court says it's against the Constitution?! And people accuse John Ashcroft of "shredding" the Constitution, and Bush of being a "fascist"? In my view, this alone makes Gephardt unfit for election, regardless of how you feel about affirmative action, or how the Supreme Court ends up ruling. Good grief.

Then there's this, by Howard Dean:

"The president has divided us," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said. "He's divided us by race by using the word 'quotas.'"

This is just patently silly. No matter how necessary you may find affirmative action, there is no question that it divides people by race -- that's its whole purpose. Accusing someone of being divisive simply because they dared discuss the wisdom of such a policy is incredibly disingenuous.

Kerry said he was committed to have minorities in positions of power in his administration, and pointed to diversity in his campaign staff.

Well, there's an easily countered strategy: Bush merely has to point to Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Rod Paige, Elaine Chao, Norm Mineta -- and that's just his cabinet. Campaign commitments are cheap and easy; Bush doesn't need to "commit to have minorities in positions of power," because he's already put them there.

Of course, some would say that it's not enough to put minorities into high-level positions; they have to be the "right kind" of people, too. Check out the revolting master demagogue himself:

Al Sharpton responded that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a black man who may vote against the university's affirmative action program. He said Democrats shouldn't be talking about getting more blacks in high places, but getting the right blacks.

"If we doubt that, just look at Clarence Thomas," he said. "Clarence Thomas is my color, but he's not my kind."

I suppose Mr. Thomas ought to be grateful for the compliment. But remind me again, Governor Dean: who is dividing the country?

(I would like to note that I am not partisan to Bush, and this isn't meant to be an endorsement of his policies. But with press conferences like these, the Democrats certainly don't seem to be offering any better alternatives -- just some very disturbing rhetoric. They seem quite eager to prove Megan right.)

Another day, another bomb...

The Arab-Israeli conflict continues to be a mix of the tragic and the comical. To wit, this AP report:

JERUSALEM - Four Palestinian militants died late Sunday, apparently when a bomb they were planting went off in northern Gaza.

There's that word militants again, as though these guys simply had very strong feelings on the subject. I mean, really -- they died making a freaking bomb. Would calling them terrorists really be such an editorial stretch? Well, at least it's not Reuters -- they would have called the bombers "activists."

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Israel could still build Jewish settlements in defiance of a U.S.-backed peace plan.

In defiance of. Those uppity Israelis, not bowing to American authority. ...What? The U.S. has no authority? So where's the "defiance" part?

At first, Palestinian security officials said Israeli tanks fired at a group of militants from the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, affiliated with the Yasser Arafat's mainstream Fatah, killing three men and wounding four others, in the northeast Gaza town of Beit Hanoun. Another died later in a hospital, doctors said.

Well, if Palestinian security officials say it, it's gotta be true, right? Oh, oops, no:

Later, however, loudspeaker trucks drove through the area saying that the four died while "fulfilling their national duty," a phrase used in the past to announce accidental deaths.

I don't suppose this will cause the various news-gathering outfits in the PA to be a little more skeptical of PLO pronouncements in the future? ...didn't think so.

Also, love that bit about "fulfilling their national duty." Apparently, the people in the trucks consider it Palestinians' national duty to die stupidly and uselessly. Well, no surprise there.

Sharon adviser Raanan Gissin said Israel would continue construction in built-up areas of settlements. Asked about the required freeze, he noted that the Cabinet, in voting on the plan, attached objections.

I don't suppose anyone asked about the "required" cessation of violence that the Palestinians were supposed to deliver last month? Who the hell "requires" these things, anyway?

Mideast mediators, meanwhile, expressed concern over Israel's killing of Abdullah Kawasme, a local leader of the Hamas militant group in the West Bank city of Hebron.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said the killing Saturday could set back peace efforts, but stopped short of directly criticizing it.

Oh brother -- look, I know that Powell needs to say these things to appear "even-handed" and all, but really: Hamas has rejected this vaunted road map pretty unequivocally. They have refused to cease violence, simply because they are not yet defeated. They have told both Abbas and Egyptians to shove it. They have planned and carried out murderous attacks. So how exactly is killing one of their most red-handed leaders going to "set back the peace process"?!

The Quartet is trying to rescue the peace plan, buffeted by Mideast violence since its launch by President Bush on June 4.

I don't suppose the author even realizes how ironic this sounds. "Yeah, they have a nice peace plan, only the violence keeps getting in the way." Naturally, the word violence is used neutrally: Arabs kill bus passengers, Israelis kill Arabs that kill bus passengers, both sides equally at fault.

The statement did not refer to Israel's extrajudicial killings of wanted Palestinians, which have emerged as an obstacle to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas' efforts to persuade militant groups to halt attacks. The armed groups have said they will agree to a truce only if Israel halts military strikes, including such killings.

Oh, please! One might imagine that, had an Israeli court found these terrorist scum guilty before their "extrajudicial killings," Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be just fine with it. They want paperwork, dang it! And I believe Hamas has made it quite clear that they won't agree to a cease-fire, much less any kind of real peace, under any circumstances short of a mass Israeli suicide.

The Israeli military said troops tried to arrest Kawasme, and that he was killed after he did not heed calls to stop. The wanted man was armed, the military said.

A Palestinian witness, Mohammed Nasser Eddin, said Kawasme was unarmed and tried to run from soldiers encircling him in three vans outside a mosque in Hebron.

Well, since we can't possibly discount the tale of one "witness" living in the middle of Arafatistan, I guess we'll just have to believe that the Israelis were lying, and Kawasme was the only jihadi to fight against the evil usurper Zionists "unarmed."

Palestinian officials accused Israel of trying to undermine truce efforts.

Offered without comment.

The "road map" starts with a halt to violence, a crackdown on militant groups, the dismantling of settlement outposts and leads through three stages to a Palestinian state in 2005.

And we can expect the halt to "violence" and a crackdown on militant groups any time now. ...aaaaaany time now.... aaaany time...

Palestinians charge that Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are a major obstacle to a peace agreement because they encroach on land the Palestinians claim for a state.

I wonder if anyone asked the Israelis whether Palestinian mass murders of Israeli civilians and Hamas's calls for an Islamic state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean are "a major obstacle to a peace agreement."

Nah. Their opinion doesn't count. They are just Jews. And probably Zionists, too.

McDonald's vs. Lunch Ladies; no contest

The eeevvviillll Yankee hamburger-peddlers at McDonald's are destroying France yet again, this time acting as scabs.

The cafeteria staff at Robespierre (!) middle school in Epinay-sur-Seine went on strike, figuring they'd use the hungry students as leverage. So the school management ordered out at McDonald's.

I've got to say -- either the food at French school cafeterias is vastly superior to that of the U.S., or the Lunch Ladies of Labor were vastly overestimating the impact of their strike.

Two words: mashed peas.

June's Atlantic Monthly has a fascinating article into the investigation of just who shot Mohammed al-Dura. They throw light on a lot of physical evidence that seems to indicate that al-Dura wasn't shot by Israeli troops, but rather by the Palestinians looking to create a child martyr. It would seem highly implausible, except for the numerous well-documented efforts by Palestinians to militarize their children. Conclusions seem to vary widely, from the unquestioning belief that the boy was killed by Israeli bullets (prevalent in the Muslim world), to the Israelis' innocence, to the theory that the whole thing was a well-staged Palestinian conspiracy. At any rate, The Atlantic does a good job outlining physical evidence that Israeli troops couldn't have shot the boy, and several good diagrams are given -- though, unfortunately, those are only available in the paper version.

The paper version also has an article on suicide terrorism, and what Americans will have to learn from Israelis.

It doesn't suprise me that Mark Morford has penned yet another effluent, rambling piece. (Honestly, the whole e.e. cummings style is really passé, and rarely worked for people who weren't e.e. cummings.) It doesn't surprise me that he admires Dennis Kucinich, the "Vegan Holistic President." What does surprise me, just a little, is the endorsement given to Kucinich's Department of Peace. I guess Orwell references are lost on some people.

Oh, and don't miss this brilliant essay, either: apparently, Morford had quite the crush on Clinton, but finds Bush to be, like, totally dweeby. Or something like that; I'm not sure what the point is, but it makes for fun reading.

Update: As Laura points out in the comments, Morford's lack of admiration for Bush & Co. is hardly universal. In fact, as Lisa Schiffren writes in an OpinionJournal Taste column, many women are quite fond of Rumsfeld, Bush, et al., though admittedly they don't display quite the same level of squealing-schoolgirl enthusiasm that Morford pours out on Clinton. Well, all's for the best, I suppose: I doubt Bush or Rumsfeld would have cared much for Morfords ecstatic rambling run on sentences that are ever so wonderful oh my gosh my golly they sure are sweet aren't they?