Al-Hurra Is Arabic For Sinkhole

You may not be aware of this but the U.S. government funds a CNN-style cable news channel, Al-Hurra, for the Arab world as a counterweight to Al-Jazeera. The point is to provide a 24-hour news outlet with a pro-western, pro-democracy spin. Unfortunately, that isn't cheap. The Washington Post reports today that $350 million has been spent on it so far.

Still, were reaching Arab hearts and minds right? Well, maybe not:

Independent surveys indicate that al-Hurra attracts a far smaller audience than its chief competitors, al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya. In a public opinion poll of six Arab countries released in March by the University of Maryland and Zogby International, 54 percent of those surveyed said they watched al-Jazeera most often for international news, compared with 9 percent for al-Arabiya. Al-Hurra got 2 percent, tied with al-Manar -- Hezbollah's satellite propaganda channel.

Al-Hurra executives said their goal is not necessarily to outdraw those networks, but to offer a credible alternative news source. "We're not saying we're winning the race," said Bruce Sherman, director of strategic planning for the Broadcasting Board of Governors. "What we're saying is we have a horse in the race."

***

Arab journalists and viewers say al-Hurra has a basic problem: It is boring. Investigative pieces are rare, and critics say the channel generally doesn't make waves.

Also "Moustache Rides" Are Naughty Too

In an apparent attempt to prove that Borat was not a joke, an Azerbaijan newspaper has a shocking expose on a local English Pub. It seems the pub's name, The Camel's Toe, might also have another meaning, one unknown to the decent Azerbaijanis! Take it away Mustapha:

Azerbaijan is among the most tolerant countries of the world.

This has been repeatedly stated even on state level. Our country serves as an example for other CIS states.

However, foreign citizens, residing in our country, should not make use of this tolerance.

We will present a little example, which reflects disrespect of British citizens towards the local population. It should noted that we do not try to wage international enmity, we are just presenting a fact.

A pub named Camel's toe which initially seems to mean what it means -"A toe of a camel" functions in the very center of Baku, several meters away from the passage, at 22. Mamedaliyev street.

But, in fact the name has a double meaning. The Camel's Toe has a meaning "the clear visible presence of a woman's vulva as a consequence of wearing overly right pants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_toe).

A question comes to mind: was it named so on purpose? And what does the logotype of the pub, which locates in one of the most popular streets of Baku, mean?

***

Why did they name the pub like that? Could they not understand that this may arise protest among the local population? Perhaps, the British citizens wanted to introduce European culture in Azerbaijan, forgetting about the local mentality?

Perhaps, they wanted to mock at Azerbaijanis, who are not aware of such details of British slang? Or perhaps they bound the slang name of the pub with Azerbaijani ladies, visiting it?

Alas, after this was brought to the attention of all good, loyal Azerbaijanis, the pub owner took down the sign. Alas.

Mark Steyn on Richardson on Pakistan

Mark Steyn's reaction to Bill Richardson's idiotic, post-Bhutto assassination, seem spot on to me.

[Richardson]--Her death, and the deaths of so many of her supporters, is more than just a tragedy. It is a testament to the will of the Pakistani people to see democracy restored.

[Steyn]--Er, no. It's a testament to the ease with which "democracy" can be thwarted by those determined to do so. So what now? I'd always swallowed the conventional wisdom that Governor Richardson was an unglamorous candidate but far more sober and substantial and experienced in world affairs than the glitzier Dems. Instead, he strings the buzzwords and bromides together in apparently random fashion and gives Pakistan its marching orders:

President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately... It is in the interests of the US that there be a democratic Pakistan that relentlessly hunts down terrorists.

Gotcha. What do we want? A broad-based coalition government that relentlessly hunts down terrorists and has a great prescription drug plan for seniors! When do we want it? Now! Well, gee, it would be unfair to let anybody else take credit for such a viable plan. Why doesn't Governor Richardson jet in and run for the Pakistani parliament himself? First rally in Rawalpindi on Saturday?

I'm should add that while I don't always swallow everything Styen argues, I agree with him more than just about any other reader of this blog. (outside of my Dad, although I'm probably being generous as to the size of our readership; I'm pretty sure he stopped reading us long ago.) But you can't disagree with his take on the general nonsense that spills out of our political class when it comes to complex problems. International or domestic. The idea that we can mold a country that didn't even exist 80 years ago into some sort of stable, western-loving democracy is beyond silly. Just because we want it to happen doesn't mean we can ignore the realities on the ground i.e., how much of the population doesn't want what we are selling. Or I guess we can, but we shouldn't be shocked when something as easy to predict as Bhutto's assassination occurs.

P.S. Disregard the TtPStaff signature on this post. The post, and it's opinion is all Rob's. I just forgot to sing out of our generic account and I'm too lazy to fix it.

Sorry, No More Pandas

China has announced that it is ending one of its more successful forms of diplomacy, giving away pandas. This form of Chinese foreign policy has lasted over 1,300 years. China’s relationship with Sudan could get very interesting after the bears stop flowing, which could cause Sudan to stop the oil flowing back to China.

One another note, nothing disappointed me more as a small child than seeing the Pandas at the National Zoo. These bears did nothing and reached levels of fame in the DC area I could never hope to achieve. I have attempted to apply to apply the same strategy in my life with little success. Story from The Guardian.

Winning the War on Terror, One Fetus at a Time

Senate's vote revives overseas abortion issue

As with all foreign aid, I'm sure this is a wise expenditure....

War on Terror No Match for War on Drugs

From Sunday's Washington Post:

Thirty-six years and hundreds of billions of dollars after President Richard M. Nixon launched the war on drugs, consumers worldwide are taking more narcotics and criminals are making fatter profits than ever before. The syndicates that control narcotics production and distribution reap the profits from an annual turnover of $400 billion to $500 billion.

[...]

The trade in illegal narcotics begets violence, poverty and tragedy. And wherever I went around the world, gangsters, cops, victims, academics and politicians delivered the same message: The war on drugs is the underlying cause of the misery. Everywhere, that is, except Washington, where a powerful bipartisan consensus has turned the issue into a political third rail.

[...]


In Washington, the war on drugs has been a third-rail issue since its inauguration. It's obvious why -- telling people that their kids can do drugs is the kiss of death at the ballot box. But that was before 9/11. Now the drug war is undermining Western security throughout the world. In one particularly revealing conversation, a senior official at the British Foreign Office told me, "I often think we will look back at the War on Drugs in a hundred years' time and tell the tale of 'The Emperor's New Clothes.' This is so stupid."

Read the whole thing.

Ron Paul Bitch Slaps Rudy Giuliani

I was hoping that Rep. Ron Paul would fight back against Rudy Giuliani and other Republicans who support policies that are basically recrutiment tools for Islamic terrorists. He schooled them real good today. "Cliff Notes" for Rudy here.

WASHINGTON, May 24 (Reuters) - Longshot Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on Thursday gave front-runner Rudy Giuliani a list of foreign-policy books to back up his contention that attacks by Islamic militants are fueled by the U.S. presence in the Middle East.

"I'm giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment," the nine-term Texas congressman said as he stood behind a stack of books that included the report by the commission that examined the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.
[...]
Among the books on Paul's reading list were: "Dying to Win," which argues that suicide bombers only mobilize against an occupying force; "Blowback," which examines the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy; and the 9/11 Commission Report, which says that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was angered by the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

Another book on the list was "Imperial Hubris," whose author appeared at the press conference to offer support for Paul.

"Foreign policy is about protecting America," said author Michael Scheuer, who used to head the CIA's bin Laden unit. "Our foreign policy is doing the opposite."

CIA bin Laden Expert: Ron Paul "Exactly Correct"

In an interview with Antiwar Radio, Michael Scheuer (former head analyst of the CIA's bin Laden unit) says Ron Paul was "exactly correct" in saying that America's interventionist foreign policy was largely responsible for causing 9/11, and that the war in Iraq is undermining America's long-term security. Listen to it here.

Via LewRockwell.com.

Republican Chairman to Libertarians: We Don't Want You, Join the Democrats

I bet it was nice for a while being a war-mongering politician, party hack or political pundit. Beating your chest, feeling like a real man's man, acting tough (although not actually doing anything tough, like you know joining the military and putting your life on the line.) But then reality set in. Thousands of dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq. A growing - not shrinking - terrorist movement. And a nagging feeling deep inside that your support for a reckless foreign policy is at least partially responsible for the chaos in Iraq and the global anti-American blowback. So when someone like Rep. Ron Paul comes along and makes you feel uncomfortable by pointing out the obvious, it's only natural to try to literally run him off the stage. Much easier to sleep at night if no one is allowed to suggest that the policies you helped erect are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, the fleecing of American taxpayers, an increased police state, and an America made less safe. What else can one make of all the attacks on Rep. Ron Paul from Republican circles (see here, here, here, and here) and the movement to get him barred from future Republican debates?

Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates....

"I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party,” Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting...

Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to discourage inviting Paul.

I guess if Ron Paul should leave the Republican Party, then so should I. Thanks for the advice, Saul. I'm changing by party registration. After I vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, of course. There is obviously nothing left for libertarians in the Republican Party. Nothing. Let them wallow in their big-government-loving, war-starting, individual-rights-hating, shrinking party alone.

You can sign a petition to keep Ron Paul in the Republican debates here. And sign a petition urging Giuliani to debate Paul on foreign policy here. Both via LewRockwell.com, which has excellent ongoing coverage of the blowback over the blowback.

When in Doubt Blame Everyone Else

Washington Times article from yesterday's paper.

The United States said today that top anti-terror allies Afghanistan, Pakistan and Colombia had fallen short in the war on drugs despite enhanced counter-narcotics efforts, and it criticized perennial foes Iran, North Korea and Venezuela for not cooperating.

Yeah guys, its your fault we can't control the demand for these drugs in our own country.

In its annual global survey of the drug war, the department said massive opium poppy production in Afghanistan, long the world's top producer of the main ingredient for heroin, continued to pose a major threat due to its links with groups such as the Taliban.
"Afghanistan's huge drug trade undercuts efforts to rebuild the economy and develop a strong democratic government based on the rule of law," the department said in the 2007 International Narcotic Control Strategy Report.
"There is strong evidence that narcotics trafficking is linked to the Taliban insurgency. These links between drug traffickers and anti-government forces threaten regional stability."

Humm. So we should continue our current strategy of eradication which pumps up the price of opium, therefore giving the terrorist even higher profits? What am I missing in this equation, because nowhere have I seen a coherent argument for why we don't just buy the crops of the Afghan farmers. We spend billions doing the same for staple type crops in the U.S., why not do the same for them if this is such a massive global problem? Ideally the purchased crops could be used to help reduce the shortage of pharmaseutical opiates, but if that's too much to handle just destroy them. All I'm asking is we destroy the poppies after we give the poor guy trying to make a living a fair value for his crop. Too much to ask for?

The problems in Afgahnistan have been steadily getting more play in the media; so maybe someone has/will make a honest argument for why we can't export our horriable subsidies to that mess of a nation. Hardly the perfect solution, but it seems to me(and many other folks) like a realistic and viable one given how misareably the West has been failing in the past few years in that region of the world.

Full article here.

Rep. Murtha Gets Kinky with the President

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, is pushing forward a proposal to require President Bush to get Congressional approval before attacking Iran, a bid to tie the President's hands. Leaving aside the fact that the Constitution clearly gives Congress - not the president - the power to declare war, I think this resolution is a bad idea. No, I don't want to go to war with Iran. But I don't want to undermine Bush's negotiation with Iranian officials either. He needs to be able to say that if he catches them arming Iraqi insurgents he will retaliate against Iranian interests immediately. If Iranians believe that Americans don't have the resolve to stand up to them they won't back down.