Klein’s Quips

Should Hamas be getting international aid?

In my latest column for the American Spectator, I predict that a leader of Hamas will win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Via Ynet News:

Despite declarations to the contrary, the United States does not reject out of hand future contacts with a Hamas-led Palestinian government, Palestinian sources said Sunday.

“There are signals arriving from the U.S. government that it does not reject the possibility of cooperating with a Hamas-led government,” the sources claimed.

Even if you take that with a grain of salt, we already know that France and Russia have reached out to Hamas.

As I wrote when Hamas was elected, the election completely legitimized the terrorist group. After the results came in, there was a sense of optimism in pro-Israel circles that the Hamas victory would convince the world once and for all that the Palestinians don’t want peace. But that optimism was clearly misguided.

In an odd anology, Alan Chambers of Exodus International just compared homosexuality to fast food. “Fast food is counterfeit. It will fill you up in the short-term, but in the long-term it will kill you,” he said. He tied this to homosexuality, arguing that both are based on instant gratification.

For those who aren’t familiar with Exodus, according to their Website, “Exodus is a worldwide interdenominational, Christian organization called to encourage, strengthen, unify and equip Christians to minister the transforming power of the Lord Jesus Christ to those affected by homosexuality.”

The speaker, Chambers, overcame homosexuality and is now happily married to a woman. “I stand before you now as a heterosexual man,” he declared. Kind of the anti-http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/12/mcgreevey.transcript/“>James McGreevey.

That every speaker has to quote Ronald Reagan.

“You can’t spell ipod without ‘IP’” –Jim Prendergast, Americans for Technology Leadership.

IP stands for Intellectual Property, in case you didn’t pick up on that clever word play.

UPDATE: PJ emails to tell me “Yes you can.” According to this article:

The organisation that developed the MP3 format has now created software designed to prevent MP3 files being shared on p2p networks.

I’m writing from CPAC in Washington, DC where there was just a panel discussion on Republican prospects in the 2006 elections. The big question is whether grassroots conservatives will turnout for Republicans as they have in the recent past. This issue is of supreme interest to me, and the subject of an article I wrote that will appear in the March issue of the American Spectator.

Michael Barone, the author of The Almanac of American Politics, has a knowledge of Congressional districts that’s hard to match. He said current polls showing Republicans trailing Democrats in Congressional races should be viewed with skepticism, because they poll “all adults” rather than “likely voters” and traditionally Republicans have been more likely to turn out. Barone emphasized how the jump in turnout in 2004 was nearly unprecedented for both Republicans and Democrats, but Republicans won the battle because of the efforts of 1.4 million grassroots volunteers. The big question is whether Republicans will be able to replicate this, given that the inability of Republicans to control spending and do something about illegal immigration has sapped a lot of enthusiasm from conservatives. He said, however, that there is always the possibility that Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot as they have in the past.

John Gizzi, the longtime political reporter at Human Events was a bit more pessimistic about Republicans’ chances. He said you can’t expect something to happen again just because it’s happened in the past. And while people say that only 25-30 House races will be competitive this year, he thinks far more will seats will be up for grabs. He made the point that 14 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are running for the House, and 13 of them are running as Democrats. Gizzi said that given the dissatisfaction at the grassroots level, Democrats may be able to win on a theme of Iraq and corruption, even if they don’t present their own vision for governing (i.e. something along the lines of 1994’s Republican Contract With America).

Based on reporting I did for my Spectator article, in which I communicated with or received feedback from hundreds of conservative activists, I would say that frustration with Republicans at the grassroots level is palpable. Obviously, a lot can change between now and November, but Republican lawmakers have a lot of work to do to regain the faith of the party’s base. They are mistaken if they take it for granted that conservatives will donate their time and money as they have in the past.

Via the NY Times :

The largest study ever to ask whether a low-fat diet reduces the risk of getting cancer or heart disease has found that the diet has no effect.

In a column for TCSDaily I criticize Andrew Sullivan for dubbing President Bush “King George” while revering Lincoln, who took far more extreme actions during the Civil War.

Karol over at Alarming News argues that republishing the offensive Muhammad cartoons in a show of solidarity with the Danes is “dumb.” She makes some of the same points that Ben did in my comments section when I decided to post one of the cartoons. Karol writes:

It is well-known that many Arab newspapers have featured Ariel Sharon as a bloodthirsty monster, a demon who eats children and hopes for death and destruction. Had Jews rioted at this depiction, had they set afire embassies around the world or raged in the streets, I would denounce them harshly, advise them to get a grip and to deal with real problems that face us all. But if a newspaper reprinted the cartoons in some twisted show of solidarity, I would see the paper as merely fanning the flames of conflict.

The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t reflect reality. Muslim leaders aren’t denouncing their coreligionists harshly, they are encouraging them to riot. And Jews don’t riot, set embassies on fire or rage in the streets. They behave in a civilized manner and use their free speech rights to express their anger with anti-Semitism in the Arab world by writing about it or otherwise raising awareness.

And it must be noted that this is not an isolated example. Muslim fanatics have a long history of using intimidation to silence free speech, just look at the tragedy of the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Other news outlets should republish the cartoons to show Muslims that the free world will not allow itself to be at the mercy of the most violent mob.

Even if news organizations don’t want to republish the cartoons in the name of solidarity, they should do so as part of covering the story. The U.S. media had no problem plastering the Abu Ghraib photos in magazines, newspapers and on television even though they were shocking, offensive, injurious to America’s reputation and likely put American soldiers in Iraq in greater danger. But they printed the photos as part of covering the story. If there were a controversy over anti-Semitic cartoons, I’d want to see them for myself to understand what all the fuss was about. By avoiding publication of the Muhammad cartoons, American news outlets are neglecting a major element of the story.