November 16, 2004
WHAT DID HE DO WITH THE MONEY HE STOLE FROM HIS PEOPLE?:
THE OLD MAN (David Remnick, 2004-11-22, The New Yorker)
Modest in his personal habits and his material desires, Yasir Arafat was grandiose only in his sense of mission.
Anyone recall Mr. Remnick writing similar nonsense about Arafat's fellow gay billionaire, Malcolm Forbes? Posted by Orrin Judd at November 16, 2004 10:09 AM
Apparently he was also quite modest about letting others in on the whereabouts of those billions of bucks (and euros and dinars and shekels) he skimmed off the top of all that financial assistance intended for his beleaguered and beloved people.
The New Yorker is having a difficult month: both Hendrik Hertzberg and Surowiecki topped themselves in lunacy this week.
Surowiecki, especially, should know better than to call SS and Medicare 'risk management' programs.
However, Hertzberg exposed himself completely by writing that Kerry had earned the respect of his supporters and would have become totally Presidential had he just won the Presidency. I was shocked, until I remembered that Old Hendrik worked for Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 16, 2004 2:18 PMGoodness. "Yasir."
Yeah, "Yasir." Just like "Usama," "bin Ladin." "al-Qaida."
I know it's all starts with transliteration, but after a certain point can't we all just use the same frikkin spellings?
"Yasser." "Osama" "Bin Laden." "Al Qaeda." These are the proper English spellings of the above names -- proper because they are by far the most commonly used.
Hopefully, the War on Terror will eradicate not only Islamic fundamentalists but also eradicate a few other fundamentals, such as the Arabic alphabet. Democracy shouldn't be the only Western institution we instill in the Middle East.
But that's a topic for a thread circa 2024. In 2004, the relevant topic is about writers and copy editors at places such as the New Yorker, and their insistence on employing the uncommon renditions of transliterated Arabic names. It's either ignorance (unlikely), stubbornness (more likely), or an elitist affection (most likely).
Okey doke. Now back to whatever y'all were talking about, which was undoubtedly less important than this post.
Posted by: Semolina Pilchard at November 16, 2004 11:30 PMAraft, may his name be blotted out, in all likelyhood spent most of the money. He was funding several private armies. paying off numerous warlords, french government officials, newspaper reporters, NGOs, UN scumbags. The list is endless. My guess is that he may have had a few million here and there for a rainy day but war is an expensive pass time, so is bribery.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 17, 2004 2:25 AMAnd whats this thing about Malcolm Forbes? Did he not leave a housefull of kids? Am I missing something?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 17, 2004 6:44 PM
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2002_Nov_12/ai_94598280
What did you think the whole Liz Taylor shtick was?
Posted by: oj at November 17, 2004 7:01 PM