January 21, 2007
Activist Andrea Parhamovich was killed in an ambush in Baghdad on Wednesday:
Parhamovich, 28, an activist with the Washington-based National Democratic Institute, died Wednesday in an ambush on her convoy as it traveled through one of Baghdad's most dangerous neighborhoods. An al-Qaida-linked coalition of Iraqi Sunni insurgents claimed responsibility for the attack. . . .Brian Maloney has more on Andrea Parhamovich here.Three security contractors from Hungary, Croatia and Iraq also were killed in the attack, and two other people were wounded.
Parhamovich, a graduate of Marietta College in southeast Ohio, had been working with NDI in Baghdad since late 2006. She helped Iraqi political parties reach out to voters.
"She didn't agree with the war, but she felt that now that we're here, she wanted to do what she could to help the Iraqis," Hastings said in a telephone interview. "She wasn't afraid of taking risks." . . .
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad condemned the attack.
"The young American who was killed in this attack along with her security team exemplified a commitment by all those who have never wavered in their resolve to build a stable, united and democratic Iraq," he said in a statement.
Comedian and radio show host Al Franken, who worked with Parhamovich at the liberal radio company Air America for about 18 months, said he was devastated by her death.
Posted by: Ragnar at
12:44 AM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.
Here was a woman who was both pretty and did something constructive with her convictions, whether you agreed with her opinions or not.
And we're stuck with the Nancy Pelosi's and Cindy Sheehan's of the world.
F'ing terrorists.
Posted by: MidnightSun at January 21, 2007 04:19 AM (6/tHL)
Whatever her politics, she put her money where her mouth was and did "the right thing."
In and out of uniform, more proof of the next Greatest Generation.
Her death is a loss to us all, as well as her family and friends.
Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at January 21, 2007 05:35 AM (D3RRc)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 21, 2007 09:21 AM (8e/V4)
"Next greatest generation? Next to what? Protoplasmic slime?
I will say a prayer for Parhamovich, though. She paid for her leftist delusion with her life. It's too bad one of the few leftists with integrity lost her life. The ones who despersately deserve to die are as persistent as herpes. The biggest sore of all may end up as President.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 21, 2007 09:37 AM (abVz3)
Posted by: pka at January 21, 2007 09:51 AM (tBm4s)
Posted by: Randman at January 21, 2007 11:46 AM (Sal3J)
Posted by: richardb at January 21, 2007 12:14 PM (hGibF)
Posted by: Northern Cross at January 21, 2007 12:17 PM (7vz05)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 21, 2007 02:15 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Howie at January 21, 2007 02:59 PM (2cR/Y)
anymore. I guess too much truth upsets the livestock BAAAAAA!!!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 21, 2007 03:31 PM (eGb9y)
Posted by: Wormpaste at January 21, 2007 03:59 PM (XM56o)
Posted by: DAT at January 21, 2007 04:29 PM (qjEEJ)
Of course it might be that a true humanitarian goes not to propagate a political agenda.
Much like Parhamovich, those who go on these missions tend to put aside politics for the good of others.
And gee...I KNOW you haven't seen the humanitarian efforts of THE UNITED STATES MILITARY:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006675.htm
Posted by: Billy at January 21, 2007 04:38 PM (Gp5c0)
Or how come the tooth fairy only comes when you're sleeping, or how come the moon is made of cheese? Child, the tooth fairy doesn't exist and it isn't only Liberals going on humanitarian missions.
In case you hadn't heard, conservatives give more to charity, and volunteer their time more than Libturds do. Fact. So it's more than likely that they also go on these humanitarian missions than you libturds do.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 21, 2007 05:30 PM (8e/V4)
There are a few liberals who bravely follow their convictions. I can't get angry at them. They mean well, and are practicing what they preach. In the end, we are all poorer that the rest of the world doesn't think as she did. She really did try to "Wage Peace" as the bumper sticker says. Rest In Peace Ms. Parhamovich.
Posted by: Moby_Foobar at January 21, 2007 09:10 PM (Bs5qR)
Posted by: greyrooster at January 21, 2007 09:58 PM (w+w6p)
So conservatives give more to charity and donate their time? Prove it, show me some empirical evidence, for every conservative I met is greedy, selfish, and ignorant. Driving gas guzzling SUVs and eating cheeseburgers they could care less what goes on to all those "colored people".
For example, the largest source of contributions to charity arises from the estate tax, one by which conservatives have constantly fought against.
Posted by: WormShit at January 21, 2007 10:18 PM (XM56o)
You'll have to read the book for all the empirical stuff, but here's an article talking about the book with all the empirical evidence.
"He maintains that what drives the charity divide is the liberal belief
that government, not fellow citizens, should care for the less
fortunate. This is summed up in one statistic — conservative households
give 30 percent more money to charity than liberal households, but
liberal families make, on average, 6 percent more than conservatives.
Conservative giving was shown to be more generous in every income
bracket."
Blue/Red Charity Divide
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/13/opinion/main2260285.shtml
In an interview, Prof. Brooks (Public Administration; Director, Nonprofit Studies Program, Syracuse University) also said conservatives volunteer about 15% more than the all-talk Liberals do. I'm sure it's all in the book!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 21, 2007 11:34 PM (8e/V4)
Not only do conservatives give more than regressives, buyt poor people give the most. The poorest states in the union donate the most to charity, and thre richest ones like Massachusetts give the least.
I guess you didn't see the article here about Michele Malkin's fact finding trip to iraq. Ublike your leftard idools, she doesn't stay in the green zone sipping apple martinis and filing fake stories from terrorist stringers like "Jamil Hussein."
Tyhe majority of SUVs in America are driven by soccer moms, not conservatives. Lefties are the most greedy, selfish and ignorant Americans there are. You're a perfect example. Dumb as dirt and too stupid to know what dirt is for.
The largest source of contributions to charity come from Christian Churches--especially the Churches on the so called Christian "Right."
Wipe the snot from your nose and the wetness from behind your ears. Your plagiarized moonbattery doesn't fly around these parts. If you would stop jacking off long ebough to learn about the world around you, you'd realize how ridiculous you are.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 22, 2007 02:28 AM (abVz3)
Posted by: MidnightSun at January 22, 2007 08:04 AM (6/tHL)
"Brooks makes it clear that while liberal and conservative beliefs may
cause someone to be charitable or uncharitable, faith is the best
determinant of who gives and who does not."
Furthermore he even said religous liberals exceed population averages in terms of giving.
"Of these inner beliefs, faith closely aligns with ideology. But it is
not a perfect match. The gaps in this alignment are telling. Brooks
affirms that "secular conservatives are the least charitable group,"
while, "religious liberals … greatly exceed population averages," in
terms of giving."
I'm still not convinced, I have never heard of a conservative that cares about rainforests, women's rights, genocide, equal rights, endangered species, environmental protection, or land conservation.
The only thing that this article affirms is that poor conservatives, probably evangelicals, give a higher proportion of their income to their church than secular liberals. Furthermore, giving money so that enormous mega-churches can be built with huge parking lots and prosletizing missions to africa is not (in my opinion) generosity.
Posted by: WormBat at January 22, 2007 11:43 AM (XM56o)
Of course you weren't going to be convinced. It's a paradigm buster. But how quickly you switched from wanting empirical evidence to subjective opinion. That's the beauty of being a Leftard. You can have it both ways and still be a Lefard!
But Leftard, you don't get to choose which charities count. That's not empirical, that's just your stupid subjective Leftard opinion. My own personal opinion is that giving to the ACLU or Planned Parenthood is less than helpful, and in fact destructive. But that's just my opinion. It doesn't count as empirical evidence you stupid fucking Leftard.
And if the "rainforests" are so damn important to Liberals, then why are Liberals so damn tight-fisted about it? You got the money, so shell it out! You see, conservatives actually GIVE to causes they care about, but Liberals don't. They are stingy. They want OTHERS to pay for it. The empirical numbers don't lie.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 22, 2007 01:36 PM (8e/V4)
Brooks
affirms that "secular conservatives are the least charitable group,"
while, "religious liberals … greatly exceed population averages," in
terms of giving."
So... conservatives donate the most and
least in terms of charitable giving, they are on both sides of the bell
curve. I can support that. I also take from this article
that religous liberals consistently give more on average when compared
with the US population. It's all about segmenting the US
population. For you to reach out and outwardly make a blanket
statement that liberals are stingy undermines Brook's research.
You may want to believe more than what this study warrents, but dont
twist the words of what he said. Its dishonest and lacks
integrity.
And if you read my post, you will notice that I did state it as an
"opinion". So for you to come off attacking me proves your
ignorant bullying reptilian nature of a conservative republican.
Furthermore, if you are all about empirical evidence then you must
believe that higher incomes are correlated with higher intelligence,
which Brooks stated that liberals have a higher household income than
moronic conservatives.
Fools!
Posted by: WormJesus at January 22, 2007 02:40 PM (heS+8)
You're way off when you say conservatives don't care about conservation issues. It was hunters and anglers (probably more conservative than LLL) who started the conservation movement in the first place. Don't forget that conservation and conservative have the same root. Some conservatives have lost sight of this, but I can assure you that an awful lot of us haven't.
Posted by: irish19 at January 22, 2007 02:58 PM (UxPsN)
maybe YOU didn't read what Brooks said:
He maintains that what drives the charity divide is the liberal belief that government, not fellow citizens, should care for the less fortunate.
Capish? And given that the vast majority of conservatives are religous, while the opposite is true of Liberals, your distinction is one without a difference.
See, it's you who is the fool. You are unable to think critically or make important distinctions. A typical Leftard.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 22, 2007 03:00 PM (8e/V4)
new level. But JesusCarlos is a reptile, who loves to push the
red/blue divide by twisting studies and reports.
Posted by: WormIrish at January 22, 2007 08:32 PM (heS+8)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 22, 2007 09:23 PM (8e/V4)
I recommend giving to your community by letting the trolls simmer in their own stink, and lets leave our honest praise for a girl who at least meant well, and tried to make those intentions a reality. God bless giving people, regardless of where they come from. God bless those who accept risks to do good in the world. God bless the comments of peace, and praise left for this girl. God bless this girl, Andrea Parhamovich.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 22, 2007 10:26 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: John Ryan at January 25, 2007 01:30 PM (TcoRJ)
John Ryan has a accidentally made a good point. When you offer your opinion in the public arena, you may get some backlash. When people take their business elsewhere, that is a fair response. Nobody is saying you can't have your free speech, but don't expect us to pay for it ... ISN'T THAT RIGHT DIXIE CHICKS???
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 26, 2007 08:43 AM (2OHpj)
34 queries taking 0.0885 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
