Wednesday, December 29, 2004

What liberal press?

It's good to know that our nation's journalists are hard at work being unbiased, apolitical, and neutral purveyors of hard facts. Like this story about how Bush is uncaring and insensitive in the face of a "humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions."

...Bush's decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy -- showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work...


It's hard to imagine such an opinion piece being passed off as straight news, but there it is. Blatant political slant in virtually every sentence. Every word calculated for maximum negative effect. This is what I would expect from the DNC or the Blue column of Watchblog, not a story purporting to be news. Who knows, maybe the core of this piece did come from a DNC memo.


  • ...vacationing President Bush has been insensitive to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.

  • ...domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise.

  • ...Bush's decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch

  • ...showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering

  • After a day of repeated inquiries from reporters about his public absence...

  • Bush's actions and words both communicated a lack of urgency...

  • ...they were surprised that Bush had not appeared personally..."It's kind of freaky," a senior career official said.

  • ...Bush was missing an opportunity to demonstrate American benevolence.

  • In Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder cut short his vacation...



The last two paragraphs are by far the most misleading by repeating a statistic intended to 'prove' that the United States is a stingy country.

Still, the United Nations' Egeland complained on Monday that each of the richest nations gives less than 1 percent of its gross national product for foreign assistance, and many give 0.1 percent. "It is beyond me why we are so stingy, really," he told reporters.

Among the world's two dozen wealthiest countries, the United States often is among the lowest in donors per capita for official development assistance worldwide, even though the totals are larger. According to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development of 30 wealthy nations, the United States gives the least -- at 0.14 percent of its gross national product, compared with Norway, which gives the most at 0.92 percent.


Never mind that these reporters don't have time to check to see what these numbers are based on. The mindset that accepts this as truth naturally would not want to take into account any giving that is not governmental in nature. Because as we all know government dollars are all that counts, private money is tainted by the stink of commerce.

Mark Twain said that there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. The predominantly liberal press has mastered the art of lying with statistics. Let's examine the claim that the US gave the least out of among two dozen wealthy countries. First of all, according to the source cited, the US gave more, in dollar amounts, than any other country except Japan. Second of all, these figures are only, and I repeat only official government aid.

The total amount of all two dozen wealthy countries, "Net Official Development Assistance Flows In 2000" was $53.1 billion. The Official US Governments portion of that was $9.5 billion. By my calculations that's about 18% of the total.

Total US private donations to international charity is harder to measure because charity is an individual matter, but estimates range from $17.5 billion to $35 billion. Much more, in fact than just our government. Here's another article directly addressing this subject.

Let's see a revised OECD chart adding the total private international donations of their respective countries and then calculate it as a percentage of GDP. That would be a more accurate measure of stinginess.

Some even estimate the total charitable contributions of Americans equals $240 billion per year. Put that in your statistical pipe and smoke it, Mr. Egeland.

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

Agency of mercy or worthless fraud?

Pedophilia... Yes, child rape on tape. In just one country, 150 allegations of sexual misconduct, murder, prostitution, and, "sexually abusing the local inhabitants in exchange for food and other necessities." Billions skimmed out of humanitarian relief funds. Kickbacks. Bribery. Genocide.

The UN is utterly corrupt. Yet there is no outrage. No media blitz. No media attention at all as far as I can see. Not even one counterfeit document for a CBS news story.

The UN is just another colossal waste of approximately $3 billion dollars of taxpayers money. Enough to finish retrofitting every last US military humvee.

In the past decade, increasing numbers of accounts have surfaced of violations committed by peacekeepers against civilians, in a particular women and girls, during UN peacekeeping operations. To date, violations by peacekeepers have been documented in Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor, Kosovo, Liberia, Mozambique, Sierra Leone and Somalia (UNIFEM'S Independent Experts' Assessment). Currently, the UN is carrying out investigations of sexual abuse by peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. peacewomen.org


Congo
Within a French UN logistics expert's home in the Congo, a pornographic studio was setup to tape the rape of little girls. Odds are that this man will not get the punishment he deserves. Nor will the UN.

When the police arrived, the man was allegedly about to rape a 12-year-old girl sent to him in a sting operation. Three home-made pornographic videos and more than 50 photographs were found in his home. theaustralian.news.com

Just one single isolated pervert? Sorry. There is more. More that the UN does not want you to know.

A book by three current and former U.N. employees about peacekeeping operations portrays wild parties with alcohol and drugs, and convicts and mental-asylum inmates passing as soldiers.

Embarrassed U.N. officials have threatened firing or other disciplinary action against two of the authors, Heidi Postlewait and Andrew Thomson. U.N. rules bar employees from writing about their work without approval, which had been denied in this case.
washingtontimes

What is it that liberals champion above all? The whistleblower. But apparently they only trumpet whistleblowers in the Bush Administration. Had Richard Clark wrote a book about the UN, he would not have gotten any press. But in the Congo there has been real damage to world peace, and perpetrator is the UN.

''I don't know whether they are normal or not," said Aziza, who did not want to use her full name out of shame. ''I wonder whether all white people are like that."

Certainly some, even many, UN peacekeepers and civilian officers in this war-plagued region were. Aziza's story and at least 150 others tales of sexual abuse in Congo have come to light in recent months, shocking an institution that considers itself an agency of mercy.

The shock has inspired action toward an overhaul of the UN's 16 peacekeeping missions around the world. In Congo, home to the largest operation -- with about 11,000 soldiers and 1,200 civilians -- the allegations point to nearly all of the major peacekeeping contingents. But they also involve senior civilian officials, including a top security officer, a chief on the UN special envoy's staff, and an internal oversight investigator.

The charges range from rape to exploitation -- sex for a bottle of water or a military ration -- to ''relationships" or solicitations that are marked by a severe imbalance in power. One case, involving a French UN staffer who took digital pictures of underage girls, has caused concern that it could become ''the UN's Abu Ghraib" if the photos get out.

Charges of sexual abuse have haunted UN peacekeepers for years, most notably during operations in Cambodia, the Balkans, and Liberia in the 1990s. But the cases in Congo may mark a tipping point. Two years after the first charges were made, top UN officials have finally denounced the problem openly and vowed to punish those involved.

Last month, Secretary General Kofi Annan addressed the issue publicly for the first time.

Somalia, 1997
Belgian UN troops admit to 'roasting' Somali boy. Don't worry though, the two UN soldiers were fined £200 and jailed for a month.

Italian, Canadian, and Belgian UN troopers were all found to have murdered, tortured, and humiliated Somali's, (mostly children), during Operation Hope.

  • "...forcing a young Somali to eat pork, drink salt water, and then eat his vomit."

  • "...[UN soldier] murdered a Somali whom he was photographed urinating on."

  • "...[another] boy, who had been caught trying to steal food, died after being locked in a container for 48 hours.

  • "Fifteen members of the regiment were investigated in 1995 for "acts of sadism and torture" against Somalian civilians."

  • "Canadian paratroopers were investigated for torturing a Somali to death and killing three others."

  • "...gruesome photographs ... of Italian soldiers torturing a young Somali youth, and abusing and raping a young Somali girl."

  • "Last week an Italian paratrooper said: "What's the big deal? They are just niggers anyway."

Kosovo
In Kosovo, some of these women "are threatened, beaten, raped, and effectively imprisoned by their owners," Amnesty International reported in May. "With clients including international police and troops, the girls and women are often too afraid to escape, and the authorities are failing to help them. It is outrageous that the very same people who are there to protect these women and girls are using their position and exploiting them instead - and they are getting away with it."

But the problem goes beyond Kosovo and sex trafficking. Wherever the UN has established operations in recent years, various violations of women seem to follow: csmonitor.com

Lax oversight. No real authority. Effort to cover up as much as possible. The UN is essentially an empty promise or worse, making a lie out of peace and mercy. The damage that follows in the UN's wake is worse than abu graib when you calculate the perversion of what they are supposed to stand for and the corrupt way they refuse to stop these acts by UN soldiers and employees.

Rwanda
The UN, with troops on the ground, failed to act in Rwanda and at least 800,000 people died. Most of them hacked to death with machetes over several months. The US and the UN stood by and did nothing.

The report highlights the role of Mr Annan, who was head of UN peacekeeping at the time, sharply criticizing his failure to act on a warning of the risk of genocide sent by the head of the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda.

It also criticizes Belgium for unilaterally withdrawing its peacekeepers after the murder of 10 of its soldiers.

The decision of peacekeepers to retreat from a school, leaving civilians inside to be butchered, is described as "disgraceful". bbc

Darfur
At least 70,000 people have been killed in Darfur already. Possibly 1.8 million homeless. Is there any reason to believe that the UN can keep that number from growing?

Oil for Food
We've been talking about the evils of corporations, the dangers of monopoly, and how much regulation should be applied to the business sector in order to avoid scandals and corruption. Enron et al pales in comparison to the oil for food scandal, yet I cannot find a single liberal voice calling for stricter controls and greater openness for the UN. What gives?

The oil for food program was constructed to restrict Saddam's freedom to reconstruct his weapons program. Yet, the UN allowed Saddam to profit off of the program by bribing UN officials and hundreds of affiliated business and government contacts. The purpose of the program was essentially thwarted. We might as well have not had the program. The UN not only proved itself incapable, it proved itself all too corruptable.

I find it highly ironic that the UN resisted the Bush administration's call to hold Saddam accountable in the run up to war by moralizing about how the US was flouting international law, when the UN overseers were complicit in trading Iraqi blood for oil so that they could pocket bribes and kickbacks.

Please note that this is not an exhaustive list by any means, merely a topical search of google. Given time, I'm sure that the full details available in press accounts alone would be sufficient to chill the heart, not to mention what full first person accounts might reveal about the depth of depravity done by UN officials and soldiers.

In short the UN is a gutless, immoral, hypocritical organization that should be dissolved. It no longer serves the purpose for which it was created. We need to revise our rationale for dealing with international crises. The UN as it is currently constructed must not continue. End it don't mend it.

Monday, December 27, 2004

transformational freedom

I can't pretend to know all the who's who or the totality of what's going on politically in all the former soviet block countries, including Russia, but despite Putin's turn towards tyranny, the elections in the Ukraine are a sign of hope and victory for the forces of freedom.

Especially when you consider the vision of Mrs. Yushchenko who worked in both the Reagan and Bush administrations.

The challenge will be to move Ukraine towards a free-market economy. Mrs. Yushchenko makes clear that her husband makes all of his own political decisions, but she will no doubt be a valuable asset to him. "She is one of the brightest, most dedicated conservatives I have ever known," says Bruce Bartlett, a former official in the Treasury Department under the first President Bush. "Anyone who met Kathy quickly discovered that creating a free, successful Ukraine was her primary mission in life, to the exclusion of almost everything else."

Now the challenge facing Ukraine is to make the leap towards becoming a democratic society truly governed by the rule of law. Mrs. Yushchenko is realistic about the obstacles facing her husband and his team. "[Some] people are making a lot of money off the current system," she told ABC News. "The last thing they want is for the system to change and for the economy to be a free market economy where the general population benefits rather than a small group of people at the top." Wall Street Journal


Freedom is on the march. Afghanistan is now a free country that just held their first democratic election. Iraq, despite all of its problems, will soon have its own elections as well. Even though some still say that it's none of our business 'forcing' democracy upon them, I am convinced that most Americans left and right agree that supporting democracy and freedom in these countries and the inevitable drive toward more freedom in the world is a good thing.

I believe in the transformational power of liberty: The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom. As the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq seize the moment, their example will send a message of hope throughout a vital region. Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend, Israel. (Applause.) Young women across the Middle East will hear the message that their day of equality and justice is coming. Young men will hear the message that national progress and dignity are found in liberty, not tyranny and terror. Reformers, and political prisoners, and exiles will hear the message that their dream of freedom cannot be denied forever. And as freedom advances -- heart by heart, and nation by nation -- America will be more secure and the world more peaceful. (Applause.) whitehouse.gov


It is my prayer this Christmas and New Year that this next century will be the century of freedom.

Thursday, December 23, 2004

Making a killing?

"This country is controlled by corporations and that is the root of all our problems." -Bill Maher, Oct. 22, 2004


Do corporations need to be 'reined in' or eradicated for the good of the world? It's no secret that some view corporations as the root of all evil and profit as a cardinal sin. The problem I have with those who believe corporations are the root of our problems is that their solutions embrace more government economic control at the expense of individual freedom and that is not a prescription for something better, but something worse.

From the Gracchus brothers to Karl Marx there have always been self-proclaimed revolutionaries who use the rich as a scapegoat to advance their agenda. The truth is throughout history the rich have generally been a pretty oppressive lot. But then 'the rich' and 'the government' were mostly one and the same. Meaning that he who had the reigns of government had total control of the economy too, and guess what, they always got the largest slice of the pie. This is precisely what I am against. The more economic control is separated from government the better.

The very definition of capitalism requires a government to safeguard private property, enforce contracts, and be a fair arbiter for criminal and civil affairs. What opponents so often characterize as capitalism is just anarchy and lawlessness. Sometimes they can't even explain their opposition except in nebulous terms of feelings and reflexive opposition.

Corporations are stifling our lives. Not only economically, where they can claim, arguably, that they bring prosperity (and, frankly, I'm certainly not schooled enough in economics to argue that point pro or con), but aesthetically speaking, culturally speaking, spiritually speaking. They flatten everything. They are the Big Empty.

...The war against the corporations is profound. They are deadening human existence. That, I think, is the buried core of the outrage people feel most generally. There is, after all, a profound difference between corporations and capitalism itself, at least so long as capitalism remains small business.

...To win this war will take, at least, 50 years and a profound revolution in America. Norman Mailer


That's Norman Mailer's contribution to why corporations must be fought-- in a war no less. But what is ironic to me is that this issue of 'aesthetics' is put in such stark terms of black and white, good and evil by those who claim in all other things that there is no such thing. Then on top of it point out that the enemy who is 'endangering our moral, cultural, aesthetic, and spiritual lives' is the one following a Nazi example of demonizing its foes to lead people to 'war'.

..."Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist government, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

That was Hermann Goering speaking at the Nuremberg trials after World War II. It is one thing to be forewarned. Will we ever be forearmed?


So even though corporations arguably bring prosperity, they are at the same time 'destroying our minds, hearts, and souls'. I can't help but think that the real passion is not being fully disclosed.

"...at least so long as capitalism remains small business." So then the solution to the 'corporate problem' is to keep the business interest small and controllable. This issue is more one of rival economic control in the mind of progressives. Progressives do not want economic freedom, they want total economic control according to 'progressive' principles.

According to progressive ideology corporations should have no say in the political process. They would then be at the complete mercy of whatever arbitrary law progressives can dream up. They should not be allowed to advertise or make campaign contributions. In fact, the law giving corporations the legal right to do business and exist at all should be repealed. They should be prohibited from donating any money to anyone, including charities and schools. Should not be allowed to own stock of other corporations. Should not be able to go out of business without it and stockholders being made liable for any debts of the company, including vaguely defined 'environmental debts'.

Since they are essentially criminal by their very nature, proposing their abolition is no great stretch. Corporations like Clear Channel, Walmart, Monsanto, and McDonalds are considered some of the most criminal and in fact are the top four in this list of the most criminal corporations of the world. (American companies all. I guess Clear Channel is guilty of being conservative? Is that why it heads the list?)

As even Normal Mailer cannot argue that they've made us poorer, they are only 'spiritually' impoverishing us. I submit that they are guilty of competing with the progressive view of spirituality and therefore must be eradicated. Substitute any other spirituality for corporate and what you have is religious bigotry. If one says radical Islam must be abolished you are a religious bigot. Say corporations must be abolished, and well, you are enlightened.

In fact most us are worse terrorists than Abu Zarqawi for supporting our corporate led overconsuptive, unsustainable, culturally genocidal culture!

Most terrorists have mundane, apparently peaceful lives, but are just as cruel as those who behead for an internet audience. They are you and me, ordinary people consuming much too much, leading an unsustainable lifestyle, committing cultural genocide on the vast majority of humanity, plundering non-western economies in the name of free trade, and imposing our lifestyle and morality on the rest of humanity. Yes, terrorists r (also) us! adbusters.org


If it is wrong for corporations to have too much economic control why isn't it wrong for government, a true monopoly, to have too much economic control? Democrats and progressives rarely see any limit or principle of limitation to what kind of economic laws should be passed. In fact anything that detracts from the government from feeding the poor is by definition an attempt to starve people.

The truth is that corporations like Wal-Mart are enriching our world not destroying it. Making life easier for the masses, not more restricted. Perhaps if you wanted to get corporate money out of politics you should consider getting the politicians out of the business of meddling with business. Microsoft is a good example of a company that made no real political contributions until the government began it's shakedown. Bill gates got the message and Microsoft now contributes massive amounts of money to political causes, out of self-protection.

Monday, December 20, 2004

Watchblog

I can't emphasize what a great blog Watchblog is. If you haven't checked it out, please do. There is literally something for everyone there. Imagine left, right, center, and 'other' argueing about the current topics of the day and you can throw your 2 cents in as well! What more could you ask for?

The fact that I am a contributing author is no doubt part of it's success. Ha ha.

Here's a post with a few of my comments thrown in.

Dogpile, by 'AmericanPundit' is a post about Rumsfeld and the Armor controversy.

Bush selling SS same as Iraq war, by David Remer is a post about Social Security, of course.

#1 goal: defeat America, by Eric Simonson (that's me) is about the left's desire to see the US lose in Iraq.

Thursday, December 16, 2004

Armor for Humvees

World's defense budget.

It is an expensive program, though, the general admitted. "As you look at our forecast both of what we have already spent and what we're immediately forecasting to spend here over the next six or eight months or so, it's several billion dollars."

According to Speakes, "several" is exactly $4.1 billion dollars. defenselink.mil


I'm calling a bluff on this 'Rumsfeld must resign' because 'there is no armor protecting our troops'. I want to see the left stand up and ask congress for more money in next year's budget for defense.

Historically it is the left saying our troops can do with less.

I feel certain that before too long I will be able to point out Democrats once again calling for budget cuts for one sector, and one sector only, of the Federal Budget to be cut. That being the military.

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Should christians divest from Israel?

The Christian Science Monitor has this POLL asking if christians should divest (and boycott) Israel for it's 'oppressive' policies.

The Presbyterians' decision to consider divesting such businesses from its $8 billion portfolio, coupled with the prospect that the Episcopal Church and other churches might do the same, is adding to tensions that have risen over recent years between mainline Protestant churches and the American Jewish community over their differing views of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

It is also stirring Jewish groups to try to head off divestment - and to rebuild a rapport with these churches, with whom they have long worked to further civil rights and social justice.

"To call for divestment played into all the language of boycott, from earlier periods in Jewish history to the Arab boycott of Israel. It caused an explosion in the Jewish community," says David Elcott, director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

Insanity. There is a definition of evil that defines evil as calling evil good and good evil. This is basically what Presbyterians are considering.

Saturday, December 11, 2004

#1 goal: defeat America

So, as a U.S. citizen, I welcome the U.S. defeat for a simple reason: It isn't the defeat of the United States -- its people or their ideals -- but of that empire. And it's essential that the American empire be defeated and dismantled. Journalism professor, Robert Jensen


No doubt the manipulative reporter Edward Pitts, "I just had one of my best days as a journalist today," also learned from his Journalism professors that American defeat is always good and necessary for world peace.

When we admit defeat and pull out -- not if, but when -- the fate of Iraqis will depend in part on whether the United States makes good on legal and moral obligations to pay reparations and allows international institutions to aid in creating a truly sovereign Iraq.

We shouldn't expect politicians to do either without pressure. An anti-empire movement -- the joining of anti-war forces with the movement to reject corporate globalization -- must create that pressure. Journalism professor, Robert Jensen


This comes very close to treason in my book. At the very least this professor has a full-on case of 'Michael Moore's disease,' a debilitating and virulent strain of anti-americanism that quickly destroys its victim’s credibility, honor, and honesty. Something the predominantly liberal press corps seems to be epidemic with. Edward Pitts joins the likes of Dan Rather in manufacturing the news in order to advance their political agenda. The fact that this Professor Jensen instructs would-be journalists in the technical and moral aspects of how to practice 'journalism' says as much to me as the memo-gate scandal itself, that the left has no problems lying as long as it serves the higher purpose of "getting their truth out".

Is it a coincidence that so many on the left equate Bush with Hitler and America as the Fourth Reich? No, it's indicative of a suspension of critical judgment and reasoning that tells me we can no longer trust those who call for the resignation of Rumsfeld because every Humvee hasn't yet been upgraded with the new higher grade armor when a liberal like John Kerry actually voted against the money to 'up-armor' them.

To hear those like Howard Dean and Prof. Jensen American military action is always malevolent and selfish, never mind the philosophical implications of non-action in the face of tyranny.

...We must look at the reality, no matter how painful. The people of Iraq are better off without Saddam Hussein's despised regime, but that does not prove our benevolent intentions or guarantee that the United States will work to bring meaningful democracy to Iraq.

In Iraq, the Bush administration invaded not to liberate but to extend and deepen U.S. domination. When Bush said, "We have no territorial ambitions; we don't seek an empire," on Nov. 11, 2002, he told a half-truth.


To seek to overthrow the American 'empire' is part and parcel of the entire stream of leftist culture from Democrat to Green party, anti-globalist to anarchist, neo-liberal to classic anti-capitalist, the enemy is America and capitalism. As long as America is capitalist and free it will be opposed, slandered, and obstructed by the left as an evil influence in the world with the Vietnam War as a template.

...The Bush administration has invested money and lives in making Iraq a platform from which the United States can project power.

That requires not the liberation of Iraq but its subordination. But most Iraqis don't want to be subordinated, which is why the United States in some sense lost the war on the day it invaded. One lesson of contemporary history is that occupying armies generate resistance that, inevitably, prevails over imperial power.

When we admit defeat and pull out -- not if, but when -- the fate of Iraqis will depend in part on whether the United States makes good on legal and moral obligations to pay reparations and allows international institutions to aid in creating a truly sovereign Iraq.

We shouldn't expect politicians to do either without pressure. An anti-empire movement -- the joining of anti-war forces with the movement to reject corporate globalization -- must create that pressure. Journalism professor, Robert Jensen


I guess some ideology, however mistaken or misguided, is too deeply ingrained to be let go of so easily.

Our men

If you haven't already seen this you should consider watching it now.

If you've ever wondered where the heroes are in our society, whether or not there is such a thing as dedication, service, and integrity in our country, you need look no further than our men and women of our Armed Forces. My heroes.

Until Then

Friday, December 03, 2004

Silver Star awarded

What do you have to do to get a Silver Star? U.S. Army Command Sgt. Maj. Ron Riling was awarded the Silver Star for this battle in April of 2004.

Riling quickly organized his forces and began moving to the embattled Marines. When they entered the main town of Rammadi, they immediately came under direct fire coming from every direction, he said.

"The insurgents were in all different types of buildings waiting for us with (rocket-propelled grenades) and small arms," he said.

The Marine squad had been pinned down by snipers and was in terrible shape when Riling, Connor and their physical-security detachment arrived on the scene. The squad leader was dead, lying in the middle of the street, and three of the seven Marines were seriously wounded. The senior remaining Marine was a corporal.

...The group fought its way through withering enemy fire and linked up with the Marines. Riling said he then absorbed the Marines into his team, and they fought their way out. "Some of the guys were laying there wounded. They had gunshot wounds to their legs, and some of them were hurt bad," he said. "One guy was dead and lying out in the middle of the street. They didn't want to leave him. I respected that about the squad."


Rescued marines. Check.

After Riling, Connor and their team evacuated the injured Marines and recovered the Marine squad leader's body, another Marine platoon in the area came under attack by insurgents. Riling and Connor witnessed Marine vehicles being fired on by an Iraqi insurgent armed with rocket-propelled grenades. Riling directed two Bradley Fighting Vehicles from the brigade's reserve into the fight to squelch the attacks.

They saw the insurgent run into a building and had one of the Bradleys knock down a fence surrounding the house. The building was heavily reinforced and had high brick and metal walls. Riling said he knew it was important to act fast, because his colonel and his troops were in a precarious position.

"I thought for sure that someone was going to come out of that house and just start spraying (AK-47 rifle fire)," he said. "I didn't want someone to come out and kill my commander and kill any of our soldiers."

The lead soldier on the door was Sgt. 1st Class Gibson, who was in charge of the colonel's physical-security detachment. Gibson was attempting to kick the door down but couldn't get it to budge. Riling said he was worried -- it was taking too much time. So the 6-feet, 2-inch Riling yelled at Gibson to move out of the way.

"As he moved out of the way, I just crashed through that door. I remember barreling through the door with my left shoulder, and I just knocked the door right off the hinges," said Riling, who weighs 198 pounds.

As a result, the insurgent hiding behind the door was mortally wounded and died.


Kill insurgent with door. Check.

"I felt bad; I mean, we lost 12 Marines that day," he said. "It's very depressing, and it makes you think. You always say to yourself, 'What could you have done better?' In my mind, we did everything we could."

Riling said his actions that day were just those of a soldier doing his job.

"I don't claim to be a hero for getting this award. I don't want to be labeled as a hero. I felt I was just another soldier on the battlefield, doing my job, helping other soldiers and helping Marines," Riling explained.defenselink.mil


True soldier modesty. Check.

That's why they're called the best.

Thursday, December 02, 2004

killing infants

Partial birth abortion? How about after birth abortion?


Four times in recent months, Dutch doctors have pumped lethal doses of drugs into newborns they believe are terminally ill,

...Under the protocol, assisted infant deaths are investigated, but so far all of them have been determined to have been in the patients' best interests.

Euthanasia has been legal in the Netherlands since 1994. Under the law, any critically ill patient older than 12 can request an assisted death, including adults in the early stages of dementia. grandforks.com


This Dutch protocol is an attempt to 'provide guidelines' for applying euthanasia to those who cannot decide for themselves that they want to die.

What does death by doctor say about the concept of human rights, not to mention the Hippocratic oath? When we move responsibility from the person whose life is at stake to an impersonal third person in the form of a 'healthcare providers' judgment, aren't we creating the conditions for error, or the demented to seek out such positions because they want to have such power?


Dutch doctors have some intentional role in 3.4 percent of all deaths, according to statistics published in the medical journal The Lancet. About 0.6 percent are patients who didn't ask to be euthanized, the journal said.

Dutch courts often treat those cases leniently if an investigation determines that the doctor acted out of concern for the patient's well-being.

Opponents of expanding euthanasia to the young cite a recent Dutch court ruling against punishment for a doctor who injected fatal drugs into an elderly woman after she told him she didn't want to die.

The court determined that he'd made "an error of judgment," but had acted "honorably and according to conscience." grandforks.com


I don't believe this practice would ever be legal in the United States; unless there were some radical shift in the population of 'JesusLand'. But I think the issue does relate to the abortion issue, in that, I don't see any difference between infanticide and partial birth abortion. Certainly not for the child. In the instance where a mother's life is at stake there is certainly an argument to make that an abortion procedure might possibly be necessary. But I suspect that such instances are not the norm in cases of partial birth abortion.

When my wife was pregnant with our second daughter a sonogram prompted the hospital to call us to a meeting about the results. The sonogram showed evidence of brain cysts, we were told. At the meeting we were offered genetic counseling and invited to explore 'all the options' including information about abortion. Yet the risk, they admitted, was not certain. It was not terminal. They admitted that they couldn't even be sure that the brain cysts would persist. Maybe they would clear up.

I talked to another healthcare worker I know and it turns out that because of sonogram technology improvement such cysts are visible now where they were not previously. The consensus is growing that the appearance of such cysts are a normal part of some percentage of fetal development.

Eleanor was born healthy and whole I'm glad to say. My point is that the framing of such warnings and the viewpoint of a meeting like that might lead some percentage of patients to seek an abortion. How tragic for such a thing to happen if there were no real danger?

Worse than that, there doesn't have to be any danger to get an abortion procedure. Inconvenience is enough. What does it say about us as human beings when our solution to those among us who are 'inconvenient' is to eliminate them? Especially when animal rights groups are agitating for fish rights, and removing a mass murdering dictator is viewed as immoral.

Saturday, November 27, 2004

Think nothing day...

Buy nothing day is brought to you by those who think nothing. Ha.

Adbusters is really all about anti-capitalism, plain and simple.

How much more moronic and ironic can you get when you organize a 'buy nothing day' to protest advertising and marketing by-- creating a buy nothing marketing campaign!!!

For 24 hours, millions of people around the world do not participate -- in the doomsday economy, the marketing mind-games, and the frantic consumer-binge that's become our culture. We pause. We make a small choice not to shop. We shrink our footprint and gain some calm. Together we say to Exxon, Nike, Coke and the rest: enough is enough. And we help build this movement to rethink our unsustainable course.

In its 13 years, BND has become a flashpoint, a day when people of all stripes come together in symbolic protest. Visit the new BND Action Pyramid for a sample of great ways to celebrate.

Need posters, clip-art, web banners, handbills, radio-clips or stickers? No problem. 2004 BND promotional goods are ready for download.

We've put together a radical new tool to keep Jammers connected: JammerGroups, city-based email networks. Join now.

We've also got news and reports from previous BNDs in our archive. Be in touch as your plans come together,

Happy jamming.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Ancient intensive fishing

Intensive fishing was an ancient practice

As usual, it was those wealthy landowners who caused the environmental destruction.

Intensive fishing by humans may be more ancient than previously thought, suggests a new archaeological study, which shows that significant marine fishing may have started in the UK in the 9th century.

...“I suspect what happened was that over-fishing of freshwater stocks meant that they became a rarity and only for the wealthy landowners. As a result, marine fishing and trade in salt cod and dried herring became much more intensive and supplied the common market,” he suggests.

A Rather nixonian exit



Goodbye Dan. Don't let the false documents hit you on the way out.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Mandatory pedestrianism

In the Sixties, Paul Ehrlich, the author of Population Bomb, and Lester Brown, the founder of the Worldwatch Institute, predicted that the "dramatic consequences" of our "throwaway lifestyle" were only a McDonald's carton away.

In 1968, Ehrlich said food shortages in India would kill 200 million people by 1980. In fact, by 1980, India was exporting surplus grain to Russia. thescotsman


Let's face it, death sells. Over and over the doomsday prophets pronounce that we are over consuming, overproducing, and using up our scarce and dwindling resources, such that if we don't start rationing now there will be nothing left and/or that mass starvations and environmental cataclysms will result.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news for those of you who subscribe to this secular doomsday theology, but we're all going to die anyway. Besides which, the earth is surprisingly resilient and apparently has already survived a mass extinction or two, as well as numerous climate changes, completely without the help or hindrance of mankind whatsoever.

Will we run out of petroleum? Perhaps. Someday. Why not ask whether we've run out of coal yet? Coal is what the British fleet used in the early days of the industrial revolution before they switched to petroleum. Strange how inventive we humans can be; yet we continually refuse to take our own resourcefulness into account when making predictions about how doomed we are if this or that happens.

In light of the fact that those who champion this picture of doom make predictions that are so often wrong, one must come to the conclusion that it's more an article of faith than fact that we are headed for an environmental Armageddon. People like Paul Erlich should be entirely without any credence whatsoever, yet his arguments are repeated here and there and echoed in environmentalist literature everywhere. But at least PBS has figured out that he's been thoroughly discredited.

Civilization as we know it will come to an end sometime this century when the fuel runs out.

Such is the grim prediction author and California Institute of Technology professor and vice provost David Goodstein concluded his lecture with Monday night.

...He said the world is headed toward a global oil shortage that could cause warfare, economic depression and the crumbling of institutions.

"There will be a crisis," he said. "It will be painful. We have just invaded Iraq. If anybody thinks that war was not about oil, you should think again. I call that 'oil war two.' The first Gulf War was 'oil war one.'" Nov. 9, 2004, U of New Mexico,


...and in predictions of disaster that can only be averted by--surprise!!--implementing radical progressive agendas such as the Kyoto protocol, slowing down economic growth, advocating a different system of economic control that is 'more sustainable', in order to stop 'urban sprawl', which is to say cordoning people into higher density areas in order to get them to stop driving. Conveniently high density urban areas also seem to render high Democratic voting percentages.

Malthus, way back in 1798, believed that overpopulation and competition over scarce resources would create wars and conflict in society as well as famine, pestilence, and the like, that in essence brought 'balance' to the overpopulation equation. Shouldn't we be willing to implement extreme measures to avoid these horrors? Sure, but are the dire predictions true? Hardly.

Despite the fact that higher development lowers birth rates, many of the same predictors of doom decry development as worse than overpopulation.

We've already had too much economic growth in the US. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.
- Paul Ehrlich, author of Population Bomb and Population Explosion.


In essence this brand of environmentalism is a dead end. It offers stop signs instead of solutions and pessimistic predictions instead of facts. No one can predict the future but I think it's far more likely that doom would follow the implementation of Paul Ehrlich 'solutions' to the problems he says faces us.

In nature there's a word for the kind of 'sustainability' these prophets advocate: stagnation. Death. The opposite of movement and 'animation' if you will. It's certainly not progressive in any sense. It's regressive.

So let me just reiterate: there's too much pollution from automobiles, but the good news is that we will run out of fuel for those vehicles shortly thereby eliminating that source of pollution. But we should probably stop driving now anyway just to be safe. Mandatory pedestrianism! Also, there are too many people on the planet, but don't stop having profligate sexual relations--uh, just wear a condom. If that fails there's always abortion. (For the good of the planet of course.)

Sunday, November 21, 2004

Bush to the rescue

Unbelievable sequence of events.

Secret Service agent detained by Chilean police, Bush sees it and steps in.




Saturday, November 20, 2004

Superman bad for volunteerism

I'm not sure of the efficacy of this kind of study. I'm not sure I even want to ask where the funding comes from, but apparently thinking of Superman makes people think they suck, and that's bad for volunteerism.

Superman is too good a role model. Fans of the man from Krypton unwittingly compare themselves to the superhero, and realise they do not measure up. And as a result, they are less likely to help other people.


The one paragraph that struck me is the following:

Students who thought of Superman volunteered much less of their time than those who thought about other superheroes. Furthermore, Superman-primed subjects were significantly less likely to show up at a meeting for volunteers held three months after they were initially asked to participate.


Are you thinking about superheroes day to day? Hmm.

The reason, believes Nelson, is that asking people to compare themselves to an exceptional individual makes them realise their shortcomings. Whereas thinking about a general category encourages people to identify the strengths they have in common.

Shields up!

A new project to investigate the possibility of fitting spacecraft with a “magnetosphere” of their own, underway at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US, recently received a cash boost from the NASA-funded Institute for Advanced Concepts.

Jeffrey Hoffman, an ex-astronaut who leads the project, envisages generating a magnetic shield using a superconducting magnet installed aboard a ship.

Astronauts are currently protected from cosmic radiation during a spaceflight by materials coating the outside of a craft which absorb the rays. But this material is typically extremely heavy, so a portable magnetic field could be a more efficient solution.

"Calculations show that using magnets would have benefits," Hoffman told New Scientist. A magnetic shell could protect a craft from cosmic radiation by deflecting away harmful cosmic particles. newscientist.com

Thursday, November 18, 2004

"new enlightenment" Bush=Hitler

Yes, Michael Moore is not alone.

The 2004 election revealed that American citizens are as intellectually and morally incompetent as the Germans in 1930. Such incompetence and ignorance always lead to tyranny. The United States is exactly at the same point in national degradation as the German nation in the 1930s when Hitler assumed absolute power and began his regime of mass murder and war crimes against the people of the world.

We've been conditioned to see Germany under Hitler as an unquestionably horrible example of dictatorial tyranny and inhuman barbarity--and to see our present American culture as completely opposite to that of Nazi Germany. And we like to think that if a tyranny such as that in Germany under the Nazi regime were present and growing in America we'd unquestionably be able to see it.

So it's a shock when we realize: most people living in Nazi Germany didn't see the tyranny! They thought it was the best time of their lives! new-enlightenment

The royalty connection

I've asked myself why it is that so many of the super rich are socialist and liberal, now I see the connection. It's about station, about "knowing your place." They're royalty.

Prince Charles draws back the curtain so that we can see the outlook of the super rich.

"What is wrong with everyone nowadays?

"Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities?

"This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centred system which admits no failure.

"People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability.

"This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history."

...latest pronouncement on British society - that its schools are imbued with a culture of "social utopianism" responsible for people getting ideas above their station - was laid bare at an employment tribunal yesterday. uk.news

Well this actually mirrors the views of those with billions that the government is best equipped to take care of the uneducated, unwashed masses. Those who otherwise would no doubt be unable to feed themselves. They become the providers, the planners of a more just society. They are the wise ones who are best able to decide the important decisions about who gets what in our society.

The super rich socialists begin to see themselves as Prince Charles no doubt does. As royalty.


Tuesday, November 16, 2004

jesusland

Liberal bigotry. Pure and simple.

Not one to shy away from speaking his mind, Keillor proposed a solution to what he deemed a fundamental problem with U.S. elections. "I'm trying to organize support for a constitutional amendment to deny voting rights to born-again Christians," Keillor smirked. "I feel if your citizenship is in Heaven-like a born again Christian's is-you should give up your citizenship. Sorry, but this is my new cause. If born again Christians are allowed to vote in this country, then why not Canadians?" chicago.edu


Am I offended? Not really. I think it says a lot about the moral superiority of the left. The casting of all those who oppose you as inferior and unfit is a well-worn path. One that the left never seems to see itself as engaging in. Nevertheless, I'm much more offended by the accusations that I am stupid, a fascist, a rascist, against democracy, or just plain evil.

We could argue about how such a comment about taking away anyone's citizenship based on their group identification would normally be received by the left, even if it were in jest, but I'm really not into group victim hood at any level. (Boring.) Suffice it to say that I point it out for the sake of pointing out liberal hypocrisy. Replace Christian with Black, Jew, Women, or Communist, take your pick of protected groups, and such a statement would be hate speech.

But let's think about this whole 'jesusland' angle many liberals have latched onto post-election to soothe their wounded ideology. It's as if Karl Rove actually did possess Emperor Palpatine magnitude powers and performed a massive jedi mind trick on the partisans of the left. Because in flailing about for a scapegoat (note: almost imperceptible religious reference) Democrats not only confirm an image of secular animosity to religion, but risk cementing their role as anti-religious and being an enemy to people of faith and how would that ever help win another election?

Which begs the question: are Democrats for protection of religious liberty or eradication of it? I ask the question knowing that it is almost rhetorical. Many Democrats are Christians. I know quite a few, and they have varying views on what separation of church and state means. But when I read some of the more strident voices of the left I wonder. Such as the following:

The greatest threat to democracy is not militant Islamic fundamentalists who dwell as terrorists in foreign lands waiting to destabilize the free west; the greatest threat is religious fundamentalism within our own shores.

Democracy and fundamentalism are simply incompatible. That has always been the case. We are witnessing it now in Iraq--a state of affairs totally miscalculated by the Bush administration due to its utter ignorance regarding the true mandates for democracy; and that is what we are witnessing in the rhetoric of the religious right in America--itself barely able to sustain the core values of a liberal democracy. dailykos


My working theory about why American Christians are viewed by the left as if they were the Taliban, is that Liberalism itself at some point can become (for some) a fundamentalist religion. One that has all the same characteristics they decry of all fundamentalisms; a stark view of good and evil, every issue seen in black and white terms, good guys, bad guys, etc.

Today's breed of Republicans have nothing to do with the values they used to espouse, and that I myself espouse - the values of personal liberty and conservatism. Yes, I am a "classical conservative", or "neo-progressive" if you will.

Today's breed of Republicans, mi gordito, as you will read about in your history books when you get older, are a breed world history has seen before. Except earlier, in the mid-twentieth century, they were called Fascists. Today's Republicans in the USA are Republican Fascists. And anyone who doesn't see that, dearest, have problems and issues in which I am not, and am no longer, willing to entangle myself. There just isn't any justification anymore for support of this "party" of bigoted, fascist thugs. dailykos


Just food for thought, I guess.

Saturday, November 13, 2004

Chomsky's Law Enforcement 'War on Terror'

Noam Chomsky, the Anarcho-Syndicalist (I'm still not sure what that means, except that it looks alot like communism to me), blogs on, "How to fight terrorists."

Not surprisingly it is exactly like the Kerry doctrine of the war on terror.

In the case of crimes, the first steps are (1) determining who was probably guilty, apprehending them, and bringing them to a fair trial; and (2) attending to the background circumstances, [no doubt background circumstances means the oppressive American Imperialism that prompted the terrorists to hate us. -es] and where there are legitimate grievances in the background, addressing them, as should be done quite apart from the crimes.

It’s the same whether the crime is a street robbery or large-scale international terrorism. In the latter case, there is a virtual consensus on this among specialists and intelligence agencies (including former heads of Israeli intelligence). Furthermore, the evidence shows that these are the most effective courses to take, including contemporary Islamic terrorism (the only case we are allowed to talk about). In contrast, Cheney’s preferred method has consistently increased the threat of terrorism, which is quite natural: violence tends to increase violence and support for it in response. The current Iraq war is an illustration. It was undertaken with the expectation that it would probably lead to an increase in terrorism, as it did. That’s just another of the many indications that reducing the threat of terror is not a high priority for planners, and another reason…

Hysterical intellectuals who prefer to shriek rather than reduce the threat of terror choose to interpret (2) as “appeasement” or “submission to terror” or “rationalization of terror,” etc. In sharp contrast, specialists in terror and intelligence agencies typically take the opposite stand. Comment is hardly necessary, apart from questions of intellectual history.

Police investigation and action might, under some circumstances, involve military force. There cannot be any general answer to the question.

Hmm. Very similiar to what Kerry said on Meet the Press in April of 2004:

"The war on terror is...occasionally military. ... But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world." Meet the Press.


Chomsky turns next to the preemption doctrine and again reiterates a key component of Kerry's philosophy --use of force only with UN approval, i.e. the global test.

As for “pre-emptive strike,” there has been a formal consensus on this since the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Tribunal. The formal consensus, the supreme law of the land in the US, bans the resort to force with narrow exceptions: when authorized by the Security Council, or in response to armed attack until the Security Council acts, in the latter case when “the necessity for action is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” These principles were established because of explicit international rejection, led by the US, of doctrine that now prevails: that resort to force is legitimate if we “know”—that is, have some reason to believe—that someone has the intention of attacking us.

I don't see anywhere in the constitution any mention of the UN Security Council. Perhaps Mr. Chomsky could provide a reference for his claim?

Surprisingly lucid so far, (Chomsky usually explains his convoluted ideas with elaborate twists and turns of seemingly random vocabulary), we next come to the key component of Chomsky's anti-americanism: moral equivalency. Under Bush's doctrine of preemption Japan would have been justified in attacking Pearl Harbor for the perceived threat the US posed to the dictatoral regime. After all, America is a global hegemon with a history of barbaric Imperial conquests.

That doctrine would, for example, justify Japan’s attack on US military bases in Pearl Harbor and Manila. The Japanese could read the US press, with its lurid discussion of how US bombing could exterminate this inferior and vicious race by burning down Japan’s wooden cities, and they knew that flying fortresses capable of bombing Japan from Pearl Harbor and Manila were coming off the Boeing Assembly line, so they “knew” that there was a serious threat of extermination, not just terror. Therefore, according to the “Bush doctrine,” shared by Kerry and elites generally, Japan had every right to bomb Pearl Harbor and Manila. In fact, they had a far stronger case than the one enunciated by Colin Powell, etc.: that “intent and ability” suffice to allow the US to attack a country, committing the “supreme crime” of Nuremberg, which encompasses all the evil that follows—the crime for which any participants, such as the German foreign minister, were hanged.


Ah well. Chomsky's always good for a laugh. He's something of a curiosity, in a perverted sense like a carnival freak show. Well actually, his ideas would not be so scary if so many of them hadn't just been articulated by the Democratic nominee for President.

Friday, November 12, 2004

Eternal life

"A government agency is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

-Ronald Reagan, February 6, 1984

3.4 million vote mandate

Bush received 60,393,205 popular votes, and Kerry received 56,974,703 popular votes. That's a difference of 3,418,502

Yahoo news... via drudge

Where's the outrage?

Can you imagine the scandal if this happened at the Reagan funeral for instance?

Minister of foreign affairs Joschka Fischer was never treated this disrespectfully abroad: not only that his plane had to fly loops for a very long time. He also had to push his way through a crowd. In the end the Europeans missed the funeral service for Yassir Arafat.

...The french minister of foreign affairs michel barnier was violently pushed against journalists. Wischnewski, who is in a wheelchair, had to be shielded by german security forces to protect him. The european minister of foreign affairs Javier Solanar was also stuck in the crowd.

Since there were many guests missing after the beginning of the main ceremony, a second ceremony was held close to the cairo airport. Like many others, Fischer was not allowed to participate in this ceremony either. lgf

Dhimmitude is the status of infidels under Arab rule. I can't imagine Fischer being so accomodating for the Bush Administration.

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Honest Reporting

Honest Reporting has a montage of Arafat's real legacy. Great site too by the way.

Downtown is packed! Posted by Hello

Lots of marchers Posted by Hello

Veterans Parade Posted by Hello

"We are all Palestinians"

The insanity is that France loves and honors the terrorist Arafat more than it does George Bush.

His coffin, draped in the Palestinian flag, was taken to a military airport, where a ceremony attended by members of the French government was held.

The plane carrying his body then took off for Cairo, where his funeral will be held on Friday.

The Palestinian Authority has declared 40 days of mourning.

Mr Arafat's widow Suha wept openly with her head bowed during the ceremony at the Villacoublay airport.

She was accompanied by French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin and Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath.

As a military band played a funeral march, Mr Arafat's coffin was carried by a guard of honour to an Airbus plane bearing the livery of the French republic.

The BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris described the ceremony as simple but dignified - a send-off fit for a head of state, as many in France saw Mr Arafat.

No members of the public were present at the airport. Earlier, crowds of Arafat supporters at Percy hospital, chanting, "We are all Palestinians", had waved candles and flags as Mr Arafat's body began its journey home.

Somewhat sickening. Of course, "We are all Palestinians," means solidarity against the evil oppressor jew.

Some militants accused Israel of causing his death and a leader of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Raid al-Aidi, swore to avenge it:

"We hold Israel fully responsible for the assassination of our mentor and father... It was caused by the siege imposed on him."

Speaking truth to JesusLand?

Chronicling the new liberal past time: Speaking truth to JesusLand. Here's a nice list of what America will look like in four years from now:

"Divided We Stand, United We Fall into Fascism: What a Red State-Only America Would Look Like"

In the same vein we have:

"The American people have decided to reelect George Bush. And so a great darkness has fallen upon our land and perhaps the whole earth, a darkness which may not be relieved by light for many decades if ever."

Hee hee. I love it. Next here's some of the ultimate left-speak to be found anywhere. It doesn't differ too much from the previous examples but it is more forthright about it's real goals.

"Organizing All the Oppressed To End All Our Oppressions"



Buh Bye.

Leora Dowling and her husband thought returning from deep in "red" America to her native New England would make them feel more comfortable, more like the people around them shared their values. Since the election, she's been contemplating another move. To Italy. abcnews

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Cheer up Lefties

Cheer up Liberals. The possibility that we live in a multiverse makes it likely that somewhere, somehow, the election results in 2004 were different.

The consequences are remarkable. A universe must exist for every physical possibility. There are Earths where the Nazis prevailed in the Second World War, where Marilyn Monroe married Einstein, and where the dinosaurs survived and evolved into intelligent beings who read New Scientist.

So it is possible, theoretically, that in at least one of the multitudinal universes of possibility that John Kerry isn't merely the biggest loser of 2004 but a huge, landslide, seachange, over-the-top, history-making winner!

In this hypothetical universe John Kerry is even now pronouncing the mandate of the voters: restoring integrity to America so that he can formally return the US to it's rightful place at the feet of the United Nations.

There Michael Moore is on TV everyday, on every channel, shaking his fist at the inverted 'states of red' who dared vote against peace and for the, by now, impeached George W. Bush, awaiting a criminal trial at the Hague.



John Kerry will begin bringing troops home from Iraq and embarking on a radical reversal of the crazy Bush doctrine.

A new, more intelligent, more effective War on Terror will begin. In cooperation with our allies, the democratic socialist countries of Europe, and the corrupt countries at the UN, some of whom are dictators and terrorists themselves, John Kerry will announce a new global effort to rid the world of injustice: "Operation Infinite Appeasement".

Good luck multilateral Kerry universe. You're gonna need it.

Thank God, uh sorry... I meant Jesus, that 59,834,725 Americans in this universe called Jesusland, that we don't have to see Operation Infinite Appeasement play out over the next four years.

Terrorist leader finally declared

Dead.

The terrorist leader beloved by so many Europeans, the UN, and terrorist organizations everywhere died today. Finally.

From 1920 through 1999, a total of 2,580 residents of Mandatory Palestine and, since 1948, the State of Israel fell victims to hostile enemy action; in most cases, terrorist attacks.

The last terror-related death in 1999 was recorded on August 30, 1999. The first death in 2000 was recorded on September 27, 2000, with the outbreak of the current wave of Palestinian violence and terror.

...1,032 people have been killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism since September 2000.


It's about time. Make no mistake this man was not a statesman he was a terrorist. A thug. A gangster. A dictator. A murderer. A thief.

His passing should be marked by a single line of news buried somewhere in the back pages along with how many local burglaries and incidents of jay walking there were last week: "Terrorist leader dead at age 75. Good bye and Good riddance."

So where's the money? Arafat controlled a vast amount of money, almost all of it from aid to Palestine. He plundered 'the treasury of palestine' and treated it as his own personal wealth. In fact, Forbes estimated his personal net worth at $300 million dollars.

As Yasir Arafat lies dying in Paris, the battle over his legacy involves an unstated but widely acknowledged concern: He personally controls several billion dollars, and no one else knows where it all is.

The extent and whereabouts of this fortune, which relies on different aides and advisers as co-signers, have been a hidden part of the disputes at his bedside, Israeli and Palestinian officials say, giving the imminent death of this revolutionary figure the elements of a Victorian novel.

Mr. Arafat has kept knowledge of the accounts compartmentalized, and only he knows all the details, well-informed Israeli officials say, in assertions confirmed reluctantly by Palestinian officials who do not want to harm Mr. Arafat's legacy.

Much about the financing of the Palestinian movement in the last four decades has been shrouded in secrecy, and its details are hard to pin down. But Palestinians say Mr. Arafat used the money to finance the Palestinian movement and administration, to pay salaries, bestow gifts, ensure loyalty, establish embassies, buy arms and pay groups ranging from charities to young fighters like Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades.
There's nothing to see here. Let's just move on.

Is Holland on Red terror alert?

Police action, blocks cordoned off near Holland, police wounded by grenade.

Terrorists surrounded?

Rising Dutch anger.

Fallujah hostage slaughterhouse

NEAR FALLUJAH, Iraq — Iraqi troops have found "hostage slaughterhouses" in Fallujah (search) where foreign captives were held and killed, the commander of Iraqi forces in the city said Wednesday. foxnews

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Michael Moore, a look back

Gee, liberals were saying the same thing about the stupid American voters before the election.
Michael Moore continues to have unkind words for his fellow countrymen. On his international book tour, the author of “Dude, Where’s My Country?” was asked what he thought of Americans. “They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks,” he replied. “We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.” (Dec. 8, 2003) msnbc

Maddona... err, Esther says just leave Iraq-- now.

This is the kind of talk that lost Kerry the election. I hope it never stops.

LONDON (AFP) - US pop star Madonna made a rare foray into politics, calling for her home country to withdraw its troops from Iraq during an interview with British radio.

"I just don't want American troops to be in Iraq, period," she said on BBC Radio.

"My feelings are 'can we just all get out?'," said the 46-year-old star, who lives mainly in London with British film director husband Guy Ritchie, who said she believes the US-led war will not help in the fight against terrorism.

"Global terror is everywhere. Global terror is down the street, around the block," she said.

"Global terror is in California. There's global terror everywhere and it's absurd to think you can get it by going to one country and dropping tons of bombs on innocent people."

Madonna's best known belief is her adherence to the Kabbalah, a faith based on the study of Hebrew texts which has become increasingly popular in recent years, notably among music and film stars.

On other subjects, the singer said the recent US presidential election had illustrated how US society was "becoming very divided".

"People are becoming very polarized," she said. "We have people who don't want to think, and who just want to guard what is theirs, and they're selfish and limited in their thinking and they're very fearful in their choices."

Madonna said that her personal choice for the presidency would have been Wesley Clark, the former four star general who was well beaten to the Democratic nomination by John Kerry.

"I thought very carefully about it. I thought Wesley Clark had the best leadership qualities," she said.

"If he had the same political experience as Kerry he could have bridged that gap." yahoo

*Sigh* After these inspiring comments I feel some remorse about voting for Bush. I just didn't realize that I was being selfish and limited in my thinking. Not to mention fearful in my choices. I was wrong, Madonna, I mean, Esther, you have taught me the meaning of wisdom, of unselfishness, of making brave choices like making our soldiers drop everything and leave Iraq now. Thank you Esther.

Oh, the irony, the hypocrisy of Madonna demanding political conformity and labeling those who disagree with her as unthinking. What if I want to rebel against your choices Esther?

She said: "The stance of a rebel is 'I don't care what you think'. But if it's just for the sake of upsetting the apple cart, you're not really helping people.

"You turn the apple cart over and then what? Then everyone's looking at an apple cart that's turned over and they're like, well, now what do I do?"

The 45-year-old mother-of-two said her days of shedding her clothes on stage or in front of the camera are also over.

Madonna wants to shed her old image

"I thought I was liberating mankind but, like I said, I wasn't really offering an alternative.

"To a certain extent I was saying 'Look, you know, why do men only get the job of objectifying women in a sexual way? I want to do it too.'

"There was an element of that, but there was also an element of being an exhibitionist and saying 'look at me'. It wasn't that altruistic. I can admit that."

Madonna - who was named after her mother - said she now wanted to be called Esther as part of her following of the Kabbalah religious teachings.

"My mother died when she was very young of cancer, and I wanted to attach myself to another name," she said.

"This is in no way a negation of who my mother is. I wanted to attach myself to the energy of a different name." bbc


I'm sure everything would be ok if everyone converted to Kabballah?

Tonight's links of interest

Stolen election rebutal

More stolen election rebutal.

Non-jesus voters

Good advice Dems, I'd listen.

Voting is compulsory in Belgium?

An RDF visualizer, hmm.

Kick the oil habit in 50 years?

Oil prices drop.

Sore loser laundry list.

Seymore Hersh: hard left ideologue. So what else is new?

Bush voters are stupid, ignorant and hypocritical... Classic liberal condescension. I hope they keep it up.

Powerful Hitchens

Many are the cheap and easy laughs in which one could indulge at the extraordinary, pitiful hysteria of the defeated Democrats. slate

God will kill Bush...

Acts of God

SFSU intifada

San Francisco State University, Finarelli showed up at the student union building that morning to help table and distribute literature to solicit new club members after President Bush’s victory the previous election day. What he found was a noisy and menacing mob of over 300 Palestinian, Arab, Muslim and radical leftist students surrounding his club’s table being held back by 13 San Francisco State police officers. The police officers were forced to surround the CR’s table both in front and in back in order to protect the conservative students’ safety.

It gets better...

UAV's battle tested

In Iraq, UAVs provide situational awareness for troops guarding garrisons and high-value targets, support mobile troops during scouting missions, and watch over convoy movements, among other missions, Weatherington said.

"They're a real advantage," he said. "If a convoy is going down the road and sees something up ahead that looks unusual, they can literally stop, put one of these things together and launch it, fly down the road and see what's down there — without endangering the convoy." defenselink.mil

Monday, November 08, 2004

Capitalism's global war on poverty

A US research group wants a war on poverty and pollution to match the war on terrorism. The group, the Worldwatch Institute, says the division between rich and poor amounts to global apartheid. bbc


It might surprise some to know that I basically agree with the above statement. However, I wouldn't agree with any of the policies the Worldwatch institute advocates in order to 'fix' this state of affairs.

We have one goal but two visions. We are divided not so much by what kind of world we want but by how we get there.

For instance, Worldwatch points out that governments and semi-government forces in many third world countries war for control of national resources, but NGO's like Worldwatch also oppose any efforts to bring private industry and capitalism into these same countries, which is likely the only thing that will really improve life in the long term for these poverty stricken nations, i.e. foreign investment.

My main disagreement with the worldview of many of these NGO's is that the solutions they promote are really just warmed over international welfare programs based on the same old half-baked marxist blather.

Daniel Bitler from the World Wildlife Fund made it clear what sustainable development really means to committed political environmentalists. "Sustainable development is setting the necessary social and ecological limits to economic growth," he declared. In other words, poor people like Issac and his children should not aspire to the opportunities and wealth enjoyed by the citizens of developed countries. This vision is based on the false Malthusian notion that the world's resources are limited, condemning a large portion of the world's people to misery and poverty in perpetuity. reason.com


As I outlined in a previous post, there are a variety of factors that keep some countries poor. Lack of free markets, property rights, and individual freedom is usually number one on the list. The answer to global poverty is not redistribution of global wealth in the name of equality, which would in fact result in untold misery to both rich and poor as the economic engines of western countries are plunged into depression, but capitalism and free markets. It took 200 years for the United States to 'get rich' as it were, and it wasn't part of a central plan. It was a convergence of historical precedents carried down through western civilization: secure property rights and rule of law.

What's intriguing to me is the time warp, ideologically, that liberal activists seem to be stuck in. Bemoaning American over-consumption, demanding that the poorest countries be given our wealth, while insisting that trade is exploitation. Their proposals defy common sense and nature. They also sound more like the low level communist literature of the thirties than of modern think tanks and politicians.

The people of the third world deserve freedom and prosperity. There is in fact no good reason that Zimbabwe or Haiti cannot be a rich country except for the type of burdens created by their own governments. Which are in fact political obstacles, not economic ones. Do we help them to develop the tools to create wealth or do we keep them in an apartheid state of welfare subservience by insisting that the only solution to poverty is international socialism?

Destroy poverty: let capitalism do its job.

BBC Reporter cries for Arafat

Not improbable at all.

The BBC has received some 500 complaints about Plett's broadcast, which was broadcast on its Radio 4 program, "From Our Own Correspondent."

In her report, Plett said: "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry . . . without warning."

She went on to reflect that, "in quieter moments since I have asked myself, why the sudden surge of emotion? I suppose there was a pathos about the strong contrast between this and other journeys Yasser Arafat has made."

In her report, entitled "Yasser Arafat's unrelenting journey," Plett noted that "foreign journalists seemed much more excited about Mr. Arafat's fate than anyone in Ramallah We hovered around the gate to his compound, swarming around the Palestinian officials who drove by, poking our microphones through their dark, half-open windows."

She lamented that amid all the media activity just a few hundred loyalists turned out to see him off from Ramallah, "waving and calling out one of his favorite sayings: 'The mountain cannot be shaken by the wind'."

Where were the people, she asked, "the mass demonstrations of solidarity, the frantic expressions of concern?" Then she answered her own question: "I think this history explains Palestinian emotions better than mine.

"For me, it was probably the siege. I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. jpost.com

Incredible Hubris

The left is completely transparent. This article title says it all: Global View: Four years to reap

The words might well apply to U.S. President George W. Bush. After much sowing he has reaped what he sought: a second term. But what he and the United States will reap during it will not all be healthy. An economy and stock markets that are, as I predicted two weeks ago in the column, likely to rally in the near term, are unlikely to have a good four years. washingtontimes.com


I hope this election failure causes the the liberal press to come out of the closet for good. No more hiding folks.

All the right people

All the right people are concerned about our assault on Fallujah. This is a sure sign that we are doing the right thing.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Mousa said Sunday he was concerned over U.S.-Iraqi plans to launch a massive military attack on the Iraqi city of Fallujah.


Concerned. As is Kofi Annan. It's even gratifying to hear the right phrases as well, "be patient in dealing with insurgents," and, "dialogue and agreement are essential for a secure Iraq."

He said he supported U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's warning of the dangerous repercussions of using military force.

Last week, Annan sent messages to the leaders of Iraq, the United States and Britain warning a full-scale attack on Fallujah would threatened the security and stability of the entire Iraqi nation. He called for including Iraqi groups not represented in the interim Iraqi government in the political process as a solution to the crisis.

Mousa called on the Iraqi government to be patient in dealing with the situation in Fallujah, which is controlled by armed insurgents, saying "dialogue and agreement are essential for a secure Iraq." washingtontimes.com


We really dodged a bullet when the American people defeated the UN candidacy of John Kerry.

Sunday, November 07, 2004

Hope has triumphed.

President Bush's re-election gives the free world a second chance.
BY JOSE MARIA AZNAR

Many took for granted that Mr. Bush would be defeated. They were wrong. The mistake committed by those who create caricatures is that they believe that normal people are going to substitute reality with caricature. The American people have decided that the best option is to offer a new mandate to Mr. Bush. If not, the achievement of these elections would be inexplicable: an extensive margin between the two candidates, in favor of President Bush, in favor of the popular vote; an increase in the number of his senators; a comfortable majority in the House of Representatives. Mr. Bush has managed to consolidate a movement that has been emerging for some years. He has managed to consolidate a natural conservative majority in his country. Aznar

Saturday, November 06, 2004

UN Appeasement

This is the genius organization that Kerry wanted to hand over our foreign policy to. Kofi: "Killing terrorists only makes things worse."

Annan wrote to leaders in Britain, the United States and Iraq's interim government warning a strike on Fallujah risked further alienating Iraqis and disrupting January's elections, diplomats in New York said.

Blunkett said the US-led coalition had to listen to Annan's concerns but added: "I think on this occasion he is entirely wrong.

"If the elections are to take place, if they are to be adjudged to be democratic and if there is to be security and stability and a democratic Iraq in the future, then the terrorists have to be rooted out, both for the Iraqis and for the rest of us," he said.

"If they got their hands on Iraq, they would do what the Taliban did in Afghanistan; they would act as the hosts for the encampments, for the training, for the launch point for those who would kill anybody in our country," he said. yahoo