Monday, March 29, 2004

C'mon Proffessor Chomsky, open up some comments....what are you afraid of?

The infamous Noam Chomsky has started his own weblog, located here.

Unsuprisingly, Noam has neglected to add comments to his blog, which allows him to make his unsubstantiated claims without fear of reprisal on his own blog. Pretty sad if you ask me.

I feel like a'fiskin someone today, and no one deserves it more than Mr Linguistics Proffesor-turned-foreign-policy-expert (yeah, I'm still trying to figure that one out) Noam Chomsky. I don't pretend to have a monopoly on the truth with these matters myself, but the points Noam makes in the following posts needs to be addressed.

Proffessor Chomsky writes here-

"All opponents of the invasion of Iraq -- at least, all those who bothered to think the matter through -- took for granted that there would be beneficial effects, as is often the case with military interventions: the bombing of Pearl Harbor, for example, which led to the expulsion of Western imperial powers from Asia, saving millions of lives. Does that justify Japanese fascism and its crimes? Of course not: there is far more to consider, and I've never had any question that these other considerations amply justify condemning Japan's aggression as a war crime -- the "supreme crime" of Nuremberg. "

Huh? Japan's raping of China compared to the US invading Iraq? Hoookay....Thank god he doesn't EQUATE it.....Not sure what he's trying to say with that paragraph. War to remove fascists is a good thing? Yes?

"Arthur Schlesinger, perhaps the most respected mainstream American historian, had ample reason to recall the attack on Pearl Harbor as the bombing of Iraq began. FDR was right to condemn the Japanese attack as a date that will live in infamy, Schlesinger wrote, but now it is Americans who live in infamy as their government adopts the policies of imperial Japan, he added, as the first bombs fell on Baghdad."

Whoops. Too late. Yes, he does. The US invading Iraq is akin to the Imperial policies of Japan. This is comparable to this. Noam, sorry. But there is NO WAY you can compare the two. Coming from Noam, this is hardly suprising.

"The invasion of Iraq brought two murderous regimes to an end: the sanctions regime, and the rule of Saddam Hussein. Orders from on high are that we are to ignore the first, on the usual grounds: we are responsible for those crimes, and therefore they must be dispatched deep down the memory hole. But we are not obliged to subject ourselves to the commands of state authority and doctrinal managers."

So wait, despite the absolutely corrupt "Oil-For Palaces and Kickbacks" program, somehow this is the US's fault? Didn't the whole UNSC agree on the sanctions? Like multiple times? How is this the US's fault? Does he even give a reason why the sanctions were the US's fault? That would be a no. You're supposed to know how evil the US already is YOU STOOPID EVIL CONSERVATIVES!!!

"Every decent person should welcome these two outcomes, and all serious opponents of the war have always done so, though advocates of state violence labor to suppress this fact. The sanctions regime killed hundreds of thousands of people, by conservative estimates. It devastated the civilian society, strengthened the tyrant, and compelled the population to rely on him for mere survival. It's because of these hideous consequences that the highly respected international diplomats who administered the programs, Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, resigned in protest at what Halliday called the "genocidal" sanctions regime. Recall that they are the Westerners who knew Iraq best, having access to regular information from a great many investigators in all parts of the country. The sanctions regime was administered by the UN, but everyone understood that its cruel and savage character was dictated by the US and its British subordinate. Ending this regime is certainly a very positive aspect of the invasion, and a cause for gratification. But of course that could have been done, and sanctions could have been directed to weapons programs instead, without an invasion. So this beneficial consequence, doubtless greatly welcomed by Iraqis, provides no justification for the invasion."

Are these the same "highly respected international diplomats" that are currently er, "on vacation" right now? Ya know, the ones who might have embezzled billions of dollars from the sanctions and are conveniently "missing"? Now doubt working tirelessly to embezzle -er I mean- help those poor unwashed masses. If I were any of these respected dimplomats, I would be RUNNING to the UN with my books open about this. Instead, the are all asking for "diplomatic immunity" or some such. In my book, that means they either have something to hide, or they are flat out guilty. But don't let this distract you from Noam's central thesis, that the US and Britain could have just lifted the sanctions, ignoring the fact that Saddam hadn't lived up to the terms in the sanctions, thereby giving him the green light to continue to make all the WMD's he wanted. No, according to Noam, if the sanctions were lifted, those poor oppressed Iraqis would have risen up and removed Saddam, silly! Just would've taken a little while, that's all. What's another few million dead if the Iraqis were able to do it themselves, right?

"There is reason to believe -- as Halliday and von Sponeck had argued -- that if the vicious sanctions regime had been ended the population of Iraq would have been able to send Saddam Hussein to the same fate as other murderous gangsters supported by the US and UK: Ceausescu, Suharto, Marcos, Duvalier, Chun, Mobutu.... -- quite a rogue's gallery, some of them easily comparable to Saddam, to which new names are being added daily by the same Western leaders, whose values are unchanged. If so, both murderous regimes could have been ended without invasion. Postwar inquiries, such as David Kay's, add weight to these beliefs by revealing how shaky Saddam's control of the country was in the last few years."

Yep, that's all the Iraqi's needed. It was the sanctions that kept them from removing Saddam. Once again, finding fault with the US in the most unique of ways is one of Noams most distinguishable talents. Noam doesn't mention that if the sanctions were removed it would have made Saddam more powerful too, but why bother with logic at this point?

"We may have our own subjective judgments about this matter, but we should at least have the honesty to recognize that they are completely irrelevant. Completely. Unless the population is at least given the opportunity to overthrow a murderous tyrant, as they did in the case of the other members of the rogue's gallery supported by the US and UK (including the current incumbents), there is no justification for resort to outside force to do so. Another truism, which has repeatedly been pointed out -- and systematically ignored within the doctrinal system."

Yes, Noam, you're opinions are, thankfully, completely irrelevant. Once again you blame the US for removing a fascist tyrant before the Iraqis had a chance to do it on their own. HOW DARE WE!!

"That is sufficient to undermine the arguments contrived by Blair and Bush, or their handlers, after the collapse of their official reasons for invasion: WMD and Iraq's alleged ties to terror. On different grounds, these arguments have been thoroughly refuted by Human Rights Watch in the introduction to its latest annual report. But there are further considerations as well. It was predicted by just about every serious specialist that the invasion of Iraq would increase the threat of terror as well as proliferation of WMD. The first prediction has been amply verified, with terrible consequences and probably more to come, and Iraq itself has admittedly become a "terrorist haven" for the first time. "

So far, No WMD's. But according to Hans Blix, there is A LOT missing from the 90's, and no one is disputing his angelic account of Saddams activites. But Noam went back to smoking banana peels if he thinks that Iraq "has admittedly become a "terrorist haven" for the first time."

Noam, you are wrong, wrong, wrong .
How you can make statements like that and expect anyone to take you seriously is quite fascinating.

"The second prediction is also considered to have been confirmed by many regional specialists and strategic analysts, and is unfortunately all too plausible. There is more. Uncontroversially, the invasion struck a serious blow at the system of international law and institutions that offers at least some hope of saving the world from destruction. And though victors do not tabulate the consequences of their crimes, there is little doubt that the numbers of Iraqis killed is in the tens of thousands. And there is a good deal more.

Currently, LESS mass graves are being filled up in Iraq. LESS rape squads are doing their work. Noam's swan-song about the "system of international law and institutions" was precisely what was allowing this to happen, not only in Iraq but still on-going in places such as North Korea or Zimbabwe. Funny how you hear so few Iraqi's clamoring for this " system of international law and institutions " to return and save them. Go figure.

"These are the kinds of considerations relevant to the evaluation of the resort to violence, without any credible pretext, in gross violation of the most basic principles of international law, and against the will of an overwhelming majority of the world's population just about everywhere that has been investigated. "

"War! UNH!! What is it good for?!! Besides ending Fascism, Communism, Dictatorships, Slavery, Genocide, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! Say it again....unh............"

So according to Noam, instead of removing Saddam from power, the US should have demanded the sanctions be lifted, thereby giving Saddam the green light to make as much money as he desired from the sale of oil, thus allowing the poor oppressed Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam because they would have had more money TOO. What is he, a capitalist all of the sudden? Sorry Noam, the Iraqi's I speak with, as well as the others who speak to us through their new weblogs (yet another piece of freedom Saddam would NEVER have allowed), all think that people like you are appeasing morons. And I think they are right.

Bring coments to your blog Noam, get the FULL experince of the blogosphere. Coward.

Friday, March 26, 2004

The Chernobyl Biker Chick is BACK!! New Photos!! Scare your friends!! This means you Evan!!

A couple of weeks ago, the Commissar at Politburo Diktat brought us the picture journal of a young women who enjoys her fast motorcycles, and trips through the since abandoned town of Chernobyl. This is some really freaky stuff. Imagine Stephen King and the dead zone, and you're getting close.

Recently she updated her site with some new pictures from her last trip, and they are as spooky as before. If you haven't looked through these pictures, do yourself a favor and check them out. Truly a bizzare spectacle, words do not do it justice....

She Rides through the Ghost Town ....hey, that should be a song, shouldn't it?

Thursday, March 25, 2004

Okay, time to bash some Western Fundamentalists infecting the gene pool....

Yes, Islamic fundamentalists are a definitive threat to the peace and prosperity of humankind, this is obvious. But in the spirit of fairness, I want to talk about another threat currently diluting the gene pool, CREATIONISTS (spit!). It seems that creationism masked under another name, known as "Intelligent Design" is still causing problems here in the US. The danger to our overall education should not be underestimated. Children who are taught that creationism is a theory of equal value in scientific terms with evolution are being misled and will not gain the needed background to progress further in any discipline that requires this fundamental knowledge.

Evolution:Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. Hands down the best description of this explanation comes from Stephen Gould-

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution. Basically, scientists can present definitive, testable theories concerning the evolution of species throughout time, but what "started" or "created" the big bang and everything in the Universe is most definitely open to interpretation. I personally believe that this is a question that is impossible for humans to answer at this time. I'm not quite sure we could grasp the meaning behind the answer either. The very first stanza from the Tao Te Ching states "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."- meaning if you can explain the universe and the reason for it in words, then you don't understand it.

So, I wish to supply the readers of this blog with a fine tool for debunking your local ignorant creationists.

BEHOLD! 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Also, I highly recommend visiting Talk Origins to expand your knowledge of not only the creationist debate, but also the many new and exciting discoveries in the study of evolution.

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

The US Supreme Court is gonna ROCK here pretty soon.....

On Wed., March 24, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether California public schools violated the 1st Amendment's establishment of religion clause by including the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" in its daily recitations (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow).

This should get interesting for a number of reasons.

First, an admission. I am STRONGLY in favor of removing "Under God" from the pledge. One thing that most assuredly has threatened the US as well the world in all too real ways in this century has been terrorist attacks brought on by religious fanaticism. Yes Allah, I'm talking about you. The sooner we can get back to demonstrating to the world that religious tolerance is based on removing religious legislation from daily life, the sooner we can end the biggest current threat to the US and the world.

Now let's see the facts in regards to the pledge of allegiance.

(taken from Dr. John W. Baer)

"Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

Now what I find ironic about this case is that a Baptist minister wrote the pledge, but felt that including a reference to God would infer racial bigotry. He was right. Thomas Jefferson felt the same way. In a reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, Jefferson explained the reasoning behind the seperation of Church and State.

Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Taken from -Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

Note that the phrase is not "the" establishment of religion, but "an" establishment of religion. It is not sufficient for the government to avoid establishing one particular religion; it may not establish any religion. And this is the whole point. Many people argue that polls indicate there is a majority of people who are for leaving the pledge alone, and this "Judicial activism" is ruining the "will of the majority".

But this is not at all what our Founders intended or what our Constitution says. The religion clauses in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights are, by definition, "counter-majoritarian." Justice Jackson said it well more than 50 years ago in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943):

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to keep certain subjects free from political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. They are permanently embedded in our laws. "

Therefore the debate concerning the pledge is being decided where it should be. And the courts should rule, correctly, that when "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954 by Congress, they violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Next we can get "In God We Trust" off the money too.

Jesus even said it- "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s."

Things are about to get interesting......

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Osama Bin Laden.......

By now, most of you have probably heard about the targeted elimination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the "spiritual" leader of Hamas. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was responsible for encouraging and actively supporting terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens. Israel had publicly stated on numerous recent occasions that they had switched policies in regards to how they had decided to deal with their terrorist foes. They specifically stated that they would in fact be targeting the leaders of these groups for elimination. They had taken out other leaders in the past in similar style attacks, but this was probably the most senior leader that Israel has targeted in quite some time.

I cannot in any way condemn what Israel has done for the simple reason that we in the US have done the exact same thing. If Osama Bin Laden was walking down a street in some village in Pakistan, and our military had a shot at him, you can bet your ass he would also become a stain on the sidewalk. There is little difference between the Sheikh and Osama, one had a wheelchair since age 11, one needed a dialysis machine to stay alive. Both were inciting their followers to attack innocent people through various terrorist methods. I give credit to Israel for minimizing the collateral damage in the attack (they waited until the least amount of civilians were around the Sheikh) much as I commend our US forces for doing everything they could to protect innocent lives. There is little to zero difference between these two men, and anyone condemning Israel while supporting the US is hypocritical.

Also, we hear much from the pundits and politicans in Europe concerning this action-

BRITAIN: Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary: “It is unacceptable. It is unjustified and it is very unlikely to achieve its objective. A measurable restraint is required and I don’t believe Israel will benefit from the fact that this morning an (elderly man) in a wheelchair has been the target of assassination”

The objective was to eliminate the leader of Hamas. I'd say it was quite successful, and the objective was met.

"FRANCE: Herve Ladsous, foreign ministry spokesman: “France condemns the action taken against Sheikh Yassin, just as it has always condemned the principle of any extra-judicial execution as contrary to international law. The attack bears a serious risk of increasing tensions in the whole of the region.”

Unless of course, France is the one doing it, like they did in Algeria.

FRANCE: Dominique de Villepin, Foreign Minister: “At a time when it is so important to mobilise ourselves to advance the peace process, such acts can only feed the spiral of violence”

Does anyone care what this man has to say anymore? Really, anyone? Hey Dom, pipe down. Hamas would never "advance the peace process" unless all the Jews voluntarily marched in to the sea.

RUSSIA: Alexander Yakovenko, Foreign Ministry spokesman: “Moscow is deeply concerned about the situation. It threatens a new wave of violence which could sabotage efforts to restart negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis by the ‘quartet’ of international mediators and key regional powers.”

Alex, you guys are also hypocritical- Does Chechnya ring any bells?

GERMANY: Joschka Fischer, Foreign Minister: “The situation is that everything must be done so that further escalation can be avoided. The government is deeply concerned about this development.”

Ummm, methinks Germany should probably stay out of this argument. They don't exactly have the best perspective on the killing of innocent Jews and how Israel should handle it.

EU: Javier Solana, Foreign policy chief: “This type of action does not contribute at all to create the conditions of peace. This is very, very bad news for the peace process. The policy of the European Union has been consistently condemnation of extra-judicial killing"

And to this last part I link to the excellent blogger, Allison Kaplan Sommer (who will be going on the blogroll shortly), who lives in Israel and gives us this perspective from a mother who has to deal with the threat of terrorism every day- Nothing to lose. The reality, as I myself noted in the comments to her article are thus-

Give concessions to the Palestinians, stop building the wall, stop taking out the terror leaders, sign big fancy international "peace" proposals= more terrorist attacks, more innocent Israeli's slaughtered.

Screw the concessions, Build the wall, eliminate the terror leaders, tell Arafat to bite me= same if not less terrorist attacks.

And according to most reports I have read, the wall itself has prevented multiple attacks.

One cannot condemn Israel for eliminating the Sheikh and then give approval for eliminating Osama. They are one and the same.

Monday, March 22, 2004

Live from Idiotarian central...................The Anti-war Protests!!!

(shaking head), the war is over dude. We won. So did Iraqis and Afghani's. They both had their oppressive governments removed thanks to the fine folks in the US military and its partners. No more women kept out of school in Afghanistan, no more rape squads assembled in Iraq. So what was everyone protesting?

A fine question........

Here are some answers-

A complete idiot

Making Marx proud

Someone who missed the results of the primaries

Here are some pictures and comments from the marches in Los Angeles.

Here are some some San Francisco. Needless to say, I am in no hurry to move to the peoples republic of California.

A reader from Allah is in the House "Babs" was at the one in New York, where suprisingly enough, the guy with the Trade Center poster was absent. I would like to see someone schtoopid enough to carry that sign around in New York, I can't imagine he would last very long. Here is an interesting conversation she had with some protestors-

I was carrying the sign that said "Liberating Iraqi Children from Tyranny, It's Co$ting Too Much". The sign has a picture of three Iraqi girls on it. One of the peace marchers came up to me and asked me what my sign meant.
Me: Well, think about it a bit
Him: I have thought about it and I don't understand it
Me: I am a feminist and I have a wish for the Iraqi girls in this photo. You support feminism, don't you?
Him: Yes, absolutely
Me: Well yes, of course, my wish is that these girls have the freedom to be educated. You wish that all women on earth have the freedom to be educated, don't you?
Him: Oh yes
Me: I also wish for these girls that they be given the power to control their lives. You support the notion of women being able to control their own lives, don't you?
Him: Yes!
Me: I wish for these girls to become doctors or teachers or whatever it is that they want to do. You support that don't you?
Him: Yes
Me: Well, that is what my sign is about
He seemed to go away happy!

And the hands down winner of biggest idiotarian poster goes to
this man in New Delhi, India........

Let's see him carry that one around in Basra........

So what I found most interesting from the various reports from around the world at these protests was that everyone was protesting against Bush, the US, capitalism, etc.etc. What I find ironic was that this past week was also the anniversary of the Anfal Campaign, which was when Saddam gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq and in one day massacred 5,000 people. The fallout from the chemical attack also resulted in thousands of others eventual deaths as well as massive birth defects, and other related problems.

Funny, I don't remember there being a massive protest against Saddam, who actually did kill thousands of innocent people on purpose.

War! What is it good for?!! Besides ending Fascism, Communism, Dictatorships, Slavery, Genocide, ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING!!! Say it again....unh............hmmph. doesn't have quite the same ring to it....

Finally, some from the masters themselves at Cox and Forkum -the first one spells it out for me quite well.

We need to remember that despite the idiots with the Bush=Hitler signs, we are still in a fight against terrorism, and the enemy in Militant Islam hasn't given up.

Update: Elderly Female Photographer trampled by "Peace" Protestors....

Here is the photo evidence......freaking sad....Look at the third picture of these cute college age kids getting ready to charge in the middle, and the poor lady trying to take pictures realizing that these punks are about as peaceful as mardi gras revelers....way to go morons.....

Thursday, March 18, 2004

A response to my sisters friend Geoff.........

Geoff left a comment in my post Who will the crocodile eat last? and I wanted to respond with another post altogether, because he brings the common arguments to the table that still seem to be used these days concerning Bush and the War on Terror.

Geoff wrote-
"One thing comes to mind: there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq and even the Bush administration has admitted that."

There are many links however, of Iraq being directly involved in funding, training and giving logistic support to multiple Islamic terrorist groups, all of whom share a hatred for the US and its allies.
Some examples-
Stephen Hayes

Stephen Hayes II


Tech Central Station

Some excerpts-

"Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.
CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources."

Now you can say that Saddam Hussein did not directly order the attacks of 9/11, but to then make the assumption that there was no connection between Hussein and Islamic terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Al-Qaeda, would be grossly misrepresenting the facts in front of us.

"Oh, and then there's the pesky problem of there being no weapons of mass destruction."

Yet. For the sake of argument, let's say that Saddam did not stockpile large quantities of WMD's. But what David Kay (US Weapons Inspector) did say to congress was very clear- that Saddam had "a large number of WMD program-related activities." And, he said, Iraq's leaders had intended to continue those activities.

"There were scientists and engineers working on developing weapons or weapons concepts that they had not moved into actual production," Kay said. "But in some areas, for example producing mustard gas, they knew all the answers, they had done it in the past, and it was a relatively simple thing to go from where they were to starting to produce it." And, he said, there is ample evidence that Iraq was moving a steady stream of goods shipments to Syria, but it is difficult to determine whether the cargoes included weapons, in part because Syria has refused to cooperate in this part of the weapons investigation.

What that says to me is two things. One, Saddam had every intention of avoiding his demise by lying to the UN about his intentions while he continued to pursue development of WMD's. And two, WMD's in Iraq that were made, and catalogued by the UN, are still missing.

According to Hans Blix in December 2002-

Iraq's 12,000-page report

"Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number."

On chemical bombs

"The (Iraqi weapons report) document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998; while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

On biological weapons

"There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

"Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991."

On missiles

"There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program or data on the consumption of the missiles."

On recently discovered documents

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side which claims that research staff sometimes may bring papers from their work places."

"On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

"Perhaps the Spanish government is pulling out of Iraq because in a democracy the right of a people to determine the policies (foreign or domestic) is the whole point of the matter."

It is correct that the majority of Spain did not want to be involved in the war in Iraq. But this same majority was ready to re-elect Aznars party prior to the bombings in Madrid. And the troops would have remianed under their watch. Therefore, one should say that the Spanish population wants to pull out of Iraq because of this terrorist attack. But this would be foolish. Al-Qaeda had already put every nation in Europe in the crosshairs well before the Liberation of Iraq. Osama even spoke specifically of the "tragedy of Andalucia" as a reason for attacking Spain.

"Had the Spanish public not been against the policy of participation in the illegal invasion of a foreign country *before* the bombs went of in Madrid, I might agree with you. "

The people that Spain elected to make these decisions were in favor. Had they not been, Spain would not have been there. It was debated in parliament much like it was in every other country that was involved. There was a sizeable portion of the US opposed to invading Iraq, but our congress approved the invasion almost unanimously.

"The bombs didn't change anyone's mind--their opposition to the occupation is longstanding. "

But they were prepared to elect the party that would have kept the troops in Iraq until the bombing took place. Do you believe the massive swing in sentiment was simply a coincidence?

I am interested in your response. Thanks for reading the blog Geoff-

Wednesday, March 17, 2004

The Darwin Award runner up goes to...........

Man treated after attempting to nail himself to cross really..........Story here

"Lt. Pierre Boucher said the man took two pieces of wood, nailed them together in the form of a cross and placed them on the floor. He attached a suicide sign to the wood and then proceeded to nail one of his hands to the makeshift cross using a 14-penny nail and a hammer.

"When he realized that he was unable to nail his other hand to the board, he called 911," Boucher said.

It was unclear whether the man was seeking assistance for his injury or help in nailing down his other hand."

My question is, why did wait until AFTER he had nailed his first hand before realizing he couldn't.......I mean, once he nailed both of his hands, how would he.......truth is always stranger than fiction folks....

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Victor Hanson breaks his arm.........

And observes the thirty million without health care

You remember? The 30 million Americans you will be hearing about in the next six months?

No healthcare, no jobs, no way to survive in the modern world. All because of the Bush tax cuts. Or the Bush administrations war on terror. Or Bush allowing other US companies to outsource jobs. Or Bush and his sinister neo-con masonic agenda to rid the world of gays and heathens in order to get the oil, or something like that.

Just ask John Jerry, although he agreed enough with Bush to vote for the war in Iraq, Nafta, tax cuts, the Patriot Act, etc....he still disagrees with him about everything! Right John?

"Bush Lied! People were.....liberated? (no, no.) Became US citizens? (NO!) Fought with the 3rd Infantry in Iraq even though they weren't even born here? (No John, stick to the script. Just ask Hillary, you'll be fine.) Oh, right- Bush Lied! David Kay got bored!"

Say what you want about Junior.

He did not say that 9/11 was the fault of the democrats. Or the gays. Or the tax cuts. He said this-

"Bring it on."

Admiral Yamamoto realized the mistake of Pearl Harbor when he said, "I fear we have awakened a sleeping dragon."

Somehow, I get the feeling the Osama got the same idea when he felt the daisy cutters loosening the ceilings in his cave in Afghanistan. So now his cohorts are beating up on Bali, then Turkey, then Spain, probably France or Germany next, followed closely by Britain, then back to Iraq to see if the stubborn Yankee infidels are still in the midst. However, this time the Iraqi's are telling Mohammed that his battles need to be fought elsewhere, thank you very much....

Now America will be in the spotlight again during the next election cycle, and we will hear again how the 30 million oppressed folks on this country are without health care, food, water, jobs, peace of mind, etc.etc...

Tman in Tennessee calls bullshit. If these 30 million are so oppressed, then why are there another 100 million ready to take their place?

Is it that bad in the rest of the world? Is everyone waiting for us to finally face down militant Islam and file it under "other religions who populate yet don't control the US Government"?

Apparently Europe is. Well, nothing new here.........

Monday, March 15, 2004

Who will the crocodile eat last?...........

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Prime Minister Winston Churchill

Spain joins the list of those countries who would rather appease the terrorists amongst them rather than fight back and face them down. Sad. I spoke with some US soldiers who worked with the Spanish forces in Iraq, and they stated that these guys were very capable, and a fine asset in Iraq. Unfortunately, the rest of their countrymen don't share the same level of commitment, and have voted to remove Aznar's party in favor of the socialists, apparently because of Aznar's support of the US during the Iraq war. Somehow, these Spaniards believe that if they get their troops out of Iraq, or apologize for kicking out the Muslims from Spain 500 years ago, everything will go back to normal. Until the Spanish country becomes a caliphate state, again, this threat is not going away.

This now will further embolden Islamofascists to attempt to influence elections throughout the west by means of suicide and terrorist bombing. Instead of sending the message that Spain will join the fight against these batshit-crazy nutjobs, Spain has stated they want to be down at the bottom of the list on the Crocodiles menu.

Problem is, unless those at the top put this crocodile down, everyone still gets eaten. Fortunately, the strongest and biggest threat to the Islamofascist's crocodile is the US military, and so far they have been doing a great job in eliminating the number of those willing to take up Jihad against the west. Let those Jihadis who think the US is a paper tiger take on the 3rd infantry or the 101st airborne, and then we shall see who is left standing. Indeed, many Jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan have found out the answer to that question the hard way. And each Jihadi eliminated in those countries is one less to join up with his buddies in Europe, the US, or elsewhere in the free world to kill more innocents.

The gauntlet was thrown down on 9/11. Bush was absolutely correct in stating that you're either with us, or against us. I don't think Spain is against us, but the electorate has shown that they would prefer to be at the bottom of this crocodiles menu rather than the top.

I'd rather have crocodile for dinner, myself.....

Update: The always insightful Victor Hanson comments- VDH blog

"Let me get this straight. Two-and-a-half years after September 11, on a similar eleventh day of the month, 911 days following 9-11, and on the eve of Spanish elections, Al Qaeda or its epigones blows up 200 and wounds 1,400 Spaniards. This horrific attack follows chaotic months when Turks were similarly butchered (who opposed the Iraq War), Saudis were targeted (who opposed the Iraqi war), Moroccans were blown apart (who opposed the Iraqi war) and French periodically threatened (who opposed the Iraqi War).

And the response? If we were looking for Churchill to step from the rubble, we got instead Daladier. The Spanish electorate immediately and overwhelmingly connected the horror with its present conservative government’s support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. If the United States went to Afghanistan in 26 days following the murder of 3,000 of its citizens to hunt down their killers and remove the fascists who sponsored them, Spaniards took to the streets with Paz placards and about 48 hours later voted in record numbers to appease the terrorists.

I can sympathize with the administration diplomats when they insist that we are not alone in Iraq. But they are only right to a degree. We, with the exceptions of some English-speaking allies and eastern Europeans, are in fact absolutely alone in our larger struggle for Western civilization and have been all along well before Iraq, which was merely the latest excuse for ongoing European appeasement. The Spanish will never go after the killers of their own citizens, much less the countries who provided them support and succor, just as the Western Europeans did nothing to stop Mr. Milosevic, just as they sent a token force to Afghanistan, and hardly any to Iraq, and just as the Greeks will do nothing if their Olympics are destroyed by waves of Islamic terrorists.

We should not like all this, but we also should not deny that it is so."

And don't be suprised once the Islamofascists strike Britain that the same thing will happen. It's a matter of time, really. I hate to admit it, but the level of jihadi discourse being spewed out of the Mosques in Britain are terrifying to me....never mind what a disaster the Olympics in Greece are shaping up to be....Yep, bury your head in the sand europe, at least you'll already be bent over when the Jihadis come to turn your countries in to caliphates.....

Friday, March 12, 2004

More on Asteroids and the Earth....what can we do?..........

Well, right now? Not a whole lot. Duck, I guess. For all of you who remember the Movie Armageddon, believe it or not, there was little if any realistic scenarios for dealing with the asteroid of doom. Here is an article adressing these issues- To Nuke or To Nudge

My problem is that currently we have nothing in place to address this problem. We do have many programs addressing the tracking of these bodies, NEAT for instance, but none addressing the "ok, we found one that's going to hit- what do we do now?" part.....

There is a good debate here concerning the feasability of actually even worrying about this issue, and what can we do about it, as well as more recently this conference here where the issue seems to be gaining some ground within the Space community.

All I'm saying (and my friends reading this right now are rolling there eyes) is that we should move this issue up the ladder in terms of priorities within the Space Program, because most of the other programs will not matter much once an asteroid on course for the earth is detected.

My Heart goes out to those in Spain, and my fist goes out to Hans Blix......hey Hans -STFU!!!

.......My deepest sympathies for anyone from Spain who may be reading this blog, my heart goes out to you....terrorists bastards, they will pay....

And now to Hans Blix, who has picked a most inoppurtune time to voice his opinion on terrorism.

In this story here, Blix states that "I think we still over-estimate the danger of terror."

Really Hans? Why don't you sit down over there and let me play back some of your other warnings back in the day when anyone gave a shite what you thought.

Hans Blix to the UN concerning Iraq's WMD's-

Iraq's 12,000-page report

"Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number."

On chemical bombs

"The (Iraqi weapons report) document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998; while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

On biological weapons

"There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

"Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991."

On missiles

"There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program or data on the consumption of the missiles."

On recently discovered documents

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side which claims that research staff sometimes may bring papers from their work places."

"On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

On scientist interviews

"Today, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have been that the individual would only speak at Iraq's Monitoring Directorate or at any rate in the presence of an Iraq official."

"This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews in private, that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed."

Hans Blix quote- 1/27/03- "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Hans "Mr Magoo" Blix apparently thought back then that Iraq had unaccounted for WMD's. Apparently now Hans believes that this threat was over-exaggerated. Even though he was the one detailing the threat.

Eh?...(scratching head) does this work?

The reality is this. Unfortunately, events in Spain have proven that terrorism and the methods associated thereof- whether this was the ETA or an Islamic group- is still alive and well in the Western World. Appeasing the supporters of these groups, and asking "why do they hate us" will not make these things go away. The only thing that will is a commited, focused effort from all nations to eradicate the persons and groups responsible for producing psychopaths such as these. The US has taken the lead in Afghanistan and Iraq, and others have willfully followed behind. We must continue the effort until this becomes a truly global effort.

And oh yeah, Hans and the UN can sit down and STFU.

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

Asteroid strike 500 years ago? Anyone?.........

(Via soon to be added to stuff worth reading- Jay Manifold )

Killer Waves

"Scientists may have discovered the impact site of one big space rock that smacked into the South Pacific just a few hundred years ago. In eastern Australia, researchers have found jumbled deposits of rocks more than 130 m above sea level that they propose were left by a tsunami. That debris has been dated to about A.D. 1500—a date that matches when the Maori people inexplicably moved away from some areas of New Zealand's coast, says Stephen F. Pekar, a sedimentologist at Queens College in New York. On New Zealand's Stewart Island, two sites sport possible tsunami deposits at elevations of 150 m and 220 m, respectively"

"The source locations and heights of waves that could have lofted materials to those elevations steered the search for the impact's ground zero to beneath the sea southwest of New Zealand, says Pekar. Sure enough, he and his colleagues have discovered a crater there that's about 20 km wide and about 150 m deep. Samples of sediment taken from the seafloor southeast of the crater, but not those obtained elsewhere around the crater, contain small mineral globules called tektites, one hallmark of an extraterrestrial impact. That pattern suggests that an object may have struck from the northwest—a path that would have taken the blazing bolide over southeastern Australia, where aboriginal legends mention just such a fireball.

The rock that created tsunamis off New Zealand 500 years ago may have been around 1 km across, the researchers say. Ward and his colleagues previously estimated that a 1-km-wide asteroid slamming into the Atlantic Ocean about 600 km off North Carolina could send 130-m-tall tsunamis over beaches from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod within 2 hours. In 8 hours, tsunamis between 30 and 50 m tall would scour European coasts. "

Glenn Reynolds, from Instapundit has this Tech Central Station column, reassessing the details of the situation.

Jay also details an excellent Proposal for an Asteroid Detection System, which makes very good sense. Problem is, if we find one soon, we won't be able to do much other than get out of the way. But for obvious reasons, the sooner we find out the better.

Then we need to work on keeping them from hitting us. This is a start, we have a long way to go................

Hubble Pics............Damn........

I mean............Damn.........It's pretty sad that this telescope may soon be out of operation, because an estimated 10,000 galaxies are revealed in this shot of humankind's deepest portrait of the visible universe ever.

Hubble, we hardly knew ye.....

Hey Jean-Marie- You never were "American"........

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a column written by the Editor of Le Monde (otherwise known as Al Jazeera on the Seine), one Jean-Marie Colombani. The title of the column is "Are We Still All 'American'?". This is in reference to the article written by the same author days after 9/11 titled "We are All American".

You must have a subscription to read the full article, but here are some excerpts-

"Today, on a visit to this city from Paris, I have the opportunity to ask the question: Are we still all "American"?

Frankly, the question concerns us -- French and Europeans -- less than it concerns America itself. For us, the answer is relatively simple: Of course, we must be and must remain "American" in everything that involves our common destiny against terrorism, the war waged on democracy, and on all those who wish to live free, by the shadowy group called al Qaeda."

Hey Jean- it's not just "the shadowy group called al Qaeda". It's militant Islam we are fighting against right now. Al Qaeda is but one head of this hydra. And if Jean doesn't believe me, why doesn't he go look on the streets of France where militant Islam is alive and well.

"I am not sure that America, on the other hand, perceives the true extent of the reality that has been created by the war in Iraq. What could be the perception of a European today? It is a vision that has unfolded in two steps. The first step, in the intensity of the shock caused by the twin towers' destruction, was the absolute need for solidarity. Let us remember here the involvement of French and German soldiers, among other European nationalities, in the operations launched in Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban, track down bin Laden and attempt to free the Afghans.


For that we thank you Europe. Big ups. You guys are swell. We'll remember that next time we have to come over and liberate your country.

"The second step, the war in Iraq, led to confusion regarding Washington's intentions, and to a division within "the Atlantic community" and among the Europeans themselves. The problem was not so much the war itself, but the fact that it was launched without U.N. approval, when certain countries -- including France -- considered the inspectors' job unfinished and thought that international pressures on Saddam Hussein could be increased before a military invasion of Iraq, under the authority of the U.N.


12 years later and the inspectors job is still unfinished? When was it going to be finished Jean? Another 12? Sorry we didn't feel like waiting for France to come save us. And the bit about the "authority of the UN". That's pretty funny. Guess who was in charge of the UN Disarmament committee during the 90's? Iraq. Yeah, great authority.

What George Bush is criticized for is very simple: not only to have lied about the weapons of mass destruction -- the official pretext for the war -- as now publicly established by recent investigations; but also to have swayed American opinion, and tried to sway European opinions (much closer to one another than one would think from the different positions of their governments, with Paris and Berlin on one side, and London, Madrid and Warsaw on the other) into believing that the war on Iraq was part of the battle against al Qaeda and international terrorism. Everyone clearly sees, and now admits, that this link did not exist. Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq today is in fact a consequence of the war, and not the opposite.

The official pretext for the war in Iraq was to protect America. Period. Bush didn't "lie" about anything. If you accuse him of lying about WMD's, than accuse your own damn intelligence service too, because they agreed with him. Hans Blix listed multiple examples of unaccounted for weapons that we knew were produced, but had never been shown to have been destroyed. Did he lie too? And Jean, the report by David Kay shows that Saddam WAS actively involved in a WMD program. Read it again. And you are also GROSSLY misrepresenting the facts by stating Iraq had no connections to international terrorism. I guess I shouldn't be suprised however, this is the editor of one of the biggest French newspapers, why should HE know anything, right?

"So by introducing this distortion, Mr. Bush has diverted the attention from a cause -- the fight against al Qaeda -- that called for solidarity, and has taken a path -- the unilateral war on Iraq -- that has led throughout the world to the rebirth of an incredible current of hostility against the U.S., which no one should rejoice at. On the contrary, it should cause concern.


Fly paper Jean, Fly paper. We Americans would rather the 3rd Infantry fight Al-Qaeda in the desert of Iraq than have our local firefighters on the streets of New York. France wasn't attacked on 9/11. If other countries don't understand that we need to take this fight TO our enemies, that's unfortunate, but that's what we are going to do. There are 60 some-odd countries with troops and support in Iraq right now who AREN'T hostile towards us. France isn't one of them, go figure.

"This said, however, we have moved on. Clearly, the United States' difficulties in the field have led Washington to be more lenient with those of its allies -- France and Germany -- that it had drifted from; and these allies are willing to get involved once more now that the banner of the U.N., and therefore of international legality, is raised again. It is moreover not impossible, once Paul Bremer's mandate is accomplished and an Iraqi legitimacy is established, that French soldiers will participate in the consolidation of the situation in Iraq. "

Yes, because we all know once the mighty French military shows up in Iraq ALL WILL BE SAVED!!!...I can't believe the nerve of this friggin' guy. What an ass.

"But beyond that which separated us when Colin Powell and Dominique de Villepin were clashing at the U.N., and beyond what will likely draw us together again -- the urgent need to prevent the situation from deteriorating in Iraq -- we must realize the need for Europe and the U.S. to rebuild their relationship.


Hey Jean, we're doing fine with Britain, Spain, Italy, and many other European nations. They are actively assisting us in Iraq right now. I think it's YOU guys that need to wake the hell up.

Therefore, if we do not do anything, "in the long run" we shall become strangers to one another. Which we are not.

If we are not yet estranged, we owe it to two men, two concepts that have allowed the United States and Europe, whatever the misfortunes, to remain, all-in-all, bound together for 50 years. They are Lord Keynes and George Kennan. One inspired the West's development policies, the other its "containment" strategy. The first policy allowed progress and wealth; the second finally triumphed over the Soviet empire.

Today, "containment" has given way to "pre-emptive" war; and the logic of development and free-trade threatens to be replaced by a return of protectionism. In our interdependent and already multipolar world, the two main axes being wielded by Mr. Bush (as opposed to his father) are therefore a threat to the very foundation of the historical alliance between the U.S. and Europe. This is why John Kerry is, a priori, perceived with so much sympathy. He personifies the promise of an America that will get back on track -- more just, more cohesive, more generous. In brief, less "unilateral." So that we can still all remain "American" in years to come.

Well Jean, "Containment" worked against the Soviet Union, primarily because of Mutually assured destruction. Al-qaeda and their ilk are SUICIDAL. They DON'T CARE if they die. "Containment" of these terrorists brought us 9/11. We CANNOT let this happen again. And John Kerry? The French endorse him? Really? I'm absolutely stunned.

Sorry Jean, you never were "American". You just pretended to be to sell some damn newspapers. I'm glad you are worried about our current policies. To me, it means we're doing something right.

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

International Eat an Animal for PETA Day.............

Courtesy of Meryl Yourish, Saturday, March 15th has been designated International Eat an Animal for PETA Day. The reason for this attempt to get PETA all twisted in knots is due to their recent media campaign in which they compare the slaughter of animals to the holocaust. Obviously this is ridiculously offensive to holocaust survivors and their families, but also simply without logic.

So please everyone, eat a nice cute furry animal this saturday......and without further ado, here are some links to promotional posters collected from around the blogosphere-

A Small victory

Allahpundit (shaking head).....

Another from Allah

A whole bunch from Aaron's Rantblog
a.k.a. Aaron the Liberal Slayer.

I'm thinking some steak most likely, wrapped in bacon, with a side of asparagus and hollandaise...mmmmm.......meeeaaatt.........

Monday, March 08, 2004

Didn't see the Passion this weekend.......

Nope, after rethinking my decision to spend money to see what the fuss is all about, I decided against seeing the movie this weekend. Here's why.

I don't need to see it to form my opinion about Jesus. I've read many different accounts of the story, from those who take the bible as a literal interpretation of history to those who have dissected the accuracy of the four gospels. In my opinion, there was simply too much political tinkering with the story to say that the Four Gospels in the bible represented the accurate history of the time. The Council of Nicea, deleted a number of Gospels from the New Testament, including but not limited to The Gospel of Thomas, The Second Apocalypse of James, The Gospel of the Nazoreans, The Gospel of the Egyptians, The Gospel of Phillip, The Gospel of Barnabas, and one that is quite obviously missing, The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene). How anyone can claim to have the full story knowing full well that these were deleted is ludicrous on its face. This does not mean that the four gospels in the new testament are wrong, but it does point out that there were other parts to the story that were deliberately suppressed.

So therefore, the movie to me seems far to evangelical for my tastes. I live in the buckle of the bible belt, and the last thing I need is to sit through three hours of violent evangelicalism. What I find even more interesting, if not hypocritical, is that the Church usually seems to be very anti-hollywood because of violence, claiming that Hollywood is destroying our moral foundations. Now we have one of the more violent films in memory being played to millions of people, and the Church is encouraging people, even children in some cases, to go see it. This doesn't make sense. So sorry Mel, but you're not getting my eight bucks. Like you need it anyways.

Uss Clueless strikes again.....

Stephen Den Beste, author of one of my favorite bogs has an well written post on Iraq and Senator Kerry here.

Stephen comments on the interview Kerry did recently in TIME magazine. After reading this interview seperately from Stephens blog, I can comment on the one quote that had me scratching my head too.

"TIME: Why would internationalizing the occupation of Iraq be a more effective strategy for stabilizing the country?
KERRY: The legitimacy of the governing process that emerges from an essentially American process is always subject to greater questioning than one that is developed with broader, global consent."

Global consent is what had left Saddam in power to begin with. The various countries who threatened vetos, or for instance like Russia, actively assisted Saddam before, during, and quite possibly even after the war, were never going to benefit the regular Iraqis. As Stephen quite accurately points out, we did not go in to Iraq out of our concern for the Iraqi people, we went in because Saddam was a threat to us and the world. Whether or not Saddam had warehouses full of WMD's was not the only issue either. The fact that he had systematically eliminated dissenting memebers of his own country in a Nazi-like fashion wasn't enough for the UN to remove him. What it took was the US finally realizing that if we do not become pro-active in removing defined threats to our existence, we will be attacked again on a scale of at least as bad as 9/11. Saddam was a threat to the US, without question. The number of international terrorist groups he supported, not to mention the number of wanted terrorists suspects he harbored should be proof enough.

Now that he is gone, what is most important for the US and the Iraqis is the ability for the Iraqis to take control of their country again. The bombing during Ashura the most important religious date for Shiites, seemed to attempt to thwart the Iraqis attempts to regain this control. It doesn't appear to have succeeded.

What I draw from this is that the UN is actually incapable of assisting Iraq regain control of its country. Giving Iraq more of a "global consent" would have disasterous consequences. It would allow the other dictators of the area to play power games and attempt to disrupt a true democracy from taking shape.

The fact that Kerry doesn't acknowledge this reality shows that he has not really thought this angle through correctly. And it will make me want to vote for him even less. Turning Iraq over to the UN would be the fastest way to destroy everything both the US, its allies, and the Iraqis have worked for.

On a scarier note, turning over the security of the US to the UN, which is really what Kerry speaks of doing, is incomprehensible. The single most important job of the president is protecting the US citizens. Turning over this job to "global consent" would be shirking your responsibilities. I shudder at the though of this man as president right now, and worse than I did about Bush Jr when I voted for Gore.

UPDATE: Well well well.......Mr Kerry has spoken to "unnamed foreign leaders" who were eager to see him defeat Bush on Nov. 2. -
Link via LGF. Kerry stated "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said. ".......things like that 'n stuff....(shaking head)

Memo to Mr Kerry- If you can't name who stated these opinions, keep them to yourself. Foreign policy isn't a popularity contest. Did it ever occur to you that if certain foreign leaders don't like our foreign policy that that might be a GOOD thing? Since you won't say who it is, I can only guess. Kim jong Il doesn't like our foreign policy? Too bad. The Mullahs in Iran? They don't like it either? What a shocker. Tony Blair, a definitive ally of the US, seems to agree completely with our foreign policy, most specifically how we are handling the fight against terrorists. Kerry continues to dig his hole deeper.....

Friday, March 05, 2004

Female Bikers photo of trip through Chernobyl...........

This will probably be making the rounds of the blogworld, go check it out......

Bikng through a post apocalyptic city

Pretty freaky stuff..The links to the next pages are on the bottom of the pages. There are pictures of fields full of cars, helicopters, you name it-that will never be used. Houses abandoned, as she describes it- A "Pompeii last day sort of place".... Who needs movie sets? You could film half of Stephen Kings inventory in this place....Hard to imagine this sort of thing, the pictures leave me pretty speechless..

(Viathe Commisar)

Hardest reason not to vote for Bush.........

As a Massachusetts raised progressive democrat, who has never voted for any republican in his life, I am having a hard time making my choice this year. This email sent to the Instapundit describes why pretty well-

"Consider the following: If you were told on 9/21/2001 that by this date:

The Taliban have fallen

Iraq has fallen and has become a bastion of free press in the islamic world.

Libya had given up its WMD's

North Korea is in multi-lateral talks about WMD's

A majority of the leadership of Al Queda are dead or in custody

Pro-democracy rumblings are going on in Iran

Arafat is isolated

Many convictions of domestic sleepers or Al Queda members (Portland, NY etc...) and finally


And all of this has cost less than 1000 dead American soldiers.

You'd be thinking "not bad."

Bush said in his Sept. 20th speech that even if the country forgets he will not. He was right.
" .

I agree with that completely. I disagree with just about everything else Bush has done in office. So I am faced with a dilemna. The single most important issue to me is protecting our country from the Islamofascists who wish to see "the great Satan" turned in to an Islamic state, or destroyed. The rest of the issues will become a moot point once a mushroom cloud shows up over a US city.

Gay marrige? Don't care.

The economy? It seems to be doing ok.

Healthcare? Get a job.

Unemployment? It's lower than it was under Clinton.

Corporate control of Washington? Like that will change if a democrat is elected. Especially one married to the Heinz heiress.

All that matters to me is this- what are YOU going to do to win this war?

An unacceptable answer is "apologize to countries like France for our reckless behavior".

All I want to hear is, are our enemies running like frightened animals or not?

UPDATE: Once again, Victor Davis Hanson puts it in to words I could only wish to write as well....Do We Want to Go Back?


"Just as a presidency of earlier ossified liberals like Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale probably would have led to support of a utopian nuclear freeze and subsequent Russian intimidation of Europe, unilateral cuts in military preparedness, and acquiescence to the Soviet Union, so too the election of John Kerry may well undo much of what has been achieved these last three years as we return to the old, normal way of doing business.

With Howard Dean gone, Kerry realizes that suddenly he must move rightward to sound tougher than George Bush. Finally, he seems to understand that every northern liberal Democrat in the last 30 years who ran to the left on national security lost badly — like McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis. And so Mr. Kerry abruptly will have to talk grandly of what he would have done to make us more secure. Yet a better guide is his own record in opposing defense programs, in harboring a chronic suspicion of using American force, and his own contradictory past votes about deployments to the Middle East.

More likely, if President Bush loses, the war against terror will return, as promised, to the status of a police matter — subpoenas and court trials the more appropriate response to the mass murder of 3,000 at the "crime scene" of the crater in New York. Europe will be assured that our troops will stay while we apologize for the usual litany of purported unilateral sins. North Korea will get more blackmail cash, while pampered South Korean leftists resume their "sunshine" mirage. Iraq will be turned over to the U.N. as we abruptly leave, and could dissolve into something like the Balkans between 1991 and 1998. Iran and Syria will let out a big sigh of relief — as American diplomats once more sit out on the tarmac in vain hopes of an "audience" with despots. The Saudis will smile that smile. Arafat will be assured that he is now once again a legitimate interlocutor. And strangest of all, the American Left will feel that the United States has just barely begun to return to its "moral" bearings — even as its laxity and relativism encourage some pretty immoral things to come.

Time to go see "The Passion" this weekend.......

Yep, that's the plan. I got to see what all the fuss is about. Personally, I don't believe in the "rose from the dead" stuff, and if you believe that Jesus died for all of our sins, that's fine with me. What I do find most interesting historically is that Jesus was removed from the cross at all. The whole point of a crucifixion was to leave the body on the cross as a warning to the rest of the town not to mess with Rome. I would say that if the most angry rebellious anti-Roman voice in town suddenly ended up rotting for a few days on a cross at the end of the village, I would be less likely to listen to this type of voice. Crucifixion doesn't look like much fun. But Jesus was on the cross for what, less than a day? Doesn't make sense if this was the biggest threat to Rome. If Jesus was truly causing problems for Rome, and uniting the Jews against Rome in any way, Rome would have left his rotting corpse on the cross for at least a few days, 'cause see that was the point.

But why let logic ruin a good story?

I think that if you believe in the majority of the magical aspects of the Bible, that's your perogative. The ideas that Jesus stood for appeal to me, love your brother, help the needy, etc.etc. And it is a good foundation for moral teachings for children. But when people start telling me that even a guy like Hitler can get redemption if he believes in God, I get annoyed. If there is any justice in the universe, he should be getting payback for the suffering he caused on earth. How that's possible I don't know, but I have a problem with washing the slate clean because you prayed to the Lord.

So, I'll go see the flick. I have read so many reviews about it, ranging from both people who love it and hate it, but there is definitely one consensus. There is some serious violence in this movie -as if this should be a suprise? Mel Gibson=violent movies + the Crucifixion=possibly the most violent form of execution ever invented gets you one f'ed up movie. Anyone see Braveheart? Then The Passion being violently gory should come as little suprise to anyone.

And I'll probably be the only one eating popcorn.

Thursday, March 04, 2004

A blog/link list update.....

I recently added Healing Iraq, a weblog from Iraq to my blogroll. This is one of the better ways to get an inside view of the true situation in Iraq, it is hardly all rosy, but this blog continues to spell out the truth on the ground better than any news source I have read.....You should go read it NOW!

Tought sports day in Tennessee

Looks like the Freak (Jevon Kearse) will no longer be a Titan, Kearse signs eight-year deal with Eagles . Well, considering he has only played in 18 out of the last 32 games I don't feel bad about this one. However, the worse news on the Titans front would be the unconfirmed report that Robaire Smith, interior Defensive line, is headed to the Houston Texans. The Titans have a bad habit of giving up pro bowl caliber interior d-line players, and this is no exception. Hopefully, they can reach in to the bag of tricks and come up with yet another superstar lineman. We had the best run defense in the league last year primarily due to guys like Robaire. We are going to have some big shoes to fill if he is truly gone.

Oh, and the Predators got crushed by Philadelphia, 5-2.

Bah. I want some good sports news coming from Nashville soon. Dammit.

Wednesday, March 03, 2004

Big predators and such.......

Mike Jericho's post about the Grizzly bear got me a-thinkin' about other large predators that still roam the earth. I've always been a big fan of Great White sharks, as they seem to have solved the evolutionary puzzle better than humans. Think about it. 70% of the earth's surface is water. Great Whites pretty much are at the top of the food chain in this environment, which again is a greater proportion of the surface of the planet than what we live in. Oh sure, we have nukes, and guns and stuff, and we do hunt sharks, but they have been around so much longer than humans, and "back in the day" they were still the shiite of the oceans like they are today, the biggest fossil so far would measure over 75 feet in length (in the immortal words of Roy Scheider, "I think we're gonna need a bigger boat"). And uh, take away our technology and put us in the ocean, and who wins? 'nuff said.

So after we nuke ourselves to oblivion, or screw up the 30% of remaining surface so bad that we can't live on it anymore, does anyone REALLY believe that sharks won't still be swimming around, eating, sleeping and making more baby sharks? Are we that egotistical to think that a creature that has survived millions of years of evolution won't be around for the next chapter after homo sapiens move on? That's just silly.

Of course, there is the possibility (as I mentioned in an earlier post) that we humans continue to progress and do manage to survive for milleniums to come. I mean hey, we are presently scraping rocks from another planet with a go-cart 80 million miles away, and sharks certainly aren't. Anything's possible. I just think that we get a little ahead of ourselves in thinking about how powerful a species humans are, and the Grizzly story was interesting commentary on this. This bear had killed other humans who had guns, the guns just weren't big enough. He finally ran across a human who knew that a .38 won't help you against a 1600 pound animal, so he brought a bigger gun along with him. Sharks are similar. You don't see many people "catching" great white sharks, because, well, it ain't easy. There's a reason for that. I believe it's called evolution. Survival of the fittest. Great White sharks are quite fit in this regard, and I believe that whether or not humans survive and progress along with evolution, sharks will still be around.

Man 1, Bear 2......

Damn....this was a big animal....

Via Mike Jericho

"The attached pictures are of a guy who works for the Forest Service in
Alaska. He was out deer hunting. A large Grizzly charged him from about
50 yards away. The guy unloaded a 7mm Mag Semi-auto into the bear and it
dropped a few feet from him. The monster was still alive so he reloaded
and capped it in the head.

It was over one thousand six hundred pounds, 12'6" high at the shoulder,
14' to the top of his head. It's the largest Grizzly bear ever recorded
in the world. Of course, the game department did not let him keep it. It
will be mounted and put on display at the Anchorage airport (to remind
tourist's of the risks involved when in the wild). "

Check out the links of the pictures of this beast. This thing had been shot previously by other humans, who proceeded to become bear food, and apparently it just annoyed him. Note to self, when hiking in Alaska, bring a BIGGER GUN.

I mean really....why not?

(via Balloon Juice)

Protest To Aim At Equal Topless Rights In Daytona Beach

"There's a topless protest being planned this weekend in Daytona Beach, at the end of Bike Week. Liz Book of Ormond Beach is among the organizers. She hopes to lead a thousand "top-free" women and men along a half-mile of Main Street from the pier to the bridge. The goal is to add Daytona Beach to the small but growing list of places that allow women to show their breasts openly, just like men."

'cause once you've seen a great pair of breasts you, well, pretty much want to see them all......

Tuesday, March 02, 2004

Here is something we all should read.....

John McCarthy's Home Page...........Professor Emeritus (as of 2001 Jan 1) of Computer Science at Stanford University.......more this-

This Web page and its satellites are aimed at showing that human material progress is desirable and sustainable

so debunk you're liberal friends. Show them the math. Show them that we humans, despite our deficiencies are still capable of progress.......

More Good News from the Titans

In yet another incredible deal from the magician Floyd Reese and his staff, The Tennessee Titans maneuvered their way under the NFL-mandated $80.6 million salary cap on Tuesday, signing two key players in the process. They reached multi-year deals with All-Pro LB Keith Bulluck and TE Erron Kinney, and can make another Super Bowl run with at least 20 of their 22 starters returning in 2004. "This is never an easy time of year, but Mr. Adams wants to win, and he's backed us throughout this entire process," GM Floyd Reese said. "He was a great help, as was Steve Underwood, our general counsel." Added Bulluck: "I was raising the bar this season, but I've got to step it up even more and bring my teammates along with me."

Titans reach long-term deals with Bulluck, Kinney

The bad news is I have to wait another 5 months before the season gets rockin'.......Yep, once the Stanley Cup is over, there isn't much for this sports fan to be happy about.

What's that? Baseball you say? I'm originally from Boston, and I gave up sado masochism a long time ago....I think it was around '86.....And basketball just seems to have turned in to a bunch of gimme-the-ball-cry-baby convicts with little positive redeeming qualities, except for maybe Lebron.....until he gets arrested.....yep, gonna be a long five months.........Go Titans!

Water on Mars?

Well, at least it looks like it used to have some.....does this mean aliens? No. Algae? Maybe....Mars rover finds evidence that Red Planet could once have supported life

Drew Bennet will be wearing a Titans Jersey for the next three years.......Sweet!

Drew signs deal

Now we need to take care of Robaire, Justin and Kinney (is he signed yet?) and things will look ok. If Jevon wants to stay a Titan, he's going to have to take a paycut. If he wants more than 6-7 mill, I say good luck to you freak, we need the other guys more than just him alone......

This is encouraging..

(Via LGF )

Thousands rally for Islamic law in Indonesia

"The rallies were part of a largely unsuccessful campaign to convince the country’s Muslim majority to embrace syariah or Islamic law.

Although more than 80 per cent of the country’s 210 million people are Muslim, only the war-torn province of Aceh has implemented the system on a small scale."

There is no such thing as a successful implementation of Shariah law anywhere in the world right now. Every example has shown to completely destroy any hope for equal rights for women, and also completely ignore the basic tenets of human rights. Any religion differing from Islam under shariah eventually gets repressed out of existence, for instance in Nigeria right now, and the fact that the 80% of Indonesians who are muslim realize that this is not workable is encouraging.

Monday, March 01, 2004

What makes religion look small


Lincoln Near Earth Asteroid Project


Basically, all of the previous post shows that we have great power to expand our intellect in a religious way, but in terms of reality, not so much.....

We spend Billions on various space projects (Mars, the Moon, comets, etc.), but all of these projects would be meaningless once we discover a large piece of the universe that will hit our planet.

NASA has spent a miniscule part of its budget performing this task here-

Deep Impact

But this is simply a probe. Until the powers that be realize how important this issue is, like Gregg Easterbrook mentions here in this post, Easterbrook (and what's funny is that he titles the post "AN ACTUAL WORTHWHILE GOAL FOR NASA") we will be pissing in the cosmic wind.......
Islamism-a fundamentalist Islamic revivalist movement generally characterized by moral conservatism and the literal interpretation of the Koran and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all aspects of life
which is technically translated as submission to god.......

Christianity - a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.......

Hinduism- The name for all the sects of the religion practiced by the Indo-European speaking people who came to India around 1500 B.C. Over time the religion changed a lot, and because it was never hierarchily organized, split into as many fragments as there were villages: but very rarely was a split recognized as a new religion. In fact, before modern times, the only ideas which gave rise to new religions in Eastern India were the ones that led to Jainism and Buddhism. This religion, at least in its later period, was marked by a rigid caste system.

Buddhism- A major religion based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha or "enlightened one," who lived in Northern India at the foot of the Himalayas in the 6th century BCE. Rejecting his luxurious upbringing, Siddhartha set out as a wandering ascetic — a person who suffers severe physical hardships as part of his/her religious practice. Eventually Siddhartha rejected this extreme also, choosing what he called the "middle path" to enlightenment and freedom from life’s pain. Opposed to violence and cruelty of any kind, the Buddha dined with "untouchable" outcasts and taught people to let go of attachments and illusion. Buddhism has been a major spiritual, moral, and intellectual influence on Central, Southern, and East Asia.

Judaism - Jews collectively who practice a religion based on the Torah and the Talmud.

Taoism - A Chinese religion and philosophy that sees the universe as engaged in ceaseless motion and activity. All is considered to be in continual flux. The universe is in trinsically dynamic. This continual cosmic process is called the "Tao" by the Chinese. The process is described in terms of Yin and Yang.

Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God.....

So 90% of the world, if not more, applies to one of the proceeding belief systems....