Is He Stupid Or Just Intellectually Dishonest?: I read an editorial against the 'War on Terrorism' today by Hugh McKay in the Sydney Morning Herald and it prompted me to once again ask myself a question that I often do after reading arguments made by the anti-war left; are they being intellectually dishonest or are they just stupid?
Although I'm strongly in favor of the 'War on Terrorism', I would concede that it's possible to make an intelligent argument against it. Now in my opinion, the case for the war is much, much, stronger, but sometimes reasonable people can disagree even if they accept the same set of basic facts. But how could any intelligent, rational, reasonable person possibly get things as wrong as Hugh McKay did? Let me comment on some of the things in the editorial that he wrote and I think you'll see what I mean...
"It's possible to imagine how nations could decide to go to war over territorial issues. The urges involved are ancient and primitive, and you can see why land has always been such a potent symbol of survival, security and, therefore, of identity as well."
Primitive urges? Symbols? How about acquiring important resources, controlling key defensive areas, or what about just needing more space? We're in the opening sentence of the editorial and it's already obvious that McKay has not the slightest clue about the reasons his fellow humans do things. It's almost like McKay is an alien who studied human beings but doesn't really fathom the intricacies of their behavior.
"What might happen to the Iraqis after that is anyone's guess. Perhaps they'll be thrown to the next pack of wolves, as the Afghans have been. (Who ever presumed the Northern Alliance would be a safer bet than the Taliban?)"
We're pumping billions in money and supplies into Afghanistan, we're freely admitting that we plan to be there for years, and we're helping their new government build itself from scratch. Yet that's "throwing them to the wolves?" Also, since McKay apparently hasn't been watching the news for the last eight months or so, we didn't exchange the 'Taliban' for the 'Northern Alliance.' The fact that Karzai wasn't a member of the Northern Alliance, that we're trying to help Afghanistan build a Democracy, that millions of refugees who fled the Taliban are returning, etc, is just lost on McKay. But why doesn't McKay know these things? What is his major malfunction?
"Translation: "We don't trust Saddam Hussein, so we intend to get rid of him by invading his country."...
Does this mean that any regime the US doesn't like is fair game? Will the US rove the world like some bandy-legged western sheriff, evaluating regimes and deciding which may survive and which should be toppled by military intervention?
Will Zimbabwe be next? What about North Korea, part of Bush's infamous "axis of evil"? Or Libya? (Oops, I forgot: Gaddafi has suddenly, remarkably, changed from a bad guy into a good guy, it seems.) What about Saudi Arabia, breeding ground for most of the terrorists involved in events of September 11?"
I'm sort of surprised that he references 9/11 after just making comments that seem to indicate that he DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT HAPPENED. How can else you explain the fact that he tosses Zimbabwe in there? I mean how could anyone who knows about 9/11, the 'War on Terrorism', the Bush Doctrine, & the 'Axis of Evil', think that Zimbabwe should make just as must sense as Iraq in Bush's eyes? This just doesn't seem like something that should puzzle ANYONE who's even been paying the slightest bit of attention to the events of the last eleven months. So why doesn't McKay seem to get it?
"If the new world order means the US can impose its will on the regimes of other countries by military intervention, why wouldn't other countries follow suit? Why wouldn't India, for instance, decide to effect regime change in Pakistan? And mightn't someone, some day, decide the US is itself ripe for regime change?"
I really hate to disillusion McKay here, but nations have been imposing their will militarily on other nations...well...since there were nations. That's something the most basic and cursory reading of history makes amply clear. So why doesn't McKay appear to understand this? Why doesn't he understand that India WOULD CONQUER Pakistan tomorrow if they could do it without getting nuked or suffering serious losses? Also, it's our carriers, planes and tanks that keep other nations from deciding that the 'US is itself ripe for regime change' and nothing else. That's how it always has been, is, and will likely be in the future. What does McKay think has changed in 2002 that means the sum total of human history no longer applies?
"Bush talks about "weapons of mass destruction" as though such things are the abhorrent figment of some alien imagination. He appears oblivious to the irony of his own position, as custodian of the world's greatest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. The US defence, presumably, is that such weapons are safe in the hands of Americans, but not in anyone else's ... so that's all right, then."
Again, why does McKay not seem to understand that we see a difference between an aggressive, pro-terrorist, anti-American, dictator who's used WMD against his own people having nukes and say Britain having them? This is like running across someone who doesn't understand the difference between your mother using a knife to cut a Thanksgiving turkey and a having a mugger holding a knife on you in an alley. Yes they're both people holding knives, but one is a threat to you and the other isn't. How can any intelligent person not understand this?
"At one level, I can see why John Howard would support whatever mock-heroic schemes Bush might propose between now and the US mid-term elections: our PM wouldn't want to find himself on the list of leaders earmarked for "regime change".
My first inclination here was to think that McKay was joking but when you look at everything else he wrote, you have to think he's serious. I mean isn't this the same guy who earlier in the editorial said that, '(d)oes this mean that any regime the US doesn't like is fair game?" For all we know, McKay may be digging out a bomb shelter in the outback right now and stocking it up with home-cured Koala Bear jerky to prepare for the upcoming war with the US that'll happen if John Howard doesn't go along with our invasion of Iraq.
So after reading all of this, ask yourself this question; is McKay stupid or intellectually dishonest? Because he has to be one or the other...
This Doesn't Sound So Bad: I think this short & humorous explanation of how the NMD is supposed to work is meant to be some sort of insult to Americans who are in favor of missile defense. It even tosses in a little dig at the end towards people who voted for Bush. But I can't say that I was offended. In fact, this whole thing doesn't sound so bad if you ask me. Just check out stage 4...
"Upon entering the upper atmosphere the starship J.U.S.T.I.C.E. deploys it's payload of 911 seek-and-destroy nuclear bomblets, each engraved with the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and bearing a tiny sample of the cryogenically frozen sperm of a former Republican President."
I Will Not Hesitate To Bash Some Of Their Heads In: In two previous episodes of ACPOTI, RWN covered some of the Islamo-fascists and terrorist wannabes who like to hang out at the Clear Guidance 'Youth of Islam' forums. The articles did get some linkage from the Blogosphere, but they didn't make a huge splash.
Well since then, a few crazies from the forum caught the attention of Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs. He alerted the world to a particularly vile thread about stabbing Jews to death along with a snuff film that somehow got tossed into the mix. Unfortunately, before I could punch that up for ACPOTI, the thread was wiped off the face of the earth. Luckily for ACPOTI fans, the Clear Guidance crew has been hard at work posting new material about stabbing kafirs, black magic, & snuff films among other things. Read and enjoy...
Chalk One Up For The Blogosphere: McDonald's felt the wrath of the Blogosphere and surrendered like the French army. Yesterday, pundits including RWN thrashed McDonald's for the following statement that appeared on the McDonald's Saudi Arabia portion of their page...
"There are two unique McDonald's restaurants located in the Holy City of Makkah. These restaurants are the only two restaurants in the world that are wholly staffed with Muslim employees and who serve exclusively Muslim customers, from Service Crew to Restaurant Manager level."
Some of us **cough...cough...RWN...cough...cough** made reference to plunging stock prices if this hit the mainstream media.
Well presto-changeo, it's gone. Blogosphere 1 - Mickey D's 0 - The Mainstream Media - never even got in the game.
It's America's Fault That It Rained Today!: Across the world, no matter what happens, there's always someone willing to blame America for it. Did your boss skip over you for that big promotion? It's America's fault! Did your son say a curse word? American culture must be influencing him! Did your 15 year old kid refuse to blow himself up on a bus in Israel? He's been listening to Americans again (OK, this one only applies in Palestine). The latest thing the anti-Americans are blaming us for is...drumroll please...the weather.
After writing my latest editorial about the huge, thick, cloud 'o' death that's settled in over Asia, "diabolik ik" sent me an email to let me know that America was probably to blame...
"just a side-note: where pollution effects the environment and the source of the pollution can be very seperate places. For example, I live in a small Canadian city that due to its mining practices, produces 4% of the world's pollution. We don't notice it one bit. I mean, I see the smoke leave the stack, but that smoke passes overhead without doing anything except more acidic rain, that type of thing.. but the smog created in my city actually lands somewhere in europe or asia. Certainly, some sources of pollution are local, such as cars and smaller factories, but on a larger scale pollution created in my green little hometown affects the air quality worldwide. So in reply to your point about the US not being the problem yet environmentalists whine about it, look at pollution exports. That cloud o death in asia is probably half our smoke to begin with."
So a "two-mile-thick cloud of pollution shrouding southern Asia" which is composed of "a toxic cocktail of ash, acids, aerosols and other particles" is probably "half ours." The fact that this cloud this seems to have settled in over Asia for a long stay and that there's no cloud over America means nothing. It still is probably "half our smoke."
Then there are the floods that are happening in Europe. That was apparently caused by our refusal to sign Kyoto...
"Leftist politicians and environmentalists sought yesterday to link Europe's worst floods in decades to U.S. reluctance to endorse the Continent's approach to fighting global warming.
The target of their efforts was the Bush administration's decision not to support the Kyoto protocol.
...Gallus Cadonau, the managing director of the Swiss Greina Foundation for the preservation of Alpine rivers and streams, urged that a punitive tariff on imports from the United States be imposed to force cooperation on greenhouse gas emissions.
"This definitely has to do with global warming. We must change something now," he said. "Those nations that really are careless with the environment should have to compensate."
Environmentalists have been claiming for years that the Kyoto Treaty was going to take care of global warming right? Well Kyoto met it's target of getting nations that produce at least "55 % of the total carbon dioxide emissions" to join up didn't it? If Kyoto is the answer, then isn't the problem solved? Not when you can blame the United States...
Well they're blaming us for the death cloud over Asia & the floods in Europe, so how long will it be before they start blaming us for earthquakes? Oh wait, some people already have...
The Problem With The European Left: Justin Sodano from The Weigh In sent me an email asking what I thought about one of Steven Den Beste's latest editorials. Den Beste talks about "Transnational Progressivism" which I'd basically define left-wing internationalism.This philosophy encompasses all the usual claptrap that the left, in particular the European-left, loves to promote. International law, the United Nations, multiculturalism, the more fascist tendencies of the EU, anti-nationalism, moral equivalence, victimology, etc.
The biggest problem with the European left's view of the world is that they've totally misunderstood what happened to Europe after World War 2. They look at what has been a relatively peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious 60 years in Europe and believe that diplomacy, brilliant European leadership, and a commitment to cooperation made it all happen. This is like assuming that people pay income tax because politicians have passed laws that require them to do. Actually, that's not the case. People pay income taxes because if they refused to do so, someone with a gun will show up and force them to pay their taxes or be put in jail. If there was no longer a threat of men with guns showing up to put people in prison for not paying their taxes, the amount of revenue collected would quickly fall off to almost nothing.
Therein lies the problem the European left's view of their post WW2 world. Without the US and the rest of NATO defending Western Europe from the Soviets and enforcing the rule of law in Western Europe itself, all the diplomacy and treaties in the world wouldn't have made one bit of difference. United Nations resolutions and condemning things in the 'strongest terms' means exactly jack diddley squat in non-Western countries. Do you think Saddam Hussein cares if the EU condemns him for gassing the Kurds? Do you think a United Nations resolution would dissuade the Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Do you think a few European nations sending their ambassadors home would keep China from invading Taiwan? Even sanctions don't mean much in the days of global economy. Europe couldn't cut off all trade with China or stop buying oil from the Middle East without causing a depression back at home that their citizens would never tolerate.
There is an ultimate truth about the war that the European-left can't bear to face. If they ever achieved their goal and convinced the United States that they were right, that treaties, diplomacy, and UN resolutions were the way to go, the world would quickly devolve into chaos, war, and a total breakdown of global order within a decade. Maybe it would take that sort of brutal savagery to wake up the internationalist lefties, but the rest of us shouldn't have to experience that sort nightmare to recognize the reality in front of our faces.
Revenge Of The Chickenblogger: Dipnut over at Isntapundit verbally dissected a hapless lefty who happened to insult him and it was highly entertaining. My favorite part was near the beginning (Dipnut's reply in red italics)...
IDIOT CHICKENBLOGGER WATCH: Hey look, a brainless chickneblogger called me stupid. Notice how he, magically reads my mind and ASSUMES what I am thinking, rather than actually reading what I write.
That's because reading what Hesiod writes is embarrassing and painful, like stripping naked and rolling in broken glass at some kind of idea-morgue. It's much easier to magically read his mind.
George W. Bush: 'No Decision Has Been Made About Iraq': RWN has scooped the mainstream press again with the transcript of the latest Bush press conference in which he explains that 'no decision has been made about Iraq."
Step Away From The McRib Sandwich Kaffir: Hungry for a Big Mac or thinking about chowing down on some Chicken McNuggets? Well then you better stay out of Saudi Arabia where Sheikh Abdulrahman Alireza makes sure infidels like you are not allowed to have Happy Meals...
"All McDonald's restaurants in Saudi Arabia are owned and operated by leading members of the Saudi business community...Their local input into the management of this global brand has helped ensure McDonald's popularity and success in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and there are currently no fewer than 71 branches strategically located in all of Saudi's major cities, including two in the holy city of Mecca - a place sacred to Muslims throughout the world.
There are two unique McDonald's restaurants located in the Holy City of Makkah. These restaurants are the only two restaurants in the world that are wholly staffed with Muslim employees and who serve exclusively Muslim customers, from Service Crew to Restaurant Manager level."
The most amazing thing about this is that McDonald's is stupid enough to BRAG about this on their own homepage. If this story really broke in the mainstream press it would make so many people mad that I bet you their stock would drop. Dumb, dumb, dumb...
Is Perception More Important Than Reality?: People who anti-American often ask, "Why don't you Americans ask yourself why the terrorists hate you?" Well a lot of people hate us and yet never launch terrorist attacks against Americans. If "hate" was the only real motivator, then we'd have college professors, Frenchmen, and Canadians who've seen too many Molson beer ads blowing themselves up in pizza parlors across America.
A more relevant question would be, "Why do the terrorists think America in particular, and the West in general is so stupid and weak that we'll allow terrorism to work against us?" Could it be because we tend to under react to terrorism when it happens? Before 9/11 we might have launched a cruise missile here and there while making a few arrests, but other than Reagan's bombing of Gaddafi's palace, when did we ever seriously do anything about terrorism? We didn't, we sort of shrugged off the attacks and then went back to largely ignoring the terrorists.
There are other things to consider as well. The Soviet Union's defeat in Afghanistan made the Islamic radicals believe they could beat the US as well. Moreover, while our military looked incredible in the Gulf War, we didn't have the heart to finish the job. Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq is nothing but a big reminder that you can fight the world's lone remaining super power and walk away unscathed. Even Israel has contributed to the belief that the West is weak. Here they are fighting a ragtag bunch of Palestinians and they don't have the will to take care of the problem. When Jordan had the sort of issues with Israel is having now with Arafat, they engaged in open warfare against the PLO until they got them under control. When the Palestinians picked the wrong side in the Gulf War, the Kuwaitis simply expelled all of them from the country. Neither one of these nations has 1/20th of Israel's military power but, they were able to handle the situation and Israeli isn't. What does that say about Western Culture's ability to deal with a threat? You may say it means we're more moral but they would probably say we're dumber & weaker than them because we're not willing to do what it takes to win. Let's hope that GWB stays true to the "Bush Doctrine" or they may prove to be right...
What Difference Does It Make? All the terrorist groups in the 'disputed territories' are getting together to try to come to some consensus about "why they are fighting, what they need to end the conflict and whether suicide bombings are a legitimate weapon."
Theoretically, this could be a good thing because if all of the groups were to decide on a REASONABLE position, it would mean Israel could negotiate with the Palestinian government on terms for peace without worrying about one or two of the groups deliberately trying to scuttle the process. However, if the groups are talking about coming up with a mutual bargaining position today, it could mean that they'll also be cooperating in order to become more efficient at killing Israelis and Americans tomorrow. Furthermore, as you'll see from the following quote, the situation has not changed significantly from the one I described in my May editorial, There Isn’t Going To Be A Happy Ending To The Conflict In The Middle East...
"The biggest obstacle to a cease-fire is the very real fear of civil war" if Arafat buckles to Israeli and U.S. pressure and agrees to arrest Palestinian militants, especially Hamas members, said Eyad Sarraj, a Palestinian psychiatrist and a leading civil rights activist and political analyst in Gaza City.
Cracking down on Hamas, which has launched more suicide bombings against Israelis than any other group -- has been a key demand of Israel and the United States, which see it as a test of Arafat's sincerity in seeking to curb Palestinian terrorism.
"Collectively, the Palestinian leadership has lost its credibility with the Palestinian people, and Arafat is having serious difficulty trying to control things. . . . He's finished," Sarraj said. "Hamas reflects the basic feeling of every Palestinian that we cannot surrender without a feeling of hope and dignity."
Peace is still beyond the horizon in this conflict and probably will be for a long, long, time...
That's Ironic:Glenn Reynolds mentioned my interview with "Jon David" in his Tech Central column today. It is quite an honor to be cited by the man who's probably got his picture beside of the word "blogger" in the dictionary (well, he would if that word were in the dictionary).
Ironically, he also talks about the same hacked "Islamic News" page I mentioned in my last post which is funny because I found out about it on an Islamic site I was surfing for ACPOTI material. So much for my "big scoop." =D
Hackers Vs. Terrorists: I don't know how long this will be up, so check out Britain's "Islamic News" page while you can. They have been 0wn3d by a hacker (possibly after the site's owner was killed in India) who replaced their old page with an anti-terrorist screed which I'm about to quote...
"Jehad is Crap!
Are you a Muslim? Join us and help to expose the world-wide influence of the Saudi - Wahhabi cult of death that is destroying Islam from inside."
"...Israel belongs to the Jews - because Allah gave that land to them - why, because the Philistines won't act like decent human beings - and only decent humans deserve their own country. If the Philistines don't like it, they should just find somewhere else to live. Except no other country on earth wants to have them because they are not acting like decent human beings.
And Kashmir belongs to the Indians - for the same reasons.
So, Muslims everywhere, let's unite and end this jehadi madness, let's expose and stop the apparatus of terror that is being built up in the Mosques and websites of the U.S.A. and U.K. We especially need Arabic translators to join us because all the real jehadi sites are in Arabic. (Jehadis keep the real juicy stuff from the eyes of the kufir so they will stay ignorant).
(**UPDATE** I'm talking with the guy who created this page and he gave me some more info to pass on to the public. Look for more information soon.)
>> They have been 0wn3d by a hacker
Actually, the sites were not hacked or '0wn3d'. We actually 'Owned' the sites for the past eight months.
>> (possibly after the site's owner was killed in India)
Actually, the site's owner was just a made up character -- he fooled a lot of jehadis because he talked and acted just like them -- even
Abu Hamza was apparently taken in. There were eulogies at his death on many of the newsgroups:
Pervez was the quintessential Islamist goon. So, when it came time to kill off our character, there was no place better to send him than here: http://islamic-news.co.uk/email_from_hell.html
The Cloud 'O' Death: Sometimes you run across a story that makes you look at an issue in an entirely different way. For some of you, this may be one of those types of stories…
"A two-mile-thick cloud of pollution shrouding southern Asia is threatening the lives of millions of people in the region and could have an impact much further afield, according to a U.N.-sponsored study."(Cont)
Technology Defeats The Law On The Net: Congress is not going to defeat peer to peer file swapping (Mp3s, files, and movies) by coming up with new laws. The net is too big, too international, and full of too many people who hate having any sort of authority imposed on them for it to ever work. You'd literally have to destroy the way the net works to come up with a legal solution to file swapping.
Trying to put people who swap files in jail is not going to be practical. There are tens of millions of them in the US alone. Tracking them down, separating the US nationals from the foreigners, figuring out who's a kid and who's an adult, and then fighting court battles with even 1% of them would take more revenue than the entire record industry made last year so it wouldn't be feasible.
Worse yet, there are approaches being considered that are unethical, immoral, and still won't get the job done...
"The bill, sponsored by Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard Coble, R-N.C., would immunize groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) from all state and federal laws if they disable, block or otherwise impair a "publicly accessible peer-to-peer file-trading network."
"The bill my colleagues and I introduce today will free the marketplace to develop technologies that thwart P2P piracy without impairing P2P networks themselves," Berman said in a statement Thursday. "It will do so by allowing copyright owners, in certain limited circumstances, to use technological tools to thwart P2P piracy without fear of liability."
I'd argue that this sort of approach violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (Equal Protection) which states in part...
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
Take it from someone who works for an ISP wholesaler, peer 2 peer technology can't be stopped by writing new laws, it can only be contained for a short period of time while people learn to get around whatever legal restrictions have been put on them.
Why Is Iraq Our Top Priority: Some people are puzzled about why the Bush team is focused like a laser beam on Iraq. Does GWB want to finish the job his dad started back in the Gulf War? Is it because of oil? Is it just some sort of American vengeance thing against Saddam?
Well once you understand the Bush admin's goal, the order of nations that may come under fire becomes obvious. GWB has concluded (quite correctly I might add), that it's vitally important that the State support of terrorism be ended. The funding, training, equipment, and aid given by terrorist supporting nations allows terrorist groups to be much, much, more effective. For example, without the help and protection of the government of Afghanistan, Bin Laden could have never pulled off the 9/11 attacks. It would have been too difficult for him to recruit new members without a protected base of operations and chances are that he would of been long since dead without Taliban protection anyway.
So the Bush administration is looking to end the State support of terrorism. With some nations like Libya, Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen, etc, a combination of economic aid and pure intimidation can do the trick. However, that combo hasn't worked on Iraq, Iran, Syria, (and their puppet state Lebanon), the 'Disputed Territories', North Korea (more of a WMD problem than a terrorism problem) and on the more covert support of terrorism by Saudi Arabia. Since it would be inviting more 9/11's to allow these nations to continue on the way they're going, military action is required. So who do you hit first?
Iraq is the obvious choice for a number of reasons. First off, they're the easiest nation to get support (and more importantly bases) for hitting because they're obviously pursuing WMD (Saddam is foregoing tens of billions of dollars in oil revenue for nothing.) Furthermore, Iraq's neighbors may talk unity, but in private they fear and hate Saddam with a passion. Whereas we could count on getting zero Arab or European support for hitting Saudi Arabia or Iran, we will get enough cooperation from nations like Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, and Qatar to take out Saddam.
Once Saddam is gone, the equation changes significantly. We'll have a new source of oil that will insure that we can start bossing around Saudi Arabia without having to worry about any sort of disruption of our supply. Furthermore, the show of American military might, the removal of a belligerent Hussein, & the freedom we'll have to take all of our troops out of Saudi Arabia without a threat to our oil supply will give us new leverage in the Middle East. Most importantly, we'll no longer have to worry about getting a base to launch our troops from. Once we have Iraq, we can literally hit every other nation we'd possibly need to except for North Korea. That is absolutely crucial because I expect support for the military portion of the 'War on Terrorism' to almost completely dry up after Iraq.
After Iraq, we insure that regime change happens in Iran. They're the world's biggest supporter of terrorism and they're not likely to change their stripes. Fortunately, their populace is ready to revolt and their whole nation is teetering on the edge. Therefore, I doubt that we'll have to do a full scale invasion to facilitate a change in government. A little help to the resistance groups fighting the government, a few supplies, some rabble rousing, a bit of special forces help and training, and a guarantee of US military support in the event of a revolution, and I think the Iranian people will be able do our work for us.
At that point, I expect Syria and Lebanon to just roll over rather than take us on militarily, Saudi Arabia is so reliant on our oil dollars that they'll almost have to comply once we have full access to Iraqi oil, and the Israelis can handle the Palestinians. Then our military's work will largely be done in the Middle East and we'll only have North Korea to deal with. Although they're making a few friendly overtures towards us now, there is no guarantee as to what they'll do long-term. However, since China will be putting them under tremendous pressure to avoid the "Korean War part 2" and because there will be a lot of economic advantages to cooperating with us, I think we can probably avoid war with N. Korea while still accomplishing our objectives.
That's why Bush is talking up hitting Iraq so much and why they're next. Just don't be surprised when he starts talking about Iran every day shortly after we get Iraq under control...
Terrorist Billionaire Yasser Arafat?: We already knew that Yasser Arafat was a terrorist, but today we also learned that he was a billionaire. Who knew that ruling an impoverished & hopeless group of people that you've led to ruin could be so profitable?
The Top 10 Changes That Could Be Made To Operation TIPS: Hell, I actually LIKE Operation TIPS. Most of the complaints about it are way overblown. It's really nothing but a giant 'Neighborhood Watch' program. Still, funny is funny and this is funny =)
The Evil Fog 'O'Death: I find this story to be interesting for a couple reasons...
"A two-mile-thick cloud of pollution shrouding southern Asia is threatening the lives of millions of people in the region and could have an impact much further afield, according to a U.N.-sponsored study.
It said the cloud, a toxic cocktail of ash, acids, aerosols and other particles, was damaging agriculture and changing rainfall patterns across the region which stretches from Afghanistan ( news - web sites) to Sri Lanka.
The lives of millions of people were at risk from drought and flooding as rainfall patterns were radically altered, with dire implications for economic growth and health."
Notice that they said the evil, toxic, fog 'o' death is over ASIA, not the United States. So while we have environmental whackos claiming that the United States is the prince of environmental darkness because of global warming that may or may not be happening, and that may or may not be caused by man, Asia is dirtying up the planet with minimal comment. Furthermore, this isn't something that might be a threat in 50 years if the environmentalists haven't changed their minds and decided that the planet is cooling instead of warming again, this pollution is causing big problems now...
"...The report calculated that the cloud -- 80 percent of which was man-made -- could cut rainfall over northwest Pakistan, Afghanistan, western China and western central Asia by up to 40 percent.
Apart from drastically altering rainfall patterns, the cloud was also making the rain acid, damaging crops and trees, and threatening hundreds of thousands of people with respiratory disease.
Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen -- one of the first scientists to identify the causes of the hole in the ozone layer and also involved in the U.N. report -- said up to two million people in India alone were dying each year from atmospheric pollution."
We have millions of people dying, drought which is leading to famine, and general atmospheric higgledy-piggledy being caused by this pollution and this won't get 1/50th of the coverage or concern that Kyoto got. That's because it's no fun to complain about nations like China and India when you could be whining about the nation your college professors blames for everything that's wrong in the world -- the United States. Of course, there's ALWAYS another agenda environmentalists are looking to promote...
"...A spokeswoman for environmental group Friends of the Earth ( news - web sites) said urgent action was needed.
"Actions must include phasing out fossil fuels and replacing them with clean, green, renewable energy and tough laws to protect the world's forests"
Ah, let's go back to the good old days when horses and bicycles were everywhere and we lived in log cabins! But don't worry, today's unabomber style shack will have windmills and solar panels that will provide you with all the power you need...unless it's dark or the wind's not blowing. But that's what scented candles are for! Besides that three hour ride to and from work on your bike each day will do you some good you capitalist pig! Death to technology & progress! Windmills and Ralph Nader forever!
Why Blacks Should Vote Republican: I'll grant you that the Republican party isn't the right choice for every black American. If you believe in group identity politics, view everything through a racial prism, are ultra-sensitive to perceived racial slights, are for Affirmative Action, racial set-asides for minority businesses, & reparations then you are probably better off voting Democrat.
On the other hand, if you're Conservative, own a business, want school vouchers, are sick of having the government take so much of your paycheck in taxes, and want criminals in jail instead of walking the street, then you should be voting Republican. Now when you break down the numbers, about a 1/3 of America's black population probably falls into this group and yet Republicans only pull roughly 10% of the black vote? Why is that?
First off, if you're black and you vote Republican you're probably going to get called an "Uncle Tom", "self-hating", & told that you "want to be white" among other things. That's because if you don't like your life, blaming other people for it is a lot easier than taking responsibility for how things are turning out and doing something about it. So if you're claiming "victim status" based on the color of your skin and other people don't, it makes you look pathetic in comparison. Between people with that mentality and race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who make a living off of stirring up racial strife, you can expect a lot of criticism if you're black and you vote Republican.
Also, there is a genuine belief amongst some people in the black community that Republicans are racists and actually DON'T WANT blacks in the Republican Party. Well there certainly are racist Republicans, I wouldn't deny that for a second. But once you get down to it, I don't think there's a dime's worth of difference between the attitudes towards race of Republicans and Democrats. In fact, the Democrats may be worse. If the Democrats will openly support an ex-kkk member like Robert Byrd, I don't even want to know what they say behind closed doors.
Unfortunately, since blacks vote Democrat overwhelmingly, there are very few black elected officials who are Republican. That can and will change over time as more blacks start voting Republican and running for office. But even with the small number of blacks who vote Republican, there are some prominent black Conservatives out there. Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court, Condi Rice and Colin Powell are powerful and influential members of Bush's cabinet, & JC Watts is the #4 guy in house (although that will end with his retirement). Columnists like Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams are all popular and well-read Conservative columnists. Williams is even a fill-in host on the Rush Limbaugh show (which could never be the case if a large number of Conservatives were truly racists).
To sum it all up, if you're black and Conservative you should be voting Republican. Don't let a bunch of chumps calling you names or the Democrats propaganda machine scare you away from voting the way you know you should. The Republican Party is always looking for more members and whatever your race is you'll be welcomed at the door.
"Mideast Experts Say That Arafat, 72, Really Is A Little Light In His Combat Boots": Apparently the Weekly World News has gotten tired of writing about the delightful antics of "Bat Boy" and has decided to have some fun at the expense of terrorist thug Yasser Arafat. The WWN says Arafat is gay and they're claiming they have a photo to prove it...
"We have identified the kissee as Arafat’s longtime lover, a lieutenant named Habib Mahfoudh,” said a CIA source who leaked the photo exclusively to Weekly World News."
They also took this gratuitous cheap shot at old scruffy & smelly as well...
"Arafat’s homosexuality goes back decades,” says biographer Ali Nasser of Cairo, author of the upcoming book, The Private Life of Yassir Arafat.
“His real first name is Mohammed, but as a boy he earned the nickname Yassir -- meaning ‘easy’ in Arabic -- because he so willingly gave his body to male suitors.”
I would pay $100 to see Arafat's face if a CNN reporter quoted that last line to Arafat and asked him if he could confirm or deny whether that story was true.
The Top 10 Questions The Saudis Are Asking Their Al-Queda Captives: Iran just shipped 16 members of al-Queda off to Saudi Arabia for questioning. Laurence Simon was wondering what kind of questions the Saudis were asking their al-Queda captives? Probably something along the lines of...
Told Ya So: On Thursday I bemoaned the fact that the press was destroying Steven J. Hatfill's life by painting him as the guy who probably was sending anthrax through the mail. Well Hatfill has now spoken out about this issue and his comments echoed my own...
"Reporters bang on Steven J. Hatfill's door at all hours. An Internet Web site labels him "Steven 'Mengele' Hatfill, Nazi swine." Cable talk shows routinely discuss whether he is last fall's anthrax mailer. And twice, the FBI has very publicly swept into Hatfill's Frederick apartment."
"Hatfill was once a highly respected researcher and teacher of biological warfare. Now he is doing neither. Since February, he has lost one job and been suspended from another. He had seemingly dedicated his life to combating biological terrorism, but his has become the leading name in the investigation into the most dramatic act of bioterrorism that America has ever seen."
"...I went from being someone with pride in my work, pride in my profession, to being made into the biggest criminal of the 21st century, for something I never touched," Hatfill said. "What I've been trying to contribute, my work, is finished. My life is destroyed."
Hatfill's life is being ruined by the media and they have been deliberately leaving out a key fact in their rush to judgement...
"In fact, Glasberg said, when Hatfill worked at the Army bioresearch lab at Fort Detrick, "he did not do anthrax work. Steve has never worked with anthrax. He has never cultured anthrax. He has never handled anthrax."
Hatfill never even worked with anthrax! Doesn't that seem like a relevant fact that should be included in any article about him? But that would undermine the media's attempt to create a sensational story wouldn't it? Maybe this guy will turn out to be guilty, but he may also be innocent. Considering that he hasn't even been charged with a crime, we should not even know Hatfill's name at this point. Too bad the media hasn't been responsible enough to balance the damage they can do to innocent lives with their desire to break a story.
Ego-Tripping: You can never hear too many compliments like this one from Curmudgeonly & Skeptical ...
"I think John Hawkins is Blogdom's best. His Welfare For Seniors piece is illustrative of his ability to - as does Rush Limbaugh - validate what many people already think, and do so with style and, quite often, humor."
The Guide To Promoting Your Web Page: If you're a webmaster who just can't seem to get anyone to look at your page, this is an article you have to read.
