Week-End Humor: I'm taking the week-end off but before I go, I wanted to give you a little satire to laugh at over the week-end...

Scrappleface chimes in on the comparison of Bush to Hitler by Gerhard Schroeder's justice minister...

"Daubler-Gmelin said she was encouraged that her praise of Bush had elicited such a rapid and positive response.

"Hitler was the most wise, beloved and popular leader the German people have ever known," she said. "Bush is a genius for using one of his tactics. Like I said, it's a classic, and the German people are embracing him for it. If only Bush were a German citizen, I'm sure he would quickly become Chancellor."

The Chortler has a possible solution to the voting problems in Florida...

"Fearing a repeat of 2000's "dimpled chad" recount fiasco and the recent confusion during the state's primary elections, Florida officials asked both Fisher-Price and Playskool to submit proposals on how they would eliminate the guesswork from the voting process.

Playskool's plan was based upon its popular Poundin' Bedbugs toy. This system, however, in which a vote would be cast by pounding the plastic head of the candidate of choice with a small hammer, was rejected on the grounds that it would be far too complex for most Florida voters."

Tim Blair has a great idea for a "United Nations Statue"...

"My suggestion: a gigantic statue of Robert Mugabe ordering Zimbabwean farmers to flee or be killed while UN supplicants applaud. It would be a reverse Statue of Liberty, serving to remind humanity of the values we oppose."

Last but not least, The Schmews says Microsoft XP has a new 'war against terror' upgrade...

"One beta tester, Hugh Lansbury from Eugene, claims he was shocked at some of the suggestions offered by his version of Word.

"I was happily writing a passage about the impact of John Lennon on the peace movement and hit the spell-checker when all of a sudden, the paperclip highlighted the word peace and suggested that "only regime change in Iraq could bring peace." It freaked me out, so I quickly typed a passage about the failings of unilateral action when up he popped again and suggested that "unpatriotic prose is a disease and perhaps I should rephrase my paragraph"

The Usual Questions About Iraq: I'm a big Victor Davis Hanson fan. In fact, I'm right in the middle of his fantastic book 'Carnage and Culture.' So when I saw that he'd written a column on something I was planning to address, 'The usual questions about Iraq', I thought it was better to link straight to the words of the master. Here are just a couple of the replies Hanson gives to some of the questions that have been often heard about our coming invasion of Iraq...

Won't the Islamic world turn on us?

That constant refrain has now joined the annals of conventional ignorance alongside "the Arab street," "a Ramadan ceasefire," "universal jihad," etc. We should have learned by now that anti-American fundamentalists find resonance with their countrymen only when they are not in power and can distort the people's frustrations with autocrats. When they rule, they fail miserably, and incur hatred for themselves.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are an interesting pair of antitheses, are they not? The former has a hostile regime and a friendly populace; the latter has a purportedly friendly government and a hostile citizenry. Democrats are on the move against fundamentalists in Iran; fundamentalists are on the move against autocrats in Saudi Arabia. Surely that should tell us something - that fundamentalists like autocracy and hate democracy. Dictatorial Pakistan has an Islamic fundamentalist problem; democratic India, with its larger Muslim population, less so. The end of the Cold War, the rise of westernized Arabs, the spread of democracy, and instantaneous global communications all suggest that we may well be successful in crafting consensual government in Iraq - which could prove the most revolutionary act of the last 30 years. Should this war be couched in terms of the liberation of the Iraqi people, Iraqis may well react in jubilation, as did the Afghans - sending a message that we really are on the side of the region's disenfranchised, and not of cabals like those of Arafat, the Saudi sheiks, or the Egyptian strongmen who have looted their countries and jailed and killed dissidents.

But didn't we back Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran?

That is often alleged, but the record suggests that our amorality was more a question of hoping that both sides would wear each other out. Recall that the Iranians had just seized our embassy, taken hostages, and pledged death to Americans; under such circumstances, why wouldn't we gain psychological satisfaction at seeing our enemies attacked, even if by equally odious thugs? Allying ourselves in 1941 with the Soviet Union - a regime that had just killed 20 million of its own people - to stop Hitler was a far greater moral quandary. Giving a third of a million trucks to the architect of the Great Terror and the Gulag seems as morally ambiguous as providing some helicopter training for Iraqi pilots. In war you rarely find allies with clean hands; and so, again, conflict is always a matter of bad and worse choices."

You can read the rest of Hanson's column by clicking here.

How Serious Is America About Border Control?: First of all, we have a newspaper writing a sob story about how an ILLEGAL ALIEN can't afford tuition at college...

"On August 11, the Denver Post ran a front-page story on one Jesus Apodaca, a bright and charming young man - with a 3.93 grade-point average, no less - who wants to go to the University of Colorado but can't afford the tuition. The reason he can't afford it, you see, is that he's an illegal alien, and illegal aliens have to pay out-of-state tuition rates."

Well Congressman Tom Tancredo was naturally a bit perturbed by that since illegal aliens are by definition breaking the law....

"...Tancredo seemed to think that flaunting illegal status on the front page of the state's largest newspaper - with a photo no less - was a little much, and so last week he called the Immigration and Naturalization Service and asked what they were going to do about it."

So what happened? The media starts taking potshots at Tancredo...

"The media/political class has responded as you might expect. One columnist slammed "law-and-order sanctimony," another called Tancredo's effort a "cynical ploy," while a third quoted Clarence Darrow to call the congressman a "moron." A Rocky Mountain News editorial compared him to Inspector Javert from Les Miserables, "the literary symbol of doctrinaire and unfeeling justice," as the editors helpfully explained. Never to be outdone in the looniness department, the Libertarian-party candidate for Tancredo's seat actually called him a Nazi."

Illegal aliens are criminals who have no respect for the laws of our country and the have no right to be here. Ideally, the INS should have hunted down Jesus Apodaca, kicked in his door, slapped handcuffs on him, and then shipped him back to Mexico.

I know you may think that's "mean" but let me explain to you where I'm coming from...

If we allowed anyone who wanted to come to the United States to become a citizen, we'd add tens of millions of new citizens every year for the foreseeable future and we simply cannot handle that many immigrants. If you accept that truth, then you understand that we either have to completely forbid immigration or limit it somehow. We as a nation have chosen to limit immigration. So if we are going to limit immigration, we have to set a certain number of legal immigrants that we'll accept per year. While I think the number we currently have is far too high, we do have a limit set. Once we've set a limit, we need to enforce it or it is meaningless.

That means people like Jesus Apodaca need to be rounded up and shipped out of our country. Not only because it's the law, not only because allowing Jesus Apodaca to stay in the US is unfair to tens of millions of people waiting to LEGALLY come to the United States, but because it's in the best interests of the United States to keep foreigners who don't respect our laws outside of our borders.

Why Should Reading Be Required To Graduate?:The latest editorial at JWR from Joanne Jacobs provides more ammunition for those of us who are for school vouchers...

"Des Moines public schools should give diplomas to students who can't read, argued Jim Patch, a candidate for school board. A shop teacher for 40 years, Patch was endorsed by the teachers' union.

"How can we take a bright kid that is having trouble reading and tell them, "You can't graduate?" Patch asked. "If they are doing well in other subjects, are we going to tell them they can't get a high school diploma?"

How is it that a bright kid could get 12 years of education without learning to read? Could it be that he was taught by teachers like Mr. Patch who apparently don't even put a high priority on teaching children to read? But wait, it's gets better...

"If diplomas are withheld, "we could have a lot of future architects and doctors out there that aren't going to graduate," Patch said in an interview.

...In a radio interview, Patch said that CEOs of major corporations don't need to read well because they can dictate letters. Illiterate police officers could use a Dictaphone too, Patch said. Later, he decided that maybe cops should be able to read."

Is this what our public schools are coming to? A bunch of dumb ex-shop techers who are so out of touch with reality that think the illiterate kids they taught are going to somehow become architects, doctors, & CEOs? Moreover, the teachers' union endorsed this clown so we have to believe that Patch isn't alone in his view. The fact that our public schools are riddled with mediocre teachers and school board members like Jim Patch should be a source of shame to everyone affiliated with our public education system. But, do you know what's worse?

Patch was elected to the school board last week.

Misc + BKW: Well I finally took Brass Knuckles Webzine off of life support today. BKW is now pointed at RWN. That means anyone who goes to BKW ends up here. For those of you coming over from BKW, nice to see you here. We do have the best of BKW's humor along with a few interviews and 'special' articles from BKW as well.

I've gotten 10 days behind in answering my email. Between BKW and RWN I've been getting like 15 emails per day and they built up fast. I should have replies out to everyone by midnight...

We're always looking for new link trades. If you want to get a permalink on RWN, just ask. I don't care about traffic, I just have to like your page.

I take Saturdays and Sundays off so after I finish updating today the next RWN update will be Monday. Have a great week-end.

America's Green Fifth Column By Tom DeWeese: As America's military deploys troops, armor, planes and ordinance to bases in the Middle East surrounding Iraq, they will do so after years of fending off another kind of attack, one by the massed forces of environmental organizations that have done everything in their power to reduce and restrict the ability of our military to train its soldiers, sailors, marines and
airmen.

A Green Fifth Column has waged its own war on this nation's ability to be ready for war on land, sea and air, seeking through legislation and litigation to thwart the training of our military forces and hinder the development of new weapons systems. It is the largely untold and unknown battle of environmentalists versus the US military. (Cont)

Imperialists By Necessity?: I read a post today by Eric Raymond at Armed and Dangerous and I felt a need to respond. Eric wrote the following...

"...There's a word for the process of conquering a third-world pesthole and imposing your culture on it. It's called imperialism.

If Pearl Harbor was good enough reason for us to conquer Japan and run it like a proconsulate until the Japanese learned manners, then 9/11 was damn good and sufficient reason for us to do the same number on the Islamists. That meant Afghanistan, it means Iraq, and down the road it may mean Saudi Arabia as well."

I'll grant you that the global terrorist network is an outgrowth of militant Islam which is itself being fed by the stagnant culture of the Middle East. However, imperialism is not the way to deal with that problem.

Imperialism is not only morally wrong, it is diametrically opposed to every ideal that America strives to obtain. As Reagan said, "(T)here is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest." I believe we are militarily capable of conquering the Middle East and imposing our will on them. However, I would not advocate doing so. Not only because of Europe's failed experiments with imperialism, but because it's wrong in the same way that the Soviets were wrong for conquering Eastern Europe and trying to impose their values. While I will say without hesitation that American culture is far superior to that of any other nation in the Middle East (w/ the exception of Israel), I do not believe in imposing our culture at the point of a gun unless it is a necessity. If our culture is truly superior, over time it will be adopted.

Some people may argue that we cannot afford to wait for Western culture to take root in the Middle East and up to a point, I agree. I am fully in favor of using our military to force regime change in any nation that insists on threatening the United States by continuing to support terrorism. Moreover, if we have to invade these nations, the prudent and moral thing to do is to hang around, enforce order, and help the people of these nations build better lives for themselves. I say that not only because leaving decimated nations behind us may lead to further conflicts in the future (think Germany after WW1 and Afghanistan after the Soviets destroyed it in the Afghan-Soviet war) but because it is the right thing to do.

However, the difference between invading a nation because Americans may die if we don't and invading simply to change their culture is in my mind as wide as the difference between killing in self-defense and first degree murder. The America I know is not a imperialist thugocracy that forces other nations to accept our culture whether they want it or not. Instead, I believe in a different America. An America whose culture people emulate because they CHOOSE to do so. An America that Ronald Reagan described as a city on a cliff,

"And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home."

Whether you let people walk to that beacon of their own free will or force them towards the beacon at the point of a gun makes all the difference.

Iraqi Forces Move to Civilian Areas: How many times have you heard someone criticize the US for collateral damage? Probably more times that you can count right? But how many times have you heard those same people criticize this type of behavior...

"Iraq has moved small numbers of military forces into civilian areas in what some Pentagon officials interpret as a precaution against a possible surprise U.S. aerial attack, officials said Thursday.

...Iraq has moved small numbers of military forces into civilian areas in what some Pentagon officials interpret as a precaution against a possible surprise U.S. aerial attack, officials said Thursday. "They're just masters at manipulating the press and putting out disinformation," Rumsfeld told PBS' "News Hour with Jim Lehrer." "They're already moving military units and elements next to mosques and next to hospitals and next to schools so they can claim that the coalition has done all these terrible things. It's an old pattern."

So here we have the Iraqis doing everything possible to put their own civilians in harm's way and suddenly the critics fall deaf. Do you hear any human rights groups or European diplomats demanding that Saddam move his troops out of civilian areas? Did any of these people criticise the Taliban for not wearing uniforms, storing weapons in civilian areas, and dispersing their men in villages?

Most estimates put the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan in the 500-1500 range. But had the Taliban not worked so hard to make their own civilians into targets, the number of innocents who died would have probably been less than a hundred.

Collateral damage is an unavoidable consequence of war. But if our enemies tried to minimize civilian casualties instead of maximizing them, the number of innocent people killed would drop precipitously. Could lives have been saved if the Taliban had been criticized for these practices? Is it possible that Saddam is so desperate to get good press in the West that he would stop using his civilian population as 'human shields' if he thought it would help his image? It is doubtful, but possible. But since the anti-war left is much more interested in criticizing America than taking potshots at Saddam for deliberately risking his people's lives, it's likely that we'll never know.

Germans Comparing Bush To Hitler?!?!?: This is the straw that broke the camel's back with me as far as Germany is concerned....

"The regional Schwaebisches Tagblatt newspaper quoted German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's justice minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, as saying "Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler used."

So now we have Germans comparing us to Hitler so they can score points with their anti-American constituencies? We should make Germany and Schroeder pay a price for this. If it were up to me, we'd call our ambassador home, close the German embassy in the US and tell Schroeder and the rest of the Germans that they can drop dead as far as we're concerned. They're worse than useless as far as the 'war on terrorism' is concerned anyway right? So let's send a little message to the world via Germany. Let's let everyone know that foreign politicos are not going to get away with demonizing Americans in general or our President in particular without damaging their relationship with America.

**Update**: In our comment section, John K asks, "What and how would be a good way of average people to officially protest what that official has said?" Sending an email to the German Embassy would be a good way to start.

**Update #2: Herta Daeubler-Gmelin backtracks after feeling the heat, "The minister said she called U.S. Ambassador Dan Coats earlier Friday to make it clear that she had not made the reported comparison. "I want to contribute to clearing away shadows, if there are any," she said."

Sure you didn't say that Herta...

"The chief editor of the Schwaebisches Tagblatt said Friday he stood by the remarks as reported, insisting that several witnesses had confirmed Daeubler-Gmelin's choice of words. The editor, Christoph Mueller, also said his reporter had checked the wording with Daeubler-Gmelin herself when she telephoned to clarify her remarks."

Update #3: An email I received...

"I am organizing a letter writing campaign to let German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin know just how insulted all Americans and people in the Free World are at her comparison of President Bush to Adolf Hitler. Right now she is trying to weasle out of what she said by claiming that she only compared President Bush to "Adolf Nazi." Excuse me, Frau Daeubler-Gmelin, all Americans know who "Adolf" was. Remember, it was America and her Allies who defeated "Adolf."

Frau Daeubler-Gmelin is a lawyer and former law professor. Hmm, that reminds me of another politician who was a former law professor who had trouble defining the word "is."

Frau Minister Prof. Dr. Herta address, phone, and email are as follows:

Adresse:
Platz der Republik 1
11011 Berlin

Telefon: 030 - 227 73335
Telefax: 030 - 227 76147
E-Mail: herta.daeubler-gmelin@bundestag.de

If you can help spread the word, I'd greatly appreciate it.

All the best,

William Grim"

Say Goodbye To The UN And Hello To The League Of Nations: The Independent is claiming that the UN is going to give Saddam a year to get his act together...

"The United Nations is likely to throw into disarray America's war plans for Iraq by introducing a timetable for weapons inspections that could give Saddam Hussein a breathing space of almost 12 months"

Furthermore, according to the Independent, UN inspectors won't even be able to start working until March...

"Nailing down a schedule for the inspections will be the primary objective of the new resolution on Iraq that Britain wants to see passed in the Security Council before 30 September. On that date, Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, is due to start talks with Iraqi officials in Vienna on practical arrangements for the return of his teams.

Mr Blix is not expected to be able to begin serious deployment of inspectors and their staff before the end of October, a process likely to take two months. Thereafter, an existing Security Council text on Iraq - UN Resolution 1284 - stipulates that inspectors will need 60 more days to decide on what they need to do on the ground. The inspections proper would only begin, therefore, in early March, and last six months, until the end of August.

There's absolutely no way W. is going to even wait until March to hit Iraq, much less another year. Interestingly enough, even the lefties at the Independent understand what will happen if we hit Iraq after the UN has said we have to wait...

"Britain's global influence depends largely on its permanent seat at an effective and respected UN Security Council. The organisation will be shunted into irrelevance, diplomats fear, if President Bush unilaterally goes to war."

Apparently the UN didn't think Bush was serious when he said...

"We created a United Nations Security Council, so that - unlike the League of Nations - our deliberations would be more than talk, and our resolutions would be more than wishes."

"...We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well"

If the UN is really this dumb, they're going to be making the mistake of a lifetime and I can't say that it bothers me one bit. The only thing that could be better than destroying part of the global terrorist network by putting Saddam out of business would be getting rid of Saddam AND cutting the UN's hamstrings at the same time.

Follow-Up To Peace In Our Time: As America and a handful of allies bravely confront a global terrorist network that may soon be capable of murdering millions of people, most of the world seems determined to mimic Neville Chamberlain's failed policy of appeasement. With that in mind, it's well worth our time to review Chamberlain's 'Peace in our time' speech. This speech was given shortly after Chamberlain and the French knuckled under and allowed Hitler to take the Sudetenland province of Czechoslovakia. In return for selling out his ally, Chamberlain received a worthless piece of paper called the Munich Pact which was signed on 9/29/1938. Chamberlain had this to say after signing a deal with the devil,

"We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again."

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep"

On 10/03/1938 Chamberlain gave the speech linked above. Roughly six months later, Germany took Czechoslovakia. Less than a year after the signing of the 'Munich Pact', WW2 started when Germany invaded Poland.

Even Robert Fisk Knows Saddam Isn't Serious: President Bush has made it clear that he's very skeptical of Saddam Hussein's offer of "unconditional inspections" and guess who agrees with him? None other than Robert Fisk! As I was wading through the sea of blithering idiocy that is the latest Fisk column, I was surprised to read this...

"No wonder the United States was whingeing on about "false hopes" yesterday. No wonder the Americans were searching desperately for another casus belli - be sure that they will find one - in an attempt to make sure that their next war keeps to its timetable. Be sure, too, that Saddam, that master of the post-agreement conditional clause, will have a few surprises for the UN inspectors when they do turn up in Baghdad. Will the UN boys be allowed to visit the Beast of Baghdad's palaces? Will they be waved through all checkpoints when they want to visit Tuwaitha or any of the other horror factories in which the Iraqis once cooked up their biological weapons?

But for now, the Americans have been sandbagged. It will take at least 25 days to put the UN inspection team together, another 60 for their preliminary assessment - always assuming they are given "unfettered" access to all Iraqi government facilities -- then another 60 days for further inspections. In other words, George Bush's latest war has been delayed by more than five months. Saddam, of course, must have his own worries. Back in 1996, the Iraqis were already accusing the UN inspectorate of working with the Israelis."

If even Robert Fisk can figure out that Saddam isn't sincere and that this is nothing but a delaying tactic, what excuse do members of Congress or people at the UN have for being fooled?

The US-UN Divorce? Let's Hope So: Whigging Out had this to say about the rift Saddam's lame offer for inspections is starting to cause between the US and the UN,

"You read the prediction here first that the unseemly US-UN marriage and honeymoon was kaput as of last night. Now those first fruits of discord are showing up publicly and I suggest everyone go out and get a bottle of good champagne. Let us celebrate the gift of freedom from that sh*t@ss (oops, that's so undiplomatic a term) organization."

If wouldn't bother me a bit if the UN didn't support us. It would make them look impotent, foolish, and totally irrelevant when we go in without them. Then after Iraq is liberated, it'll become obvious that Saddam had tons of chemical and biological weapons, has extensive terrorist ties, and was well along towards building a nuke. From then on, we'll forever more be able to point at Iraq as a perfect example of why we shouldn't pay any attention to the United Nations. Sure I wouldn't mind the help, but long-term, the precedent of hitting Iraq after telling the UN to get lost would be useful as well.

We're Building A Pipeline Where??!?!: This is a dark day for the 'war for oil' contingent of the tin-foil hat brigade. You remember them don't you? They've been telling us for almost a year that 9/11 was only a convenient excuse for us to invade Afghanistan. Our real purpose was to get the Taliban out of the way so W, Dick Cheney & the oil companies could build a pipeline across Afghanistan that would carry oil from Caspian. Well they're building a pipeline, but it isn't going through Afghanistan...

"U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham joined the presidents of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey on Wednesday for what he called "one of the most important energy undertakings" - the start of construction of the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline"

But if the pipeline is going through Turkey and Georgia that must mean that the US got snookered somehow since according to the 'war for oil' people we wanted to build the pipeline through Afghanistan right? Not exactly...

"It (the pipeline) has won strong support from the United States, which is eager to find a more stable energy source outside the sway of the Middle East. Aliev said Wednesday that U.S. help in championing the pipeline had been crucial."

So now that the pipeline isn't going through Afghanistan, will the 'war for oil' conspiracy freaks who were plugging this theory finally admit they were wrong?

What Your Belief About 'Motives' For Attacking Iraq Says About You: Over the course of the last year or so, quite a few people have opined that there must be some sort of sinister motive for prosecuting the 'war on terrorism' in general and for hitting Iraq in particular.

Lately we've heard every assumption in the book about why the Bush administration "REALLY" wants to hit Iraq from sources both foreign and domestic. They say it's about oil, getting reelected, finishing what Bush's father started, distracting attention from other domestic issues, adventurism, revenge for Saddam's assassination attempt on his father, general maliciousness, etc, etc, etc.

Now nine days after 9/11 Bush himself gave a speech explaining exactly what he was going to do. Here's one notable snippet from the speech that explains why we're going to hit Iraq...

"...And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Bush wasn't the only person saying those sorts of things either. Here's a quote from an editorial I wrote on 9/16/01...

"If we do not have the resolve to eradicate these terrorists and the nations that continue to support them now, then when?"

Since Bush and the rest of the pro-war forces in America have been very consistent on this subject since the beginning of the 'war on terrorism', I think questioning our motives at this point says more about the people doing the questioning than us.

Apparently these people don't think that preventing other 9/11s from happening by smashing the global terror network is worth going to war over. For whatever reason, seeing thousands of dead Americans and knowing that millions could die in future attacks doesn't really disturb them all that much. It's something they are either secretly pleased to see happen or either it's something that they are willing to live with. Because of that, they believe that Bush and the rest of us advocating war with terrorist supporting states must have some sort of an ulterior motive. Well our "motive" is preventing more 911s from happening and it's too bad that's not something everyone can get behind.

Knocking Chomsky On His @ss?: I received an email from a reader today that in part read...

"I was wondering, in all your reading, if you've ever come across a definitive refutation of Noam Chomsky. In arguing with dopey but well-meaning friends, he comes up as a source again and again and again, and I wish there was one book or series of articles that I could use to knock him on his @ss. If there's anything you could point me toward, I'd greatly appreciate it. -- Take care, Rob"

Chomsky is a one trick pony. No matter what Chomsky is talking about (usually the United States), he strips away the context of the situation and then impugns his target's motives. Let me punch up a generalized example that will show you how Chomsky works...

"A man chases a terrified teenager into an alley. As the teenager cowers in the corner, the sneering man pulls out a gun and blows him away. Pleased with his work, the man smiles and thinks about how much he loves his job."

Wow! Sounds terrible doesn't it? Well what if I add in a little context and don't assume the man is malicious? Let's see how it sounds then...

"A policeman chased a Crip who'd just shot a young girl into an alley. The Crip fired off three shots at the officer who returned fire and killed him. Other officers then arrived to relieve the officer so he could check on the girl the Crip shot."

Now was the first version a lie? Some people would say "yes" while others might simply say it was a different "interpretation" of the truth. This type of "interpretation" is Chomsky's stock and trade. Chomsky looks at any conflict the US or Israel is involved in, strips out all context that might explain what the US or Israel was actually doing, and then claims that it was all caused by our eeeevvviiilllll government. Of course, this doesn't work very well if your target audience is familiar with what you're talking about. That's why Chomsky is at his best talking about US actions in third world countries during the Cold War that most Americans are unfamiliar with.

Assuming your friends have open minds and don't necessarily buy into Chomsky's "America is the root of all evil" mentality, there are two ways to convince them that Chomsky is full of it. One is to point out his style of debate. If they start to consciously recognize what Chomsky is trying to do, they'll soon see that he often leaves out important details in an attempt to mislead his readers and he also blames the United States for almost every bad thing that happens in the world. The other thing you can do is to expose your friends to either Conservative or even "unbiased" (if you can find any =) articles that cover the same things Chomsky has discussed. Once they start to see that Chomsky has left out a lot of key facts in order to promote his agenda of anti-American hatred, they'll start to understand that he's not a credible source.

For further information about Chomsky and his agenda, you may want to read any of the following articles by David Horowitz...

Noam Chomsky's Jihad Against America

The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky

The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky: Part II Method and Madness

Thanks for reading Rob and I hope that helped.

But I Thought Iraq's Offer Had No Strings Attached?: We're one day in from Saddam's offer to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq (which in and of itself was hopelessly inadequate to forestall an attack) and already we're seeing that the offer was bogus. From today's Evening Standard...

"Iraq made a surprise offer late last night to provide "unconditional access" to United Nations inspectors, raising hopes of a peaceful outcome to the Gulf crisis.

But today it emerged that the offer only applied to military bases - which could let Saddam hide chemical and biological arms stockpiles elsewhere."

So it was all a lie, big surprise coming from Saddam huh? You know what this reminds me of? The Taliban offering to negotiate for Osama Bin Laden. "Oh we'll send him to another Islamic nation...we'll put him on trial here...send someone here to negotiate, etc, etc." It was far too little, far too late just like this offer.

Just in case you were wondering why "unconditional access" for inspections would be irrelevant anyway at this point an Arab League spokesman unwittingly explains it for everyone...

"An Arab League spokesman said only military sites were covered because it would take 10 years for inspectors to examine civilian buildings, which would divert the UN's attention from making Iraq obey its resolutions. "If the US really wants to resolve this dispute it will welcome the offer," he added."

When we know that Hussein is cooperating with terrorists today and that he may have a nuclear bomb in months, we don't have ten years to waste.

We Need The Final Fight Now!!!: Have you ever wondered what skinheads and Klansman talk about when they don't think anyone else is listening? Well you won't have to wonder anymore after reading the most hate-filled, vile, racist spew that's ever had the dishonor of being featured on 'Anyone Can Post On The Internet'. Trust me, the posts I found on the White Camelia Knights message board were so far off the charts that there were times I started wonder if it was some sort of parody website. Don't believe me? Well dig into the latest episode A.C.P.O.T.I. and you will...

The USA Does Not Exist!: I was taking a little tour of the Utopia Politics Forums looking for A.C.P.O.T.I. material and I ran across some yabbo blathering on about how we never went to the moon...

NoldoR BS: Honestly guys, do you really think that man has walked the moon? I don't. When US placed the flag on the moon, in was moving, just as if there was a wind blowing on the moon. And besides, what proves do we have that they actually were there? I just think it was some US propaganda during the cold war to show the russians.

You think Noldor is a little nuts? Well put on your tinfoil hats boys and girls because Hrothgar can top him =D

Hrothgar: Also, the USA does not exist! It is a huge European conspiracy that was created in the 1800s to lure the poorest people out of their countries with the immigration bait. They really dropped all those people off the ship into the ocean as soon as it was far enough from shore.

To this day, when you go to visit the "USA" you are just flown to a giant area of land in North America that has been constructed by the European conspirators to look like this mythical USA. I am one of the people hired by the European conspirators to pose as a so called "American".

It's all true! George Bush was created with Windows Movie Maker, our stealth bombers are made out of crêpe paper, and Chicago is actually a tiny scale model in Jacques Chirac's basement. Reveal our secrets to no one or you will face the terrible wrath of Belgium (they made our aircraft carriers out of nothing but papier-mâché and thread).

Iraq Is Allowing Inspections? Doesn't Change A Thing: Before anyone gets too excited about Iraq allowing weapons inspectors back in, remember my post from the 12th. Bush had five conditions that Iraq had to agree to in order to avoid an invasion and simply allowing inspectors back in doesn't even meet the first of Bush's criteria. Just in case you've already forgotten, here they are again...

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that he money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

Ultimately, this changes nothing.

Update: The White House responds to Saddam. Here's a quote from the White House statement that echoes what I said earlier...

"...This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions.

This is a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong U.N. Security Council action. As such, it is a tactic that will fail."

Told ya so...

Bush Launches Operation 'Shut-Your-Piehole' Against European Leaders: 'Bob From Accounting' does more funny stuff...

"Following a flurry of international criticism regarding a preemptive strike against Iraq, George Bush surprised pundits Tuesday with the announcement he was immediately launching "Operation Shut Your Piehole" against nearly a dozen whiny world leaders and United Nations officials.

..Bush also plans to target France, Germany and Italy - or as Bush refers to them, "those good skiing countries." If required, additional resources will be spent shutting up Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Louis Farrakhan and "that ungrateful little b@stard Nelson Mandela."

Read the entire article by clicking here (some offensive material on this website)

The Flight 93 Conspiracy: Like most tragic events of recent times, a myriad of conspiracy theories have sprung up about 9/11. Conspiracy theorists have blamed numerous groups for "really being behind 9/11" including the US Government, the Mossad, the Russians, the US military, and even the oil industry. You'd think that the recent confession from members of Al-Queda would be enough to remove all doubt but I'm not sure it'll even phase the conspiracy theorists.

There are also popular books from France that claim that the Pentagon was actually not hit by plane, but was really hit by a truck bomb. Of course, that has been thoroughly debunked and moreover, people like USA TODAY reporter Richard Benedetto saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

The latest conspiracy theory about 9/11 that's started to gain steam is that Flight 93 didn't crash, it was shot down. I believe I can refute this theory with a photograph. Here is one of just two pictures, both apparently taken by Val McClatchey, that I was able to find online of the immediate aftermath of the Flight 93 crash...

The interesting thing here is not what you see, but what you don't see. If Flight 93 was blown into a flaming heap of wreckage by a missile, should you not see a trail of smoke GOING DOWN as well as COMING UP from the crash site? I think that tells you all you need to know about whether the conspiracy theorists have this one right or not.

BKW Has Been Assimilated: As the regular readers of RWN already know, I have decided to kill Brass Knuckles Webzine. However, rather than letting all that material go to waste, I've moved a lot of the material from BKW over to RWN.

You will now see that RWN has 4 different humor sections and they're all loaded with material. I've also added a few new of the old BKW interviews and several new articles in the "special section." While I didn't bring over all of BKW's material, I did bring over the best of it and I think it'll make RWN a better, stronger, page.

If you run across any broken links, broken pics, errors, etc, in the new material, feel free to let me know and I'll correct it. But I hope everyone enjoys the massive amount of new material on RWN..

Quotes From Today's Civil Rights Movement: Since the 1960's the Civil Rights Movement has grown into a loathsome parody of itself. A movement that was once defined by Martin Luther King's fight against intolerance and unjust laws is today known for shakedowns of major corporations, never ending claims to victimhood, the Reparations Movement, institutionalizing discrimination against whites, anti-semitism, divisive racial rhetoric, & virulent denunciations of anyone who dares to disagree with their agenda.

Fortunately, men like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, David Horowitz, Bill O'Reilly, Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, Larry Elder, & Jessie Lee Peterson among others have spoken out against the hate speech, inequality under the law, & group think that has come to be identified with the Civil Rights movement today. (Cont)