Ghostbusters: Second Coming Of Gozer Imminent by Rip Rowan: According to a press release by Dr. Peter Venkman of Ghostbusters, Inc., a second coming of the ancient Sumerian god Gozer is "days or weeks, not months or years" away.

Ghostbusters, a paranormal elimination company based in New York, was responsible for the 1984 protonic reversal of Gozer when the ancient God made its last Earthly appearance.

"We are quite confident that Gozer the Gozerian, a.k.a. Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, and the Traveller, is prepared to return to Earth at any moment," explained Venkman. "All of the signs are here."

Ghostbusters technical analyst Dr. Egan Spengler explained the reason for the concern. "We've seen this sort of thing before. Total Reality Inversion. It's the same phenomenon we saw last time Gozer arrived."

Dr. Raymond Stoltz continued, "You have Tony Blair turning into a warmongering hawk. George W. Bush becoming a nation-builder. Saddam Hussein being trusted by liberals. The French siding with the Russians. Germans categorically refusing to make war!"

"Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!" concluded Venkman.

The team could not predict where the second coming of Gozer was likely to take place. However, all were in agreement that if the Destructor should choose to materialize in Baghdad, that would be "pretty cool."

If you liked this satire by Rip Rowan, you can see more of his work at the Skeptician.

The 15 Most Commented Upon Posts Of 2003: I thought you might be interested in seeing the 15 posts that have drawn the most comments so far in 2003. Here they are with the number of comments made in ()...

(43) Feeling A Little Hot, Cold, Or Just Right ? Then It's Probably Global Warming

(45) Our Tax System -- The Flatter The Better

(47) Political Rhetoric Or Insanity?

(49) Q: Why Did The Frenchman Try To Cross The Road? A: Just To Get In The Way Of Traffic

(51) Anti-Americanism Is Nothing New

(51) British Bizarro World

(51) Country Music Suggestions Needed

(54) Does The Left Really Believe In The UN?

(61) The Pro-Saddam Rallies

(61) The State Of The Union Speech

(61) Can We Call You Unpatriotic Now That You're Rooting For Your Own Country To Lose A War?

(66) Wife Beating -- Saudi Style

(76) Human Shields Aren't Going To Stop Anything

(88) The Democratic Underground Post Of The Day

(103) Mumia Abu-Jamal's Story

Email From A Reader: Here's an email I received today from RWN reader Ben Murnane along with my response...

John,

Ben

===

Ben

Usually I don't even bother to respond to emails like this, but in your case I'll make an exception.

We saved the French in WW1, we liberated their country in WW2, we rebuilt their country after the war with the Marshall Plan, we took over for them in Vietnam & in backing Israel, we shielded them & the rest of Europe from the Soviets for almost 1/2 a century, we took care of the Serbs, the French will benefit when we get rid of the global terrorist network & quite frankly, the United States, not the UN and not Europe, is the only thing keeping half the planet from exploding into war. So yeah, I'd say France owes us just a little gratitude and support.

Even if France did oppose the war, they didn't have to participate. They could have simply said, "We don't agree, but do what you have to do." Instead, they've bent over backwards at every opportunity to try screw us and our allies. They've been fighting us every inch of the way at the UN, they've been doing everything diplomatically in their power to rally other nations against us, and they've tried to undercut Tony Blair.

I do agree with you when you say that, "re-naming fries, and pouring French wine down the drain" are "side-splittingly ridiculous" symbolic gestures and I don't approve of them -- I approve of real measures. Canceling contracts with French companies, putting tariffs on French products, and encouraging our allies not to do business with France.

That's not meant to be "vindictive and spiteful," it's meant to let the French people and the rest of the world know that there are real costs to acting like an enemy of the United States when American lives are at stake. The French people who elected and support Chirac may hold Americans in contempt & they may not appreciate what we've done for their country and the world, but I think they'll understand what losing billions of dollars worth of trade will mean -- and so will the rest of the planet.

As to the rest of your email...

"Europe has experienced Total War in a way that the US will hopefully never have to."

Really? Ever heard of the Civil War?

"And Schroder didn't run an anti-American campaign last German election, what he did do was run an anti-war campaign. It's entirely posible to like America and dislike certain policies."

You are right that it is "entirely posible to like America and dislike certain policies," but Schroder did run an anti-American campaign as did Roh Moo-hyun in South Korea. Then when it was over, both of them wanted to let bygones be bygones -- no thanks. No foreign politician should be allowed to spit in our face and then try to tell us that it wasn't personal once they've won the election. We're nobody's doormat and now that we're talking about moving our troops out of Germany and South Korea, maybe more people will come to understand that.

As to Bush's "you're with us or against us statement," he was right to make it. At the time he said it, 9/11 was still fresh in everyone's mind and we were getting lots of cooperation. But, Bush knew that once the shock wore off, things were going to change. Hell, we get precious little appreciation for handing out billions in aid and coming to the rescue of nations that are being menaced by their neighbors, so there was no reason to expect that we were going to get long-term help from our "allies." Real friends don't need to be coerced into helping in a crisis, but by my count, there have been exactly three nations that have been with us all the way that have been loud and proud about it -- Australia, Britain, and Israel. Everyone else has either come with us reluctantly or not at all. I can live with the nations that have sighed and pouted, but have come with us anyway. But as far as I'm concerned, any nation that isn't "with us" after America has been attacked & is at risk, isn't a friend & doesn't deserve to be treated as such.

Last but not least,

"I hope this forthcoming war will be short and relatively bloodless, and that democracy really does take seed in Iraq. If that happened, it really would be the best thing for the world."

Dittos to that.

Random Jottings:

-- The latest thing that French apologists have come up with is, "You people are bashing the French, but they helped us in the American Revolution! Oh and do you want to give the Statue of Liberty back?" Let's see, roughly 220 years ago the French helped us revolt against the Brits and about 105 years after that they gave us the Statue of Liberty. That being the case, isn't it time that the French took a break from their customary treacherous weaselry and gave us a hand? I guess they've decided to take a hundred years off this time around, but maybe they'll make it up to us in the 22nd century.

-- I've seen some Brits out there who seem to be wondering if America appreciates their contribution in the upcoming war. Let me be the first to tell you that we do. The Bush administration has tried to send that signal as well by going through all this fan dancing to support Tony Blair at the UN and more notably by putting 2000 US troops under British command in the war. I can also tell you that the American people genuinely like and more importantly, RESPECT Britain more than any other country in the world. A lot of nations talk the talk, but when it's time to walk the walk there's no nation I'd rather have with us more than the Brits.

-- Before the rest of the world gets jealous, we appreciate the rest of our allies too -- especially Australia, Israel, & Spain, as well as the Poles, Czechs, Latvians & the rest of the "New Europeans."

-- This part of a William Hague editorial was so exceptional that I thought it deserved more attention...

"But now Americans are roused once again. They suffered on 11 September an attack on their own soil more devastating to human life than Pearl Harbor itself. Europeans sympathized, but they did so in the manner of sympathizing with a friend who has suffered a bereavement. Americans actually experienced the bereavement. Pre-emptive warfare is their response, and if it had been Canary Wharf or the Eiffel Tower that had been reduced to dust, such a policy would be cheered to the echo."

-- A lot of people have asked me, "Hey, how do you get all of those interviews with well known authors & columnists?" Well, I have this amazing technique that I use -- are you ready for this -- I write them an email and ask them to do an interview =). I know it's earth shaking -- but what people don't see is all the people who turn me down or ignore my emails. That list includes Andrew Sullivan, Jesse Lee Peterson, David Horowitz, Christopher Ruddy, John Douglas, Joseph Farah, Jonah Goldberg, Neal Boortz, Matt Drudge, & Ann Coulter among others. You win some & you lose some -- but the important thing is to keep going forward anyway.

-- You may not know this, but Orianna Fallaci "captured" four Iraqi soldiers in the Gulf War. She tells the story in her latest column...

"(I)n 1991 the Iraqi army deflated like a pricked balloon. It disintegrated so quickly, so easily, that even I captured four of its soldiers. I was behind a dune in the Saudi desert, all alone. Four skeletal creatures in ragged uniforms came toward me with arms raised, and whispered: "Bush, Bush." Meaning: "Please take me prisoner. I am so thirsty, so hungry." So I took them prisoner. I delivered them to the Marine in charge, and instead of congratulating me he grumbled: "Dammit! Some more?!?"

-- If you want to know why we did so poorly in Vietnam despite having outrageously high kill ratios and never losing a major battle, you have only to read the following clip from an article about Air Force pilot Ed Rasimus' experiences in Vietnam...

"Mr. Rasimus is a patriot in his quiet way, but he's not sentimental about the work his country sent him to do or about the manner in which he was supposed to accomplish it. Over North Vietnam, it was OK to attack a missile site if it fired at him but not if it was still under construction. He wasn't allowed within 20 miles of the China-Vietnam border, nor could he attack the North Vietnam seacoast, which was reserved for U.S. Navy fighter-bombers.

On one mission, he and his $15 million aircraft were risked in an attempt to destroy 50 barrels of petroleum--about as much fuel as his F-105 burned in the attempt. Returning to Thailand with flak holes in the wing and hydraulic systems gone, he had to report his troubles as a "mishap" because officially there were no warplanes in Thailand, hence no battle damage was possible."

-- Let me give the Dems some credit for forcing James Moran out of his leadership position. They may not do the right thing all that often, but they did in this case. Plus, as an added bonus it'll make all the anti-Semites go nuts. I may have to hit some of the Nazi/racist boards this week-end to see if I can find some nice paranoid ranting about how this proves the Jews really run America for a Monday edition of ACPOTI (anyone can post on the internet).

PS: If you run across a bunch of Nazis, Islamo-Fascists, lunatics, conspiracy theorists, or ultra-leftist kooks, feel free to email me about it. I'm always looking for new ACPOTI suggestions.

-- From a Hans Blix interview with MTV...

"To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict."

Here we are, quite possibly days away from war and the UN's Head Weapons Inspector seems to be primarily concerned about whether it's going to be warmer or not 50 years from now. It just boggles the mind...

-- RWN reader Lee M. Weinberg pointed out an error in a Reuters piece that talks about Saddam's gift of $245,000 to "(f)amilies of Palestinians killed by Israel ." The problem with that is that this money is going to families of suicide bombers who killed themselves and took innocent Israelis with them. Maybe that's a small point, but it irritates me nonetheless to see Reuters talk about these people like they were victims instead of psychotic terrorists.

-- An email from RWN reader Calodin. I loved the Tim Allen comparison...

I stumbled on your site, or rather the old one (Brass Knucles) when i started playing Utopia and wanted to know everything about Utopia. And i have now followed your website for a couple of years.

I have been following the US-Allies/UN/IRAQ thingy closely, and all i have to say is that the US and it's allies are doing what everyone around the whole world is afraid of doing, which is DOING THE RIGHT THING. The EU and the whole lot of peaceniks that are opposing the war does not have the GUTS to do what is needed.

The Peaceniks are somewhat like the guy Tim Allem played in Home Improvement. He means well when he does all the repairing, painting and power tools stuff himself. But in the end, he only makes a mess of everything cos he's dumb, near-sighted and generally an *ssclown who does not admit he is wrong. The US is the bearded guy who actually knows what he is doing, has the skill to do them and will do it to cover the back of Tim.

What the US (Mr. Bush) is trying to do is to cover our *sses for the future, not wait untill everything is a big mess and then do damage control.

Thank you, your country for what they are doing."

James Zogby's Credibility Is Shot: Before the 2002 elections, I questioned whether we could trust James Zogby's polls which showed the Democrats doing very well in the 2002 Senate elections while all the other major polls showed the opposite. Here's what I said the day before the election...

"While I haven't written him off completely, I have started to question some of Zogby's numbers lately because he's such an outspoken advocate for the Palestinians. Anytime a supposedly impartial pollster starts very publicly taking sides on a divisive issue, any issue, I have to wonder if it'll start to show up in his work. If you buy into Zogby's numbers, you should be VERY optimistic about the Dems chances tomorrow."

Well, as we all know the Democrats didn't have a great day, so the doubts I had about Zogby remained. Well, as I perused the Charlotte Observer, I just couldn't believe that Zogby actually did this...

"A group of Davidson College kids saw the face of Iraq on Wednesday, and it wasn't Saddam Hussein.

Zogby has hosted the English-language television program more than 11 years on Abu Dhabi, a large television network based in the United Arab Emirates. He decided to organize a special edition of the show after hearing spirited discussion during a recent on-campus debate about the Iraq conflict."

Excuse me, but how the hell can you have any kind of meaningful "discussion" with Iraqis who at best will be killed if they criticize Saddam Hussein and at worst might be tortured to death along with their families? What else can they do except say whatever they think Saddam wants to hear? To present this as some sort of real "debate" or "discussion" is absolutely despicable and disrespectful to these Iraqi students who might as well have guns to their heads while they were speaking.

Furthermore, how can you trust the polling data put out by by someone who is willing to try to portray propaganda of the worst sort as the open and honest opinion of the Iraqi people? If he's ready to go this far and be this blatantly dishonest, how can anyone trust the numbers in his polls? Zogby should be ashamed of himself and furthermore, everything he says and every poll he puts out from this point forward is suspect as far as I'm concerned.

***Update***: I need to clear up some confusion. A lot of people are mistaking James Zogby, who I wrote about in this post, for his brother John Zogby. John Zogby is the President and CEO of Zogby International (the famous polling company) and James Zogby is a senior analyst for the firm. Since they have similar names and are both involved with and frequently discuss Zogby polling data, it's easy to confuse the two of them.

Paleocon Fantasies: As I read Pat Buchanan's most recent demented ramblings, I had an epiphany about the Paleocons and their belief that America would better off if we closed off our borders, became isolationists, and abandoned the idea of free trade.

What Buchanan and the rest of his ilk are doing is engaging in pure fantasy comparable to leftists who believe that Communism could work, "if the right people were running it." Most Americans, Conservatives in particular, have a strong isolationist streak. However, most Conservatives are also practical enough to see why free trade is better than protectionism in most cases and why protecting our interests abroad is better than isolationism.

This of course doesn't sit well with the Paleocons who have had their fantasy rejected. So these people come up with scapegoats to explain why people aren't interested. The Commies demonized capitalists & Buchanan and company have a tendency to demonize Jews and "Neo-Conservatives" (they apply the term to basically all Conservatives who disagree with them).

I know many Conservatives are reluctant to criticize Buchanan and the rest of the Paleos because they do believe in many of the same things that mainstream Conservatives do. However, the things they're wrong about are too big & too important to ignore.

In Buchanan's case, most of the material on his wretched and misnamed, "American Conservative" magazine is nearly indistinguishable from the sort of rubbish churned out on ultra-left wing websites like Counterpunch.

Personally, I've had about enough of Buchanan and his 1930s style Conservatism and I'll be glad when he's finally discredited enough to stop getting TV time.

Patriot Speaks: This screed from the comments section of The Left, The Flag, & Patriotism post was so whacked out that I thought it was worth writing about on the main page. The funny thing is that I've drawn so many weirdos to RWN by making fun of them in the ACPOTI section that it's hard to tell if this guy is serious or not...

"People who come to this site need to free their minds. Read truthful sites, not some CIA disinformation agent "John Hawkins." Free your minds. The corporate fascists are taking this country to ruin so they can make money. They own all media, so you only know what they want you to know. None of you will know how many Iraqis will die in the war. No one will know the truth. They are all right, the flag stands for war, greed, and evil. America has never helped anyone. The world would be alot better off if the territorry of the United States was ocean, i.e. America never existed. All you "patriotic" people are nothing but slaves to multinational corporations who will kill you when they don't like what they say. My friend was found dead with her cell phone in her hand. The bush junta can kill people through their cell phones. I never give anyone my cell phone number. All you corporate dupes need to look around and do better things to do than criticize people willing to speak the truth."

CIA Leaks Again: Shhh! Don't Tell Bin Laden By Scott Ott: U.S. and Pakistani intelligence authorities are asking the public not to tell Usama bin Laden or any of his followers about all the information they're leaking to global news organizations.

For example, USA Today ran a story revealing that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's laptop computer has a list of locations of several of Mr. bin Laden's 'safe houses.'

"That's the kind of thing we don't want anyone to tell bin Laden," said an unnamed U.S. agent at a news briefing. "We definitely don't want him to know that we know where he might go next. So, please keep this information between yourselves and your readers, viewers and listeners."

The agent went on to explain that the hunt for al Qaeda's leader is the most important intelligence operation ever mounted and secrecy is crucial. He pointed to a map of the Baluchistan region indicating where U.S. agents are currently searching, and handed out a list of GPS coordinates for each search team.

He was about to discuss the CIA's greatest vulnerability when a phone call interrupted the news conference.

Cupping his hand over the cell phone, the spokesman said, "It's that Saudi Prince who's helping us search. If bin Laden knew that some of his best friends are squealing like pigs, he'd have a conniption."

If you liked this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

Impeachment Campaign Commercial #2: According to Roll Call, "John Conyers assembled more than two-dozen prominent liberal attorneys and legal scholars on Tuesday to mull over articles of impeachment drafted against President Bush by activists seeking to block military action against Saddam Hussein."

Like the draft proposal, this has no hope of succeeding and it could very well backfire on the Dems. Last week, I came up with one potential campaign commercial relating to this issue, but here's another one just to show you how Karl Rove and company could turn this sort of thing around to hurt the Democrats in 2004...

(There's a playground with lots of laughing children-- a voice says) "Our nation is under attack by terrorists who hate our way of life and are willing to go to any lengths to harm our country. Some of them may even be planning to murder our children."

(Video footage recovered from Afghanistan comes up on the screen -- a picture of a masked gunman firing at cardboard cut-outs representing teachers and students comes up on the screen -- voice speaks) "This footage of Al Qaeda storming an abandoned school was found in Afghanistan." (Cut to AK-47 toting Al Qaeda members skulking around and some other fighters rappelling down the side of a building -- voice speaks) "When people want to hurt our children, we've got to do whatever it do what it takes to stop them. President Bush understands that."

(Cut to footage from President Bush speaking in his Sept 20, 2001 speech) "We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network."

(Cut to picture of John Conyers -- voice speaks) "But, Democrats like Congressman John Conyers don't feel the same way as President Bush. They want to impeach our President for protecting America from terrorism. But, if they manage to get President Bush out of the way, what will happen to our country...and to our children?"

(Cut to footage from the above mentioned video that shows the following, "Sit," a hooded terrorist yells to the children, who shriek in horror. "Don't move, don't move," he says. The children are made to kneel and place their hands on the walls while adults stand with hands raised and are frisked....The camera then zooms in on a terrorist, who stomps on a child. -- Fade to Black)

(Up on the completely black screen comes red lettering that says, "Reelect George Bush in 2004" and a voice says) "George Bush -- he'll do whatever it takes to defend our country"

Freedom Fries Aren't Going To Cut It: France has spent the last few months vigorously thrusting their knives into our backs at every opportunity. Yet, they're already laying the groundwork to try to get back into our good graces. Here's French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte...

""We don't see participation in Iraq's reconstruction as a privilege," said Mr. Levitte. "We see it as a moral duty."

The ambassador predicted it would be years before any new Iraqi government could fully exploit the country's oil reserves, and that the United States faced the choice of funding the massive humanitarian and infrastructure challenges alone or with allies.

The bill "will be huge," he said. "We consider it would be done better under a United Nations umbrella, as is being done in Afghanistan now."

In Germany, Schröder ran a campaign entrenched in anti-Americanism and then joined with the French in betraying us in the war on terrorism. Yet, they think they can just "fix" that after they've gotten the maximum benefit out of screwing us over...

"In the last week or so, German officials, including Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, have tried to send messages that when the war with Iraq is over, and even during the war, Germany - since the late 1940's traditionally America's closest ally on the Continent - will show its loyalty and that good relations will be restored.

It seems that German officials, clearly worried about the anger in Washington, are saying, Let's not exaggerate the importance of this one issue."

South Korea has been playing these same little games. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun ran an anti-American campaign while his country held anti-American rallies and put up signs in their restaurants saying that Americans weren't welcome.

Disagreement between "allies" is just a fact of life and you have to allow for it. But, when you have nations like France, Germany, and South Korea playing up anti-Americanism and putting American lives at risk, it means that our country is being taken for granted and we need do something about it other than coming up with new names for food in the Congressional cafeteria.

While I don't think we should make any big changes until we've dealt with North Korea's nuclear program, I do want to see us move our troops out of South Korea and I wouldn't have a problem with actually ending our military alliance with them. There is absolutely no reason that South Korea shouldn't be fully capable of defending itself against North Korea without our help and I see no reason to continue defending a nation that obviously doesn't have an appropriate level of gratitude for our help.

With Germany, we should move all of our troops to bases in "New Europe." If Germany loses a few billion dollars in trade because of it and has to spend more money to defend their borders (which is something that may alarm some of Germany's neighbors by the way), so be it.

As far as France goes, let's kick them out of NATO (and yes, we can make that happen) and then start looking for ways to harm their economy. You'd be surprised at how many Frenchmen we could put out of work by blocking French companies from getting government related projects, with a few tariffs on French products, and by letting governments friendly to us know that we'd be very pleased to see their dollars go somewhere other than France.

When other countries take us for granted, put our nation at risk, or try to fan the flames of anti-Americanism, they should have to pay a big price for it. Otherwise, they're going to keep doing it over and over and other nations will follow their example.

Why Don't You Want To Join The ICC -- What Could Ever Happen?: Ever since the Bush administration shot down the International Criminal Court I've seen plenty of conversations that go about like this...

Concerned Conservative: The International Criminal Court is a threat to our sovereignty. You know that we'd see lots of politically motivated prosecutions of American politicians and troops...

Left-Wing Internationalist: Har, har, har! You Conservatives are so paranoid! There are lots of safeguards to prevent American soldiers from being unfairly treated & signing up will prove that we're not unilateralists. There's nothing to worry about.

Ahem -- Fast forward to a story in today's Independent...

"Ministers face the real prospect of waging an illegal war, which could lead to British soldiers being prosecuted by the newly constituted International Criminal Court (ICC).

...But potential sentences of life imprisonment for soldiers acting on the orders of the Prime Minister will have concentrated the minds of the Government's law officers. Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar's human rights committee, said British commanders would have to "adapt a very different attitude to their American colleagues so they can justify every military act of attrition against every target." He said it could cause real difficulties in joint actions between the forces."

So if let's say Saddam puts all kinds of military hardware in a civilian area and a Brit accidentally kills an innocent knocking it out, he -- not Saddam -- may have to go up on charges. Uh-huh -- what do you want to bet that no Frenchman who accidentally kills some civilian fighting rebels on the Ivory Coast will ever have to go up on charges? But luckily, we're not hampered in the way that the Brits are...

"But because America and Iraq are not signatories to the Rome treaty, which created the ICC, their soldiers are immune from prosecution."

Since the ICC won't be able to get the grand prize (Americans) they'll have to settle for the Bronze (the Brits) until the Israelis give them an excuse to persecute them.

Aren't you glad Bush didn't commit us to that sham court?

In My World: Robot Spiders Almost as Hostile to Questions as Rumsfeld By Frank J.: "War could be any day now." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld exclaimed, "I've told my troops to start killing a few Iraqis each day to warm up."

"Shouldn't you be solemn and reserved about the horrible prospective of war?" asked a reporter.

When the pistol-whipping was over, another reporter asked a question. "You seem to say you're willing to go to war without the help of the British. Is this true?"

"Iraqis continue to breathe air each day, and this is an insult to us all. I can't be expected to wait for anyone before I begin to end this atrocity. The way we kill them it will probably be too bloody for those crumpet eaters to stand, anyway."

"Are you concerned about the U.N. Security Council vetoing the new resolution?"

"Let me be clear: the U.N. is dead to me, and, if I have my way, it will soon be dead to everyone. That said, anyone who vetoes something the U.S. supports vetoes their own life. The children of tomorrow will sing many sad songs about those who oppose us today."

"Did you see that 60 Minutes segment with President Clinton and Senator Dole on Sunday?"

"No, but I shot the first reporter who asked me about it," Rumsfeld said as he drew his luger and shot the reporter. "For the last time, keep your questions about war!"

"Aren't you afraid that our new belligerent attitude might have a bad affect on kids these days?"

"Poppycock. Kids these days need to be tougher. I keep hearing about how kids can't even bring a knife into school anymore. Back in my day, we had a rifle club at our elementary school, well stocked with ammo. Good thing too, because it was the only way we survived that onslaught on ten thousand Zulu warriors who attacked us one year. We kept firing on them, and they kept coming as if there was no end to them. Eventually, we ran out of ammo and had to resort to pegging the Zulus with dodge balls. Lost my best friend that day when he chucked one and a Zulu caught it. It was a horrible day, but the teacher sill didn't delay the math test I hadn't studied for."

"Anyway, I think it's time for my presentation now," National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, stepping forward. "I guess you have all now heard of our 21,000 pound MOAB." A picture appeared on screen of one of the bombs. "This is one that is about to dropped on a real target in a new attempt to intimidate the Iraqis."

"Where is it being dropped?"

"That's classified."

"Why's it say 'Veto this, you frogs' on the front of it?"

"That's also classified." A dummy was brought out that looked like Saddam Hussein. "Here is our new assassination device," Rice explained, placing a spider like robot on the ground. "It zooms in on the target's voice pattern."

Inside the dummy, a tape player was started. "I am Saddam. I like hiding weapons of mass destruction. The French are my friends." With a loud screech, the robot jumped on to the face of the dummy and exploded.

"I was the one who decided to make it screech," Rice said proudly. "So you can get a better look at these, we have now filled the press room floor with them." The reporters looked down, and indeed the floor was swarming with little spider robots.

"Is there any chance they could attack the wrong person?" asked a very frightened reporter.

Rice thought about that for a moment. "That's a good question. I'll look into it."

Another reporter started to speak, but a loud screech followed by an explosion was heard.

"Uh oh," Rice uttered, "Everyone better just keep real quiet right now."

Rumsfeld watched all the reporters standing completely still and silent. "This is the best press conference ever. Well, I'm going to go grab a scotch and see if my war's started yet. Condi, you try and clean this up without killing too many reporters."

"Cleaning is the janitor's job. Why don't I just lock the doors and call it a test case?"

"Have fun!" Rumsfeld said to the reporters as he and Rice went through the back exit of the room, "If you have any more questions about whether this war is unjust, ask them to the spiders."

If you liked this satire by Frank J., you can read more of his work at IMAO.

The Left, The Flag, & Patriotism: You know, the flag is nothing but a symbol of America. The majority of people who display it on their cars or fly it over their homes, do so simply as a show of respect and admiration for this great nation in which we live. That's not propaganda or political spin, that's just how a lot of people in this country feel.

Furthermore, in and of themselves, your political party and views on the war have nothing to do whether you're patriotic or not. For example, if you said, "Who's more patriotic: a pro-war Republican or an anti-war Democrat?" My response would be, "There's no way to know with just that information."

That being said, why are there so many people on the left and in the anti-war movement who have their patriotism questioned? Could it be because well -- there are many people on the left and in the anti-war movement who are not all that patriotic? For example, I mentioned the flag. I want to post just some of the responses from members of the Democratic Underground when they were asked, "Will you still fly the flag?" (to be fair, there were more than a few people at the DU who didn't agree with these sentiments)...

Rampant lion: Yes indeed, i'll fly the flag of scotland, britain, the EU, canada, nederlands, germany, france.... but the american one is a shame... it symbolizes nothing except lies, bigotry, hatred and war. Perhaps when it means something positive, i might have one around.

thermodynamic: Upside down, with blood and oil stains on it. Maybe a letter "W" somewhere, but I don't think that's necessary. Fake blood, too - something that looks like blood. The real stuff dries to an icky brown color, not entirely distinguishable from oil...

Mari333: I have the French flag and the UN flag on my pole now... they represent me better then anyone could at this moment.

otohara: Don't Have One, Won't Buy One why, so I can be like my red-neck neighbors across the street. Who fly thier big flags, but regularly break the rules on water conservation.

ImanAtheist: no. this is NOT a country to be proud to be a part of.

latebloomer: I'll continue to proudly fly my Earth Flag
I have never been an American flag waver. That flag has had too much blood on it from the very beginning. Those who think that it symbolizes freedom and justice should read "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. We need to evolve as a species and get past this petty nationalism that is responsible for so much death and misery. someday, maybe it will be.

redeye: Yeah sure. Several of them. One, is the US flag, upside down (maybe I'll burn or tear it a little, too). Two, is the flag of California. Three, is the flag of Cascadia. Four, is the flag of the EU, which is currently the world's paradigm of internationalism. Five, is the peace flag, for pretty bovious reasons.

librarycard: The flag is not that important in other democratic countries Neither is the anthem, though both were obsessions in pre-WWII Germany, as was the Soviet flag ever present in occupied lands.
Why is the flag an obsession in the US?

starcade: Flame me if you must, but I am definitely considering burning it... The flag is no longer representative of the nation for which it once stood. A more proper American flag for our times would replace the 50 stars with corporate logos. Otherwise, fly it upside down. We are in international distress.

I hate to break it to the left, but if they're stereotyped as being unpatriotic, it's not because of some brilliant propaganda campaign dreamed up by Republican spin doctors, it's because people have heard things like the above over and over again from the left and they're still hearing it....

Answering 50 Frequently Asked Questions About The War On Terrorism: 1) Is this a rush to war? Not at all. We're working on the 19th UN Resolution since the Gulf War related to Iraqi disarmament. Furthermore, Bush has been talking about Iraq for more than a year. You could even go back to Bush's speech nine days after 9/11 in which he said,

"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."

Given that, there's no way anyone can credibly claim we're "rushing to war".

2) Is it a war for oil? No, this is no more a war for oil than WW2 was a war for cheap electronics from Japan. We're not going to gain anything economically by invading Iraq that we couldn't just as easily gain by simply lifting the sanctions. Even if Iraq had no oil, they'd still be our target. You can get more info on this subject by reading editorials here and here. (Cont)

The Questions I Ask Myself About The War On Terrorism: When you face a tough decision, it's always a good idea to know the pros and cons of what you're about to do. Well, that has been done to death when it comes to the invasion of Iraq. At this point, just about every war related argument, point, counterpoint, cliche, slogan, and insult has been made, hurled, and shouted ad nauseum. In fact, I've even been trying to talk about things other than war lately (with only minimal success) because there's not much else to say at this point other than, "Enough talk -- Let's Roll."

That being said, there is one aspect of the war on terrorism that has not been adequately explored or debated and that is, "what happens if we don't invade Iraq & allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power?" There have been some pro-war people who have touched on the issue, but it has been like kryptonite to Superman for the anti-war crowd. Let me lay down a list of things I see happening if we were to forego invading Iraq. Keep in mind, I consider all of these things to be likely scenarios although the time period they occur in may be a bit different than I have listed here...

1-2 Years
-----------

-- Sanctions are lifted from Iraq & Saddam gets close to developing nukes or does so.

-- North Korea starts producing 20+ nukes a year and selling them to the highest bidder (if we're not willing to deal with Iraq, what makes you think we'll be able to stop N Korea?)

-- Iran acquires nuclear weapons or gets close to doing so.

-- Al Qaeda moves the majority of their operation to the "terrorist belt" (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the Disputed territories, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan).

-- Many Islamic nations stop cooperating with us in the war on terrorism or at least only cooperate minimally.

-- The United States will be hit with multiple terrorist attacks.

3-5 Years
-----------

-- Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, & perhaps Libya all develop &/or buy nukes. Once one has nukes, all of them will try to acquire them.

-- The United States will be hit with multiple large scale terrorist attacks possibly featuring WMD.

-- Europe's assistance in the war on terrorism will almost cease. This is because they'll recognize that the US can no longer be relied upon in a conflict and because with their mediocre millitaries, appeasement and hoping the "wolf will eat them last" will be their best bets.

5-10 years
-------------

-- One of the surrounding nations will fire a nuclear missile at Israel and Israel will retaliate by wiping out that country or even by wiping out many of the population centers in the region.

-- Either by accident or design, terrorist groups will acquire nuclear weapons and will use them in multiple cities in the US and in other nations arounds the world.

I don't think those are farfetched scenarios either. Up until this point, the world has been fairly successful at keeping the nuclear genie bottled up. Sure, the Soviets may have been evil & ruthless, but they were rational as well. While they were willing to take some losses to achieve world domination, they weren't going to risk being wiped out in a nuclear exchange with the United States to do it. The same goes for China.

But in the last decade, the crazies in North Korea have gotten their hands on the bomb. Pakistan, an unstable nation that has semi-regular coups & fights periodic wars with India also has nukes. Now we have Iraq & Iran working on nuclear programs to boot. These are not nations that can be trusted with nuclear weapons and if we allow these weapons to spread, especially to terrorist supporting nations, they are going to be used -- quite possibly against us. Maybe before 9/11 you could be excused for thinking "that can't happen here," but no one has that excuse anymore.

Now people bring up all kinds of consequences that we may have to face if we do what it takes to win the war on terrorism. The UN may be gravely damaged, our relationship with Europe may suffer, the amount of anti-Americanism may rise around the world, etc, etc. When I hear that sort of thing, I weigh it against waking up one morning in say 2009 & hearing that NYC, LA, Chicago, and Dallas were all just obliterated by nuclear weapons smuggled into our country by terrorists.

So you know what you need to ask yourself? Is it more important that we may damage our long-term relations with France or that we may see mushroom clouds floating over our cities? Should we be more concerned about killing civilians while we're liberating Iraq or one day reading about millions of dead Americans who have been vaporized in nuclear attacks?

That's what I ask myself when people start talking about the negatives of invading Iraq. As far as I'm concerned, if it's constitutional, and it's not worse than seeing American cities disappear under mushroom clouds, I'm willing to see our country do whatever it takes to win the war on terrorism.

The New UN Logo: Thanks to Rip Rowan at The Skeptician for coming up with a more appropriate logo for the UN and allowing us to post it on RWN...

Now that's truth in advertising...

Mumia Abu-Jamal's Story: Many of you have probably heard left-wingers saying that we should free Mumia Abu-Jamal, but you may not know his story. Well, Ralph R. Reiland did a column yesterday that gave a pretty good synopsis of why this cause celebre of the left is in jail. I thought it was worth sharing since Abu-Jamal has been getting a lot of anti-war movement related attention of late...

"Writing from death row, ex-Black Panther minister of information Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted murderer of 25-year-old Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, adds another colorful analysis, saying that America's impending war in Iraq is simply a case of white capitalists killing for oil: "The U.S. really could care less for the people of Iraq, its Kurdish minority, 'weapons of mass destruction,' or any other pretexts it offers as justification for war. It cares about the dark, slippery ooze beneath the sands of Iraq, and it wants to wage war to control its flow and distribution. Human blood for the long-dead remains of dinosaurs!"

Officer Faulkner died from a bullet to the brain, a bullet from Abu-Jamal's registered pistol. At the crime scene, Abu-Jamal was apprehended a few feet away from Faulkner's body, a bullet fired from Faulkner's gun in his chest."

You may not think that the left will ever have any luck getting this piece of human debris out of jail, but they have done it before. Many of you may not have heard of Jack Henry Abbott, but his story is similar to Abu-Jamal's in many ways.

Abbott was in jail for a bank robbery & the murder of another inmate. But, he started sending missives from jail to Norman Mailer who published the letters in a book called, "In the Belly of the Beast: Letters from Prison." I read that book many years ago and even I will admit that it was brilliantly written. However, after Mailer and others managed to get Abbott paroled, he stabbed someone to death six weeks after he was released from jail. Abbott's story ended last year when he hung himself in his prison cell.

I hope the left won't "succeed" with Abu-Jamal the way they did with Abbott, but then I'm more concerned with the rights of victims and their families than I am about giving cop-killers a second chance.

In My World: Bush and Chirac Personally Supervise Inspections By Frank J.: In an effort to prove whether Iraq is actually disarming, President Bush and President Chirac went to Iraq to personally watch Saddam as he destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.

"You aren't going to get anything past me, Saddam," Bush warned, "I know you're not disarming."

"Why are you Americans so mean?" Saddam asked, sounding quite hurt. "Here I am, clearly destroying my anthrax." He then threw another bag labeled "Anthrax" into the furnace.

"Did I hear that bag meow?" Bush asked. He then opened one of the bags. "These bags aren't full of anthrax! They're full of cute little kittens!"

"Whaaaat!" Saddam exclaimed, slapping his hands to his face ala Macaulay Culkin. "I thought those bags were full of anthrax!"

"I knew Saddam would do everything he could to undermine this disarmament! He's so evil he's burning kittens alive!"

"Nonsense, you silly American; inspections are working!" Chirac declared. "Now that Saddam realized he is burning the wrong bags, he can get to destroying the real anthrax."

"Don't rush me," Saddam said, measuring some chemicals, "I'm not done making it yet."

"He's making biological weapons as we speak!" Bush yelled, "I told you this disarmament is bull."

"You stupid warmongering American; I spit on your mother," Chirac said as he put a flask on a Bunsen burner, "Why won't you let the inspections process take its course?"

"You're helping him make it!" Bush said, getting steaming mad. "I'll murder you both!"

Bush began to reach for the Colt .45 at his hip, but Karl Rove whispered, "Diplomacy! Diplomacy!" into his ear and he settled down.

Saddam walked over to a nearby detonator. "Now I'm going to destroy my missiles just like I promised."

Chirac patted Saddam on the head. "What a good evil dictator. Not so crude like a certain current American President I won't mention." He then turned up his nose at Bush.

Saddam pressed the plunger, and an explosion was seen nearby.

"Why are children running away from that explosion?" Bush asked as he squinted to get a better look. "Those aren't missiles! You're blowing up the playground equipment at the orphanage! You're a monster!"

"Whaaaat! The orphanage!" Saddam yelled, looking really really surprised. "Who wired these explosives? This is the most ridiculous thing ever!"

"Inspections are working!" Chirac cheered, doing a little French dance. "I haven't yet come up with an explanation of why this means inspections are working, but just give me a minute more."

"You better destroy the real missiles right now!" Bush demanded.

"Alright," Saddam answered, "but then I think the U.N. should disarm America of it's weapons of mass destruction, such as its nuclear missiles, it's daisy cutters, and its Donald Rumsfeld."

Chirac shuddered. "Don't mention that name in front of me; such a rash and angry person. So how do you plan on destroying the missiles, Saddam?"

"I think I'll launch them at Israel."

"There is much support for that at the U.N.," Chirac stated. "Hey, I'm starting a new U.N. commission on hating America. You should head it after this silly disarmament thing is done with and the Americans are laughed at like the fools they are."

"Diplomacy! Diplomacy!" Karl Rove shouted at Bush, but it was too late.

* * * *

"Bush's beating of Chirac and Saddam with a sack full of kittens has created an international incident; will any apologies be issued?" a reporter asked.

"The President has already sent a written apology to the kittens," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer stated.

"Kittens can't read."

Fleischer rolled his eyes. "The President is not a zoologist. He can't be expected to keep track of which animals can and cannot read."

"So does the president have anything else to say?"

"Nothing more than his usual weekly proclamation of his complete and utter contempt for the press. Oh, and he bet me five dollars I couldn't hit one of you in the eye with my pen." Fleischer then flicked his pen at the reporters.

"Ahh! My eye!"

"Bullseye!"

If you liked this satire by Frank J, you can see more of his work at IMAO.

Democratic Congressman: I Blame The Jews!: Rep. James Moran, D-Va took a page from the loony white supremacist, conspiracy freaks in a March 3rd speech and blamed the Jews for the upcoming war with Iraq...

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this.

...The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

Oh yeah, the Jews run everything in the US. That's why almost 70% of Jews vote for the Democrats and yet, the GOP controls the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and has a majority on the Supreme Court.

But, I'm sure Moran's comments will please all the tinfoil hat wearing, frothing at the mouth, backwards, radical Islamists and white supremacist nutballs who'll be approvingly quoting Moran to support their distorted view of the world. Thanks for encouraging these people Congressman Moran -- I'm sure they'll be pleased to know they have at least one person in Congress who shares their views.

Tears Of The Sun Review: I caught "Tears Of The Sun" this week-end and I can't say that I was terribly impressed. The movie was set in Nigeria which was supposed to be in the middle of a violent coup complete with savage ethnic cleansing and genocidal murder sprees (think Rawanda). A team of SEALs led by Bruce Willis is sent to get some missionaries out of the country. Unfortunately, things start to go wrong at that point. Three of the missionaries refuse to go and the other won't go unless the SEALs take 30 or so Nigerians from with them. Let the mission creep begin! So Willis does decide to take the Nigerians with them and plans to leave them when he gets to the drop point, a decision that nearly gets them all killed. Things get progressively worse from there as Willis decides to take all the Nigerians to Cameroon which leads to an army of Nigerian rebels trying to hunt down the SEAL team and the civilians in order to slaughter them.

The action scenes in the movie, other than the outstanding "village scene", were mediocre and cartoonish, especially towards the end. You got to see SEALs running directly towards unknown assailants who were firing rockets at them, lots of shooting at clumps of grass that might or might not have had anyone behind them, and a handful of SEALs out in the open desperately trying to hold off 40 or 50 men at close range in a scene that reminded of the massive bloodless firefights in the A-Team TV series. Furthermore, there was almost no character development. The SEALS are little more than skilled killers, the Nigerians are personality free people in trouble, and the bad guys are simply automatons who exist for no other reason than to be shot and killed by the SEALs.

The other thing that bothered me was that I got the feeling that the movie was trying to give the impression that Willis was doing the right thing by trying to get those Nigerian civilians out of harm's way, but truthfully, it was a huge mistake. So they saved thirty Nigerians -- was it worth American lives to do it especially when another 5000 people were probably being slaughtered at the same time in locations all over Nigeria? I don't want to give away too much, but at the end we have Africans saying, "oh we'll love you forever" to Americans and you know what I was thinking? "Sure you will -- in 6 months you'll be cursing America for not giving you big enough bags of rice." Watching a bad movie is one thing. But, watching a bad movie featuring a SEAL leader wasting his men's lives on a largely futile mission and then having the movie act as if it's a commendable thing just makes it that much worse. This movie gets a big thumbs down.

Marcy Kaptur -- Campaign Issue For 2004?: Last week, Marcy Kaptur got into trouble -- at least with Republicans -- for saying that,

"One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown."

While the GOP was livid about that, I didn't hear a single elected Democrat or prominent left-wing editorial columnist step up to criticize her sickening comments. Furthermore, the Congresswoman is standing behind her what she said. According to the Toledo Blade...

"U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur said yesterday that not only does she not regret comparing Osama bin Laden to American Revolutionary War figures, she's happy for a greater platform to criticize the Bush administration's handling of the brewing conflict with Iraq."

Well, since she wants greater platform, we at RWN are happy to help her out by keeping the issue alive. Here's a little a graphic I put together for the occasion...

The Music I'm Listening To Right Now: Just for entertainment value, here is the current playlist I'm listening to right now...

- Dixie Chicks -- Landslide
- DMX -- Ain't no sunshine
- Jars of Clay -- Flood
- Jennifer Lopez -- Jenny from the block
- Lost Prophets -- Shinobi vs. Dragon Ninja
- OkGo - Get over it
- PEarth -- Suck it up
- Pennywise -- F*ck authority
- Powerman 5000 -- Drop the bombshell
- Puddle Of Mudd -- She hates me
- Quarashi -- Mr. Jinx
- Run DMC -- Rock box
- Shedaisy -- Lucky 4 U
- Silverchair -- Tomorrow
- Touch and Go -- Straight to number one
- Touch and Go -- Will you go to bed with me
- Train -- Drops of Jupiter
- Wheatus -- A little respect
- Wheatus -- Punk *ss b*tch
- Wheatus -- Teenage dirtbag

Dont Believe On American Democracy! Is A Farse!! Your People Will Be A American Slave, Like On Porto Rico And Mexico: I was a little surprised to get another ICQ message from Doug (name changed to protect the dopey) tonight. At the end of my last ICQ prank, I did give him my web page URL and I had changed all of my ICQ details back to normal. But apparently, he didn't visit the website and either he has an old version of ICQ that doesn't refresh details or he just thought I was putting in fake details for some reason. Either way, he seemed none the wiser when he talked to me. Near the end of the ICQ prank, his brother got on ICQ and I continued things with him for a while. Read and enjoy...

PS: Keep an eye out for the little tributes to Animal House, MIB, & the Simpsons that I slipped in there.