Not Open For Business

Larry Adler - You Are An IDIOT. And So Much Worse

2012-01-22T10:12:00.002-05:00

Dear Larry Adler,

How could you do such a stupid, dangerous, harmful, selfish thing? As a prominent Jewish leader in America, you have a responsibility to the people who have raised you up. To pen an Op-Ed where you openly call for the assassination of a U.S. President is simply insane. You have lost your mandate to lead, and you should resign your position in media. Nothing within reason could ever be an excuse for your behavior.

This is an open letter to you Larry, so that you know what harm you have done to the Jewish community all over the world. People don't need a reason to hate, distrust, and want to kill Jewish people. We work our entire lives to avoid the persecution that your one letter will be certain to bring upon us. Now you have given ammunition to anyone who needed a reason to cover up the real causes of their hate for us.

Nothing you do from this point on will ever erase the repercussions of your actions. You might as well renounce your Judaism, for at this point, I don't want to associate you with my religion.

Shame on you Mr. Adler for behavior so irresponsible, it borders on homicidal.

Music As God

2011-10-25T15:54:00.003-04:00

So, I'm listening/watching a youtube video of Paul Simon singing "You Can Call Me Al" in Zimbabwe, and I'm suddenly struck with a couple of thoughts.

1. Why are there thousands of people congregating in a single place, together, to listen and dance to this music? A recording does just as good a job at playing the music, but for some reason all these people have come here to listen and share in the music at the same time. So, assuming that the reason they are all here is because the music is live...what does live music have that draws people together like this?

2. They are all here because the bandleader is leading them in dance and song. It is all but a religious experience for them; what are the differences between this event and a religious celebration?

3. People are social animals. We congregate in groups with people we consider "us" rather than "them." So we have an intense innate desire to join with people, and we also are hard wired to pray to a higher power. We as humans give our power up to a single leader, a President, dictator, etc, so that we can be a part of a community.

4. Pop music is a medium for spirituality, as shown by these trends. People join together in extremely large groups, of people they certainly don't know and thus can be considered strangers, and they are led by a single person or very few people, to achieve a certain kind of ectasy, the concert experience.

5. People are hardwired to look to a single person or small group for leadership, knowledge, religion, you name it. Bob Dylan said, "We all serve somebody", and what I think that means is that we have a need to look to somebody for answers. No matter if you are supreme dictator of the world, persay, you will always feel like there is/should be somebody above you, looking down at you.

6. And that is why people congregate for musical concerts. We allow a small group of individuals to lead us in song and dance in a way that is very reminiscent of religious ceremonies. It gives us something for our unconscious, subconscious, and conscious levels of our minds. Something that was once probably a survival mechanism.

All of the above needs more pondering

Snuffleupagus - The Villain?

2011-09-09T17:56:00.003-04:00

Snuffleupagus was always my favorite character on Sesame Street. I loved mammoths, and he was just a big furry friendly one. I can't remember if I realized or not back then that, for the most part, Snuffy was just Big Bird's imaginary friend.

And then I read this section of a wikipedia article about him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Snuffleupagus

"In an interview on a Canadian telethon that was hosted by Bob McGrath, Snuffy's performer, Martin P. Robinson, revealed that Snuffy was finally introduced to the main human cast mainly due to a string of high profile and sometimes graphic stories of pedophilia^{[citation needed]} and sexual abuse of children that had been aired on shows such as 60 Minutes and 20/20. The writers felt that by having the adults refuse to believe Big Bird despite the fact that he was telling the truth, they were scaring children into thinking that their parents would not believe them if they had been sexually abused and that they would just be better off remaining silent. On the same telethon, during Robinson's explanation, Loretta Long uttered the words "Bronx daycare," a reference to a news event on New York TV station WNBC-TV in which there were reports of alleged sexual abuse at a Bronx daycare center^{[citation needed]}. This was seen in the documentary Sesame Street Unpaved."

I mean, really?

That goes pretty far afield in terms of mass media's effect on psychology, but someone had enough clout to eventually yell loud enough to make it a reality.

Kinda makes me sad though.

Big Pharma Poised To Take Over Marijuana Industry

2011-07-13T13:06:00.002-04:00

So, a report came out that says,

""While there may be medical value for some of the individual components of the cannabis plant, the fact remains that smoking marijuana is an inefficient and harmful method for delivering the constituent elements that have or may have medicinal value," the report says""

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/11/white-house-admits-marijuana-has-some-medical-value/

Then there's this:

"Sativex is the brand name for a drug derived from cannabis sativa. It's an extract from the whole plant cannabis, not a synthetic compound. Even GW defines the drug (.pdf) as marijuana.

Yet as the FDA is poised to approve the drug for Big Pharma, state-licensed medical marijuana dispensaries that provide relief for thousands of Americans are under attack by other federal agencies.

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) has warned just as much, claiming that federal authorities may be looking to shift policy slightly, if only to legalize marijuana-based medicines for Big Pharma only, which could step in and potentially eradicate the medical marijuana market."

Thus the solution to the war on drugs was found. Just empower Big Pharma to do as they please regarding illegal drugs, and they will PERSONALLY stamp out any one trying to elbow in on their markets. They will SINGLE HANDEDLY destroy local marijuana growers and take over the industry overnight.

So yea, its okay to let corporate interests control our lives, but not farmers trying to make a buck. Love America. No, scratch that. I love human nature.

Bin Laden Blackout

2011-05-06T13:13:00.002-04:00

I'm having trouble understanding what is going on, maybe you, my loyal readers, can spell it out for me.

America was attacked on its home soil, thousands were killed.

America then entered into not one, but TWO wars, to retaliate and make us "safer".

10 years later - 1 0 Y E A R S L A T E R - we finally get the 'mastermind' behind the 9/11 attacks.

And the government is keeping us in the dark on the details.

Bin Laden is the ONE REASON we have lost our civil liberties, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, funneled trillions of lost dollars into war and murder that we desperately need for infrastructure, health care, and education...and they won't tell us what the f is going on?

I know this country became less of a republic and more of a dictatorship since Bush, but this is one of the most obvious examples. If Mr. Change Obama himself can't tell us the truth, there is no chance for the future of this country.

FAIL: Financial Regulators

2011-04-14T17:50:00.002-04:00

New York Times led with an interesting story today, about why there have been no high level prosecutions for the financial crisis of 2008.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

In essence, they say there were no prosecutions, because the regulators did not work to provide enough evidence of wrongdoing (or pretty much anything) leading up to, or during the investigations after the bubble burst.

So, does this mean that the regulators were in on it? That bribery is the reason they were so lax? Or perhaps it was institutional, and the people in charge had more to benefit from financial fraud than stopping it, so they created a task force that couldn't task anything?

I don't know. My gut says a combination of both. I do know that I, and everyone else in this country, and the world, should be disgusted by the apathy shown here. Regulators who didn't do their job were one of the major factors of the whole mess. Basically, its their fault, since it was their responsibility to stop something like this.

Heckuva job, Regulators!

Obama's Give And Take

2010-12-22T17:33:00.002-05:00

Well, the fix is in.

Obama's lame duck presidency, where he sits over two wars without actually commanding either, has seen one of it's most major trade-offs yet.

It is also indicative of where Republicans (and their supporters) really stand on some issues.

Here's how I see it. Obama caved in and re-established tax cuts, which the Republicans had basically stalled the government to see pass. (Obama's two cents, give tax cuts for ALL!)

In turn, Republicans have caved on "Don't Ask Don't Tell", the 9/11 healthcare bill, and the Nuke treaty.

A fair trade?

NYT Reports on Vitamin D - Badly

2010-11-30T11:23:00.003-05:00

Today's health watch comes, once again, from the New York Slimes, which has published a report that attempts to debunk the Vitamin D craze sweeping the nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/30vitamin.html?hp

I have heard and read several reports on the radio, online, and TV that suggest most Americans are deficient in Vitamin D, which opens the field to a host of diseases and health problems.

http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

However a new report has brought into question previous findings about Vitamin D.

"The 14-member expert committee was convened by the Institute of Medicine, an independent nonprofit scientific body, at the request of the United States and Canadian governments. It was asked to examine the available data — nearly 1,000 publications — to determine how much vitamin D and calcium people were getting, how much was needed for optimal health and how much was too much."

"The very high levels of vitamin D that are often recommended by doctors and testing laboratories — and can be achieved only by taking supplements — are unnecessary and could be harmful, an expert committee says. It also concludes that calcium supplements are not needed."

"The group said most people have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their blood supplied by their diets and natural sources like sunshine, the committee says in a report that is to be released on Tuesday."

Here's my problem. They simply reviewed medical journals and reports, and did not create any new research. They also said,

"Evidence also suggests that high levels of vitamin D can increase the risks for fractures and the overall death rate and can raise the risk for other diseases. While those studies are not conclusive, any risk looms large when there is no demonstrable benefit. Those hints of risk are “challenging the concept that ‘more is better,’ ” the committee wrote."

Umm, you are reporting something you are treating as fact that in fact is INCONCLUSIVE? How is that a good recommendation?

Then there's this:

"Some labs have started reporting levels of less than 30 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood as a deficiency. With that as a standard, 80 percent of the population would be deemed deficient of vitamin D, Dr. Rosen said. Most people need to take supplements to reach levels above 30 nanograms per milliliter, he added.

But, the committee concluded, a level of 20 to 30 nanograms is all that is needed for bone health, and nearly everyone is in that range."

Great, awesome, thank you. I am not taking Vitamin D to promote my bone health. I am taking it to promote HEART health, which is what new studies suggest D can do, as well as preventing a number of ailments that are likely if you are Vitamin D deficient. Check out that grassroots link above for more info.

Basically, what I have read is that Vitamin D plays a larger role in our health than we have known. In addition, it is difficult to OD on Vitamin D, so taking extra won't harm you.

As a North American, I simply do not get enough sunshine and thus Vit D in my system. Not to mention, who is sunning themselves in winter?

I just don't think that 1) this report is a responsible action to take and is misinforming most people), and 2) that the NYT should have blatantly printed it without any kind of other opinion. From reading the comments on this article, I'm not the only one outraged at this kind of scientific mumbo jumbo.

I will continue taking my Vitamin D supplements, thank you very much, until a CONCLUSIVE NEW STUDY tells me different. And you should too.

Thomas Friedman

2010-10-23T11:53:00.003-04:00

Thomas Friedman, you are a fucking asshole. How the fuck do you know what I'm thinking about Israel?

You are clearly an anti-zionist. You always have been, as long as I've been reading you. And you are always making stupid statements that are as far from the truth as I am from being an astronaut.

And then you go make a statement like, as read on jpost.com, "The New York Times columnist also lamented the fact that young American Jews are drifting away from Israel."

Really? How do you know that? Did you take a poll? Read a 'statistic' from the 'news organization' CNN? Or maybe your hubris has racketed up a notch, and now you think you speak for all American Jews?

You say things that purposely damage people's perspective on Israel, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and Israeli's in particular. Nothing, NOTHING you have ever written has offered any kind of positive impact on the situation. It is always deriding Israel for this, or that, and never, EVER, getting to the heart of the situation. That is what makes you most pathetic.

You have been writing for more than a decade, and you still don't know what fuck you are talking about.

From the Jpost.com, "Friedman derided Israel's calls for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish State in exchange for a renewed freeze on construction in the settlements that could revive peace talks."

Really? Now why would you do that? Don't you think that Israel being recognized as a legal and internationally recognized Jewish state would help...AT ALL?

Israel has been asking for this request for it's ENTIRE EXISTENCE. It is not tied to a simple building freeze. Which obviously has other implications than you know, since you've never delved into it.

So yea, you are a fucking asshole. You are akin to a self hating Jew. Using your legitimate platform to illigitimately demonize Israel. Get a fucking life, get a fucking clue, and stop writing, talking, and thinking, since that only does harm to the world. And to me personally.

Fucking. Asshole.

Response to NYT "Israel Without Cliches"

2010-06-10T13:20:00.003-04:00

Yet another ridiculous narrow minded op-ed from the NYT about Israel.

Op-ed here

1. "Israel belies the comfortable American cliché that “democracies don’t make war."

I love the way people make statements without any evidence to back them up. First of all, the phrase is not "democracies don't make war." It is, "Democracies don't go to war AGAINST ANOTHER DEMOCRACY."

Here is a great argument both for and against this phrase.

In any case, in the latter half of the 20th century to the present, democracies do not generally fight wars with other democracies. If you like, you can even say "AMERICA belies the comfortable cliche that democracies don't make war." 'Cause, look at our war budget.

2. "Unsurprisingly, the state has acquired pathological habits. Of these, the most damaging is its habitual resort to force."

Why do you think Israel resorts so often to force? Did you offer any explanation? No. Well here is one.

Israel has fought several wars in which it was out numbered, out gunned, and their enemies wanted nothing less than total destruction of their nation. They are fighting Islamic oriented states whose social and political thinking may as well be 1,000 years in the past, in terms of modern democracies. And these nations, and people, respect NOTHING except force. Israel has NO CHOICE but to appear frightening and powerful. This image is the only thing keeping it alive. Your op-ed even says,

"Israel is not responsible for the fact that many of its near neighbors long denied its right to exist. The sense of siege should not be underestimated when we try to understand the delusional quality of many Israeli pronouncements."

I have news for you. Israel's pronouncement of it's right to exist is not "delusional." It's military/force policies exist because any apparent weakness will give it's enemies a reason to attack it. AGAIN. There are multiple examples of this throughout Israel's 62 year history.

3. "As American officials privately acknowledge, sooner or later Israel (or someone) will have to talk to Hamas."

You're wrong. Because there is no 'sooner or later, HAMAS will have to talk to ISRAEL.'

And that is the truth of the situation. HAMAS seeks the destruction of Israel, not peace with it. PERIOD. How do you talk to that? (I have yet to receive an answer to that question, from anyone.) Hamas is under no obligation to ever end it's vigilance against Israel. Therefore, Israel can't talk to Hamas if they aren't even listening.

4. About the phrase, "Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

"But since 1967 it has been Israel that has missed most opportunities: a 40-year occupation (against the advice of its own elder statesmen); three catastrophic invasions of Lebanon; an invasion and blockade of Gaza in the teeth of world opinion; and now a botched attack on civilians in international waters. Palestinians would be hard put to match such cumulative blunders."

All of the above 'missed opportunities' by Israel was Israel acting in SELF DEFENSE.

And yet, and yet...you don't mention the Palestinian's REQUIREMENTS for peace, that Israel has missed opportunities with so often.

The major one of these is, "the Right of Return." This means, any Palestinian Arab with a claim to land that they were kicked out of can return and live in Israel.

That's like offering Texas to the Mexicans. The Arabs would immigrate by the millions, disrupting the demographics of this Democracy, making it no longer Jewish.

Meanwhile, 2 things:

A. Israel asked all of its Arab citizens NOT TO LEAVE during the war of 1948. It was the ARAB COUNTRIES who told their fellow Arab's to vacate or be killed by the Israeli's. This problem was started by propaganda, and is continued by propaganda, which has no basis in reality.

B. Don't you know that hundreds of thousands of Jews were KICKED OUT OF Arab countries from Iran to Syria and will NEVER BE LET BACK IN? So why does Israel have the burden of repatriating citizens that left OF THEIR OWN VOLITION?

5. "But Palestinians face the same conundrum as every other oppressed people: all they have with which to oppose an established state with a monopoly of power is rejection and protest"

Or, they could try negotiating openly with America as the mediator to legitimize Palestinian claims and demands. Oh, except for the fact that, anyone who collaborates with Israel is demonized as worse than an Israeli/Jew. So, there is no real chance for peace, because of the abiding social/cultural phenomenon among Arabs that Israel is the devil, and anyone caught thinking differently is simply tortured and killed.

p.s. since when is 'rejection and protest' characterized as suicide bombings?

6. "We should beware the excessive invocation of “anti-Semitism.” A younger generation in the United States, not to mention worldwide, is growing skeptical."

Thankfully, most of us in America have not had much experience with anti-semitism, or Jew hating (unless you are in the deep south.) However, hatred of Jews blatantly exists, as shown by Internet commenters, biased media reporting, and anti-zionist movements.

Our catch phrase is , "Never Forget." Never forget the lessons of WW2. That another Holocaust is right around the corner. That Sudan and Darfur can happen to anyone, at any time. The only way to fight against this is constant vigilince, and to project strength. Perhaps if the minorities in sudan and Darfur had their own powerful nation state, their genocide would not have happened.

I am well aware that most of the world hates Jews. And saying that over and over again is meant to remind us of that, not delegitimize its validity. Excuse us for being hated.

7. "Along with the oil sheikdoms, Israel is now America’s greatest strategic liability in the Middle East and Central Asia. Thanks to Israel, we are in serious danger of “losing” Turkey: a Muslim democracy, offended at its treatment by the European Union, that is the pivotal actor in Near-Eastern and Central Asian affairs."

I don't know if Turkey is really that big an 'ally' of the U.S. They certainly jumped at the chance to appease their Muslim citizens by severing ties with Israel. And they are certainly headed towards Sharia law, which would end any really alliance with any non-muslim country.

In any case, this op-ed was full of glaring errors and misconceptions, as ANY NYT article would be. Israel is a Democracy under siege ever since it's inception, and nothing about that has changed. No op-ed that does not take that into consideration is worth the Internet bandwidth that is used to write it on.

Rebuttal To Jumanah Imad Albahri

2010-05-21T16:45:00.003-04:00

Her blog post can be found here.

In it she defends herself against the attack of David Horowitz, who asked her, "Do you support Hamas?" She refused to answer, saying,

"I am not a member of Hamas, nor have I ever given support to Hamas, nor do I agree their actions or stances wholesale, but I refused to offer Mr. Horowitz a blanket condemnation of Hamas that night. I felt that doing so would be a blanket condemnation of the Palestinian cause."

"My opinion of Hamas is not as simple as condemn or condone, “for it” or “against it.” I firmly believe that the killing of civilians, even as “collateral damage” regardless of creed, politics, sexuality, nationality, or ethnicity is one of the highest crimes in the eyes of God and is morally reprehensible and abhorrent. But I condone Hamas in its ambition to liberate the Palestinian people."

Let's clarify this. Let's say there was a Israeli terrorist organization called Jamas. Let's say this organization had as it's mission statement, "the destruction of all Islamic Arabs in order to ensure the survival of the Israeli and Jewish people forever." Let's say, this organization Jamas put guns in the hands of infants, had a history of killing regular innocent every day people because they are Islamic, and stated repeatedly that they won't stop until every Islamic Arab is killed. EVERY ONE.

Now, lets say you asked me, "Do you support Jamas?" And I said, well, its not simple, because while I don't support killing innocent people, I do support Israel's right to exist peacefully.

And you said, "No, that is not an answer, do you or do you not unequivocally support Jamas? The organization that has sworn to kill every Islamic Arab?"

And I said, I believe killing civilians is the highest crime against God, but I do support Jamas' goal of the safety of the Israeli people.

How do I look in your eyes now? Because how can you support the ends by ignoring the means? You can't condone Hamas' goals of the 'liberation of the Palestinian people' without condoning their methods. It's that simple. And nor could I condone a murdering band of freedom fighters who want to keep Israel safe.

You could say, "I condone Jamas' ends, of the safety and lasting existence of the Israeli people, but I decry the methods of Jamas to obtain those ends."

THAT IS DIFFERENT, than saying, I don't condone the murder of innocents, but I do condone Hamas' goal of the liberation of the Palestinian people. Because you aren't condemning their methods, you are therefore implicitly condoning what they need to do to reach their goal.

This may seem like a fine line, but it is extremely important when dealing with such volatile issues, emotions, and perceptions.

So, Ms. Albhri, regardless of whether you think you were railroaded by Mr. Horowitz into making statements, the statements you HAVE made show you still don't know what you are talking about.

If Aliens Existed, We Wouldn't Even Know It

2010-05-14T09:31:00.000-04:00

You know, I should probably actually THANK the New York Times for their idiotic op-ed columns, without which, I would not have cannon fodder for my blog. So, yea, uh, thanks. For your ridiculous stupidity.

Today's rant comes from a column about extraterrestrials. (Blog link posting is giving me errors today, so just check out nyt.com columnist Paul Davies from May 13th.)

This columnist is discussing how we can find alien life on other planets by first trying to recognize alternate based (not carbon/oxygen based) life on our own planet. For instance,

"Alternative microbes might, for example, have different chemical elements. One shrewd suggestion, made by Felisa Wolfe-Simon of the United States Geological Survey, is that phosphorus — crucial to life as we know it — could be replaced by arsenic. She and her colleague Ron Oremland are dredging bugs from arsenic-contaminated Mono Lake in California in search of arsenic life."

Well, that makes sense, kind of. As if any other kind of alien could guess OUR life form biology from mere guess work. And then actually find it in the most simplistic of places.

Anyway, my argument against this perspective is: If an alien life is so outside of what we comprehend constitutes life...then how will we recognize it? How do we know there AREN'T ALREADY aliens floating around our heads; life forms that we can't even sense?

This is one of the major components of my own life philosophy. I believe that the human mind/consciousness is fallible, and extremely so. I believe that there is an infinite amount of things that we simply cannot sense, understand, or be aware of in any fashion.

For instance, my favorite example is radio signals. We know they exist. But we can't sense them. They are bouncing around our homes, our offices, but if we didn't know to look for them with specific equipment, we'd never know they were there. So, it is more than likely that there are any number of things floating around out there that we have no faculty for noticing them with.

Other examples are easy, just look at other animals. Bats use sonar, which we can't sense, but it exists. Dogs can smell things we can't even imagine (can you imagine a life form based on particles that can only be detected by smell? I can.) And then there are literally thousands of species with talents that we don't even understand. Watch the Discovery channel to see what I'm talking about.

So, in conclusion, looking for alien life with our existing human paradigms is simply blind ignorance. To not even consider the alternative, that we might not even be able to recognize alien life if it was in front of our nose, is hubris.

Hubris from the NYT? Say it ain't so joe.

The Middle East Black Hole

2010-04-27T12:40:00.003-04:00

Another far off the mark NYT op-ed column has be gnashing my teeth yet again, so I bring it to you, my gentle readers, to make your own decision.

Beating The Mid-East's Black Hole - Roger Cohen
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/opinion/27iht-edcohen.html?hp

"JERUSALEM — The U.S. Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, has come and gone, again, with peace talks still on hold and one Israeli commentator, Yossi Sarid, musing that “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a black hole that swallows up goodwill ambassadors through the ages.” "

"...I detect three developments. The first is Obama. The second is Fayyad. The third is what Danny Ayalon, the deputy Israeli foreign minister, called “the sugar-coated poison pill” of the Israeli status quo. I’ll take them in order."

"...Fayyad is obsessed with security — an obsession reflected in the now ubiquitous Palestinian Authority police on the West Bank — and with building state institutions and the economy. He’s not interested in Palestinian “victimhood.” Narratives do not a family feed. He wants a future. He believes nonviolence is the way to get there. He’s receiving some help from Netanyahu on the economy (but needs more) and security cooperation is ongoing."

"That meeting concluded with Mitchell saying: “You asked if I think Netanyahu is serious. They ask the same question. You are an expert on Palestinian and Israeli politics. They are the same. But no one in the world knows American politics better than me, and this I will say. There has never been in the White House a president that is so committed on this issue, including Clinton who is a personal friend, and there will never be, at least not in the lifetime of anyone in this room.” "

Those excerpts outline Cohen's main argument.

1. The Palestinian Prime Minister offers hope for peace? YEA RIGHT. I will believe it when I see it, not when yet another two faced Arab leader mouths fake truths in English, then goes around and laughs in arabic about how the Americans believed his BS.

2. What does an American President "so committed on this issue" have to do with Middle East peace?! Obama can't suicide bombers. He can't stop society based hatred. And he certainly can't stop Israel's enemies from planning her destruction over the course of decades.

Yet another note of false hope from the NYT establishment. Nothing is based on truth, nothing is based on reality, and it's all wishes and dreams and magic Obama to the rescue.

I have news for EVERYONE: Obama isn't a magical seed that will grow a beanstalk everyone can climb for peace. No one is. And until we put the onus for peace squarely on the enemies of Israel, not Israel alone, the status quo will remain. It's a good thing Israeli's are tough bastards.

NYT Columnist Actually Makes Sense (About Banks)

2010-04-16T15:02:00.003-04:00

Normally, reading the op-ed section of the NYT prompts me to post confrontational response, since most of their columns show just how far they have their heads up their individual/collective asses.

However, I was pleasantly surprised by Krugman's thoughts today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/opinion/16krugman.html?hp

Apparently the NYT still isn't Fox News, no matter how wonky they may seem these days. Here Krugman is talking about how Republican shills for finance corporations (corporate banks) are on the surface seeming to fight for finance reform, but when you listen to what they are saying, they are actually fighting for the banks right to continue using us instead of serving us.

Anyway, thanks for the change of pace Kruggy.

Banks Laundering Mexican Drug Money

2010-03-18T10:49:00.002-04:00

Wow. This is the biggest story I have seen in a while. This is a case of reading between the lines, and noting that the tip of the iceberg is only 2% of the actual berg itself.

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/wachovia-pays-160-million-stop-drugs-probe/

"Wachovia has agreed to pay US prosecutors 160 million dollars for its failure to stop drug money being laundered to Mexican affiliates, the DEA said Wednesday."

'Although Wachovia admitted that 110 million dollars could have been laundered, the DEA said "Wachovia failed to effectively monitor for potential money laundering activity more than 420 billion dollars in financial transactions with the CDCs." '

First of all, sure, let the bank execs get off the hook for laundering drug money that has probably led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, and much more law breaking. (Meanwhile, a 50 year old man in Texas has been sentenced to 35 years in prison for 4 ounces of pot.)

Next - $420 BILLION DOLLARS?! That is the amount of money they didn't 'check' for money laundering. A good portion of that could also be drug money.

Do you have any idea how much money the bank execs have probably already made, for decades, by laundering mexican drug money?

$160 million is a slap on the wrist. First of all, most of that is money the government KNOWS they made from the money laundering. $50 million of that is a fine. However, that $50 million is also probably drug money!

They should launch a huge fucking probe of this mess and bring them all down.

But they won't. Heck, if OJ can get away with murder, bank executives can get away with 1000 times worse, with 1000 times the money. God Bless Capitalism.

Israel Doesn't Want The West Bank You Idiot

2010-03-17T12:14:00.002-04:00

Dear Thomas Friedman,

How can you be SUCH an IDIOT?

"Ever since Israel occupied the West Bank and its Palestinian population in 1967, Israelis have faced a dilemma: Do they want a Jewish state, a democratic state and state in all of the land of Israel (Israel plus the West Bank)? In this world, they can have only two out of three. Israel can be Jewish and democratic, but not if it keeps the West Bank, because the Palestinians there plus all the Israeli Arabs will eventually outnumber the Jews. It can be Jewish and keep the West Bank, but then it can’t be democratic; Arabs will be the majority. It can be democratic and keep the West Bank, but then it can’t be Jewish." http://www.nytimes.com//2010/03/17/opinion/17friedman.html

Israel doesn't want to live in the West Bank. They 'occupied' it in the interests of security. It is the birthing ground, staging ground, and launching pad of guerilla warfare AGAINST ISRAELI CITIZENS.

How can you miss this? Are you 1. Ignorant, 2. So egotistical that your thoughts outweigh real life, 3. Just stupid?

People like you, who are held up to be thought leaders and intellectual role models, are why people don't know wtf is going on at all anywhere.

Quote "Constructive Criticism of Israel" End Quote

2010-03-16T13:52:00.005-04:00

I am truly sorry, but I simply do not respect any one who criticizes Israel. Now, I'm not saying, Israel is infallible. But, I have yet to find a critic of Israel who knows wtf they are talking about.

Take this NYT columnist for example:

His last sentence, summing up his argument, is the most illuminating, "Israel is wrong to mock its constructive critics. They alone can usher the country from the one-state dead end — a vital Israeli interest."

This is why I don't respect Israeli detractors. HOW IS ISRAEL SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST??!!

Not one, not a single damn Israel hater has ever shown me that they understand the fundamental issues that have created the middle east pressure cooker. Every single Israel critique always vilifies Israel, and Israeli policy, and points to the suffering of the Palestinian people, and never says, "On the other hand...", for instance:

1. The global community has spent billions of dollars in aid to the "Palestinian People." Where has this aid gone? Yassir Arafat, who won the Noble Peace Price for being two faced, stole every cent he could. The rest of the billions goes towards funding terrorists. Not at ending the Palestinians 4th world qualify of life. How is this Israel's fault?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/60minutes/main582487.shtml

2. Not once have any Middle East countries sued for Peace, except for Egypt and Jordan. When Egypt and Jordan said, "Let there be peace", Israel said, "forever and ever, our middle eastern brothers." Israel has asked for peaceful negotiations in good faith since 1948. Enemies of Israel never give it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Israel_Peace_Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Jordan_peace_treaty

Israel has one desire: To remain a Jewish state. If arab countries would take that stipulation into account, there would be peace. But they don't. They state again and again, whether directly or through proxies like Hamas, "WE DESIRE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL."

How is Israel supposed to negotiate with that? NO Israel critiquer has ever even remotely attempted to tackle that question. So how am I supposed to take them seriously?

3. Israel is in a constant battle for its survival. If it wasn't "Little America", with all the military force that brings to bear, they'd be destroyed. Its that simple. Meanwhile, those wanting to attack it use civilians as shields, attack from hospitals, mosques, and schools, and kidnap innocents for torture and slaughter, in the name of "Freedom fighting." So, in fighting for its survival, Israel must contend with barbaric guerilla fighting that shows mercy to no one.

Remember this. Palestinians and Arabs attacking Israel are NOT fighting for peace. They are not fighting for a Nation State. They are fighting to destroy Israel.

No argument critiquing Israel acknowledges this fact. THIS FACT!!

Hamas charter:

Quotes:

"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."

"Leaving the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators"

"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."

PLO Charter

Quotes:

"Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine."

"Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland."

Those are the two organizations that Israel must negotiate with for peace with the "Palestinian People." Read those Mission Statements, and tell me if you an negotiate with THAT.

So every one you who thinks they can take the moral highground against a peaceful democratic state fighting for the survival of its citizens and their security - you're actually taking the low road. Because you don't know wtf you are talking about.

P.S. Do you remember the Munich Olympics of 1976? How Palestinian terrorists kidnapped and murdered Israeli Olympic athletes? This is what Israel fights against. To keep that from happening. Again. Meanwhile, it is Israel's responsibility to "...usher the country from the one-state dead end..." This kind of unreasonable worldview is why I will never respect anyone who doesn't keep that in mind, when talking about "Middle East Peace."

Government Can't Even Find Ants In Its Pants

2009-12-15T11:40:00.002-05:00

The headline from Yahoo News today was, "

AP sources: Ill. prison to get Gitmo detainees"

"WASHINGTON – Taking an important step on the thorny path to closing the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the White House plans to announce Tuesday that the government will acquire an underutilized state prison in rural Illinois to be the new home for a limited number of terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo." (Bold/Italics added by me.)

Please pay close attention to the phrase 'UNDERUTILIZED STATE PRISON', and then put your thinking caps on.

Now ask the question, "How can there be an underutilized prison when its a known fact that American prisons are insanely overcrowded?" And, "Why wasn't this prison utilized to its full advantage?"

Or doesn't the government know this about our prisons?

I'm a bit confused. Whats the deal here?

Obama's Muslim Affairs Advisor Confused Pot With Kettle

2009-10-09T14:04:00.003-04:00

Okay, this is a new one for me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html

In essence, Miss Mogahed (great name by the way) is President Obama's advisor on Muslim affairs. She's a Muslim woman. In government. So, she appeared on TV with a Muslim extreme, and discussed how we westerners have an 'over simplified' idea of what Sharia law is. First of all, I don't even know what that means. Second of all, she goes on to say:

"Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man-made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism".

They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government".

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West.

She said: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media."

So, basically, she is saying that we don't have a good idea of Sharia law is, and she nutshells it for us by saying, "1. The whole world should be Muslim and pay attention to Muslim laws, 2) secular laws are vulgar and destroying society, and 3) that women shouldn't be in government.

So, what the hell is she doing in government in the first place? As Obama's advisor, she's one of the highest placed women in Government in the WORLD.

In any case, I simply couldn't believe my eyes. For once, I can actually claim a similarity between Muslims and Jews. She is basically the Muslim equivalent of what are popularly called "Self Hating Jews." These are people who vilify Israel and Jews, and who agree with anything President Mahmoud Ahmadinejahd says about the destruction of Israel.

Many of these Jews...LIVE IN ISRAEL. So, if Israel is so bad, why not try moving!? And you, Miss, something-head, get the F out of government if you hate it so much, and believe you don't belong there. Otherwise, you're contradicting yourself before the first word is out of your mouth.

How do people get this dumb?

Iran Closes Three Newspapers - Hitler's Ghost Golf Claps

2009-10-07T09:11:00.002-04:00

One of today's headlines is that Iran just shuttered three newspapers 'Critical of Ahmadinajahd.'

http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middleeast/2009/10/2009106141922771476.html

I don't know what took me so long to point it out - but Iran has become a de facto modern day Nazi state. I mean, I've been pointing out the symptoms for years now, but this is the first time I've come to this decision.

Lets look at the facts, Ahmadinajahd's Iran:

1. Has called for the destruction of Israel and has vilified Jews

2. Has imprisoned and tortured media critical of the President and state

3. Has held very questionable elections to prop up the dictator Ahmadinajahd

4. Has clearly the opportunity and resources to build an atomic bomb (something Germany never accomplished.)

5. Has a repressive society such that anyone breaking the rules might as well put a star on their sleeve.

6. Wants to forcibly turn every human being into one of their fanatic puppets.

Iran scares me. They are going to be the cause or major factor in the next World War, I guarantee it. Watch out President Obama, your job is not getting any easier.

I Hope The NYT Fails

2009-03-09T17:22:00.002-04:00

With newspapers dropping like flies in the winter, it's pretty harsh to wish ill will upon struggling compoanies.

However, the exception to the above rule is the New York Slimes (Times).

I am so sick of their editorials. They keep trying to capture the high ground, without realizing that they lost the highground years ago. How can the NYT be a prestigious news daily when its country of origin is a cesspool of corruption, laziness, entitlement, and falling morals?

I specifically refer to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09cohen.html ,

which once again somehow angelizes Hamas and Hezbollah, and says the fault lies with everyone but them, for not dealing with them in good faith.

The writer also points out that Israel is the one who called 1,000+ people in response to unending rocket attacks. So, obviously, it is ISRAEL who is at fault here.

The author does say this, embedded somewhere in the middle of the article, "What is essential is that it renounces violence, in tandem with Israel, and the inculcation of hatred that feeds the violence."

Thats the one line that the writer devotes to the heart of the problem. Mr. Cohen, did you hear the news story about how Hamas brought out a victim of the response to the rocket attacks - The Mickey Mouse of Palestine. Yes, thats right, Hamas brought out a cartoon mouse and said he was a casualty of the violence.

How are you supposed to negotiate with that?

Of course, the writer doesn't address that. he simply says, and I'm paraphrasing, it's time that we recognize Hamas and Hezbollah and deal with them in a politcally correct fashion.

Mr. Cohen, thats like saying the Nazi's were pretty okay, and we just needed to give them a shot.

You are a fucking douchebag, Mr. Cohen, and now is the time to get your head out of your ass.

If you were Israel, what would YOU do? Hmm? You're trying to protect the only and last bastion of Jewish strength in the world. You'd just capitulate and hope that the Palestinians would stop trying to kill you, your family, your neighbors, and everyone who shares your religion?

Give me a break. Your solution isn't a solution, unless you're talking about the Nazi's Final Solution. You disgust me. You offend me. You show me that what little hope there is in the world, people like you will squander it.

I'm a Jew. And I remember the Holocaust. Do you? I will never give one step in the fight for my people's survival. Remember that. And stop writing these fucking douchebag articles. Nobody buys into this shit, unless they hate Jews already.

Authorities Have No Concept Of What 5 Years Old Means

2009-01-14T15:06:00.002-05:00

This is one of the most ridiculous stories I have heard in a while.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=6640478&page=1

"Parents Consider Legal Action After Autistic Girl, 8, Arrested at School
Evelyn Towry Was Cuffed, Led Away by Police After Scuffle Over School Party
By SARAH NETTERJan. 14, 2008

The mother of an 8-year-old autistic girl who was arrested after a scuffle with her teachers said it was horrifying to watch her daughter be led away in handcuffs from her northern Idaho elementary school.

A mother is enraged at the response to her 8-year-old's behavior in school.

Police in Bonner County, Idaho, charged the girl, Evelyn Towry, with battery after the arrest Friday at Kootenai Elementary School.

Even though prosecutors dismissed the case Tuesday, the family is considering legal action against the school. They say their daughter was physically restrained to the point of causing bruises and is now tormented by memories of the incident.

Spring Towry said she got to the school Friday just in time to see 54-pound Evelyn -- who was diagnosed at age 5 with Asperger's Syndrome, a high functioning form of autism -- being walked to a police car with two officers at her side.

"She started screaming 'Mommy, I don't want to go! What are batteries? What are batteries?'" Towry said. "She didn't even know what she was arrested for." """"

So, lets get these facts straight. The 5 year old girl wouldn't take off her cow costume, and so wasn't allowed to go to a school party. She was, instead, held by herself in a room away from the party. When she got up to leave, they wouldn't let her, she got 'violent', and she had to be restrained. She was then LED AWAY IN HANDCUFFS BY POLICE.

Okay, first of all, SHE'S FIVE YEARS OLD. She is developmentally disabled, with behavior problems. Fine. But what I don't understand is why ANYONE would HANDCUFF a five year old girl. I just don't get it. Didn't the cops refuse to do this? Isn't it illegal? And why would you need to?

I just don't get it. Everyone who allowed that to happen should be prosecuted, penalized, I don't care. This should not be allowed to happen. America is no longer the America of old. It's a different country, more like Florida. I don't understand it, and I don't like it.

Israel Vs. Palestine, round 111,058

2008-12-23T17:00:00.002-05:00

The biggest, "Yes you did", "No I didn't!" in the world has to be the Middle East conflict between Israel and the citizens o the gaza strip/westbank, who insist on calling themselves "Palestinians."

There WAS no Palestine before Israel, and what Palestine IS, is the country Jordan. The people living in squalor in the Gaza strip got KICKED OUT OF JORDAN for TRYING TO OUST THE KING AND TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY.

So, having failed that coup, they decided on a make or break war against Israel, engineered (ENGINEERED) by Yasir Arafat. This 'war' was to last decades, generations even, until the Israelies were too tired of fighting, and just surrendered.

Wow, good strategy, right? Not quite.

In any case, the Public Relations aspect of this battle is -Palestinians 10,657, Israel 0. No matter what happens, world opinion is against Israel. NO, MATTER WHAT.

So then I see pieces like this: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/12/strangling-gaza-to-near-death-while-pretending-to-be-victim/.

Which blame Israel for purposefully impoverishing the Arabs living next door, and holding up the peace process.

Meanwhile, Israel is a democracy with respect for human rights, hell, they even have their own gay pride parade.

On the other hand, the ruling cadre is Hamas, which both publicly and privately calls for the destruction of Israel, which fires missiles almost daily into Israel, which has killed countless people in cold blood, and which has no respect for human life, has evidenced by their penchant for using CHILDREN as human missile shields, and for holding their military operations in the homes of civilians...thust protecting themselves, while endangering those they are trying to save from Israel's aggression.

First of all, how is Israel, or anyone for that matter, supposed to negotiate...when the other side is aiming a missile at your children. And they have NO INTENTION of putting the missile down, NO MATTER WHAT.

Maybe you pro palestinian people are missing this point, so I'll say it again. HAMAS HAS NO INTENTION OF EVER MAKING PEACE WITH ISRAEL.

So, how is Israel supposed to deal with this? Do any of you peaceniks have an answer? 'Cause I sure haven't seen it, no matter how many of these shit crap articles I read, where someone offers their opinion that Israel is just evil.

So, this blog is a response to the article listed above. Oh, why am I responding to their article here? I'll tell you why: because these open minded peace loving pro terrorist people, closed the comments on that post. Because they are too chickenshit to air their bullshit grieveances in a civilized way. I equate their comment-less posts as the same as lobbing grenades over a fence an then running away.

Same tactics of Hamas. Same Morals. Same anti-semitism. Thats All I See. And Thats All There Is. You should ALL be ashamed of yourselves.

Snake Oil Indeed

2008-08-13T22:01:00.003-04:00

So, I am having a pleasant evening, reading fark.com, when all of a sudden I come upon an article that purported to debunk "three 'truths' about offshore drilling.'

Oh goodie, I thought to myself, more ammo to use against the neo-cons...but rather than the environmentally conscious missive I sought to find, instead I was harpooned into reading an article that made irony hit me on the head with a sledgehammer.

This article was FOR offshore drilling, not against, and this 'editorial' of the TheWashingtonPost.com was supposedly educating me against the lies of the liberals.

Unbelievable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102145.html

The first 'false truth': "The oil companies aren't using the leases they already have." In other words, that oil companies own some 8,000 odd leases of land, but only 2,000 of those are listed as 'active', or producing greater than 130,000 barrels of oil a day.

But, the article states that oil companies have, "drilled several wells to explore the area at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; and started constructing the necessary infrastructure to bring the oil to market." Thus, oil companies aren't just being lax, they're trying to save our energy day!

Okay, so 6,000 oil leases of oil company land are supposedly gearing up to churn out oil, thus debunking this myth. Honestly, I am kind of an oil peak buff, and I hadn't about this complaint against oil lands. I HAVE heard that oil companies haven't been building new refineries for like, 2o years, and that it doesn't matter how much oil is pumped if we can't refine it. Oh yea, and Katrina knocked out most of the refining capacity America had in the first place. So, yes, building refineries is a HUGE investment, and takes about a dozen years. Oh, wait, I almost forgot...OIL COMPANIES HAVE RECORD PROFITS THIS YEAR. Good time to build some refineries, when we're not deflecting public opinion about that in the first place.

Moving on.

2. · "Drilling is pointless because the United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves."

The claim here is that the equipment that measured the oil reserves in the U.S. was seismic, way out of date, and these measurements were recorded in 1987, 1981, and before.

Okay, I buy that. So there's lots more oil than we thought. Will that fix our energy problem. No. Will we still have to wait years, years, before we some of that oil. Yes. So, how is this really a big deal? People DON'T want oil corporations to ruin the last vestige of natural land and ecosystems that we have. Oil corporations WANT the money that oil will give them from our pockets. They don't care about helping the oil or energy crunch. So this point, is moot. We don't want them to drill. So they shouldn't drill.

(Too bad our country is run by two oilmen who have already proved their worth.)

3. "Drilling is environmentally dangerous."

Ohhhhkay. How that is a myth, I have no idea. I'm going to excerpt the entire paragraph they use for reasnoning here. It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Maybe it will to you. Lemme know.

"Opposition to offshore drilling goes back to 1969, when 80,000 barrels of oil from an offshore oil well blowout washed up on the beaches of Santa Barbara. In 1971, the Interior Department instituted a host of reporting requirements (such as the resource development and oil spill recovery plans mentioned above) and stringent safety measures. Chief among them is a requirement for each well to have an automatic shut-off valve beneath the ocean floor that can also be operated manually. According to the MMS, between 1993 and 2007, there were 651 spills of all sizes at OCS facilities (in federal waters three miles or more offshore) that released 47,800 barrels of oil. With 7.5 billion barrels of oil produced in that time, that equates to 1 barrel of oil spilled per 156,900 barrels produced. That's not to minimize the danger. But no form of energy is perfect or without trade-offs. Besides, if it is acceptable to drill in the Caspian Sea and in developing countries such as Nigeria where environmental concerns are equally important, it's hard to explain why the United States should rule out drilling off its own coasts. "

The bottom line is...I don't buy this editorial, and I just find it hard to believe that someone actually printed this. It is so contrary to what can actually help this country, and not corporate interests, that it once again proves to me that the media does have an agenda, and it dictated by its corporate owners.

Thus, the media should be removed as the only force of America's people, and instead, be replaced with...you guessed...bloggers. Who have nothing to please but their audiences, they can say and do what they want...and there is a blogger community that can self regulated itself, or at least more so than the government and corporation sponsored media that we already have.

Joe Liberman, A Disgrace To American Jews

2008-07-24T10:29:00.002-04:00

Joe Lieberman has sunk below rock bottom to be somewhere in the earth's mantle by now, according to my perspective.

Lieberman, a democrat turned Republican attack dog...is literally just that. I'm not sure why he crossed party lines - but one thing for sure is...that nobody respects this opportunistic deushe bag.

The main reason I am finally speaking out against Lieberman is an article I just saw on therawstory.com.

"One of John McCain's most prominent supporters on Tuesday praised an evangelical leader whom the Republican presidential candidate repudiated after a string of controversial remarks were made public.

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent who frequently campaigns with McCain, said pastor John Hagee's support for Israel outweighed the remarks that led McCain to reject his endorsement."
http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Lieberman_praises_pastor_repudiated_by_McCain_0723.html

This guy is giving us all a bad name! The #1 problem most Americans have with Jews, besides the fact that they erroneously think they are persecuting palestinians/arabs and keeping them from having real lives, is that Americans think Jews support Israel - above everything else.

And that is what Lieberman prominently does. Far from being a clever tactic, or even a simple one of apeasement to his constituents - he is throwing us all in harm's way. This tactic has NEVER worked, and it promises only trouble. Shame on you Lieberman, for being a stupid, stupid Jew. The only thing worse than you is a self hating Jew.

If you want to support Israel, Lieberman, remove yourself from office, and endorse someone with more savvy than you. I just don't know how you keep getting elected. I hope that stops.

Oh, and if you want to know some of the remarks Hagle said,

"...Mr Hagee himself has apologised to Catholics for calling their church “The Great Whore”/”false cult system” and to Jews for arguing that the Holocaust was God’s way of getting Jews to move to Israel. Both apologies were accepted."
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080717/FOREIGN/988020135/1011/NEWS&Profile=1011

Hagee is an Armageddonist...he thinks all Jews need to be in Israel for the Messiah to come - which then means all Jews will burn in hell unless they repent and honor Jesus.

Ummm...thanks for the support...I actually do like conservative Christians for their unwavering support of Israel, even if they think I'm currently damned...but we don't need to pander to them. Have some sense of decency Liebs. For Jebus sake!

Condi Rice Removes Free School Lunch For Obama

2008-07-21T14:49:00.002-04:00

In an glaringly partisan move, under the umbrella of a non-partisan move, Condi "The Eliminator" Rice sent a memo to overseas embassies - right before Obama left for his Global trip, forbidding any embassy from giving Obama undue assistance.

"The night before presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) left for Afghanistan, Iraq and Western Europe for a tour of US bases overseas, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a cable to US missions forbidding them from holding events for presidential candidates or arrange meetings for them.

Rice issued no such cable prior to foreign excursions by presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

In a cable sent late Thursday, according to a copy leaked to the Washington Times, Rice enjoined American diplomats to treat the candidates as "members of Congress visiting in personal or semi-personal capacities," but "with additional restrictions based on rules related to political activity."

"Provide de minimis assistance to the candidate with logistical arrangements," said the cable, according to the Times. "If the campaign staff wants to rent a bus for press, tell them where they can rent a bus."
http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Night_before_Obama_flies_abroad_Rice_0721.html

Rice didn't issue the same demands in advance of travel by Sen. McCain. McCain visited the Middle East four months ago -- but officials told the paper they didn't make similar demands because he was part of an "official congressional delegation." ******

"American embassies and consulates around the world are actively engaged in official visits by members of Congress and other government leaders, the paper noted. "Diplomats meet the visitors at the airport, accompany them to meetings, most of which they have arranged, and host public events for them."

Rice made an effort in her cable to distance herself from claims that her decision might have been influenced by politics.

"It is imperative that, in implementing these various requirements, we treat both major presidential candidates evenhandedly," she wrote. "Our interactions with the candidates need to be made in the context that they are also sitting U.S. senators and very important U.S. visitors with special security concerns."

But she forbid them from any attempts to "hold or arrange receptions or public events for the candidate," "arrange the candidate's meetings" or "use official funds and resources, beyond a de minimis level, to support a political trip." "

Ohhhhkay. Has anyone ever seen this kind of "memo" sent out to embassies prior to a Presidential election before? I certainly haven't. Moreover, a commenter on Therawstory.com noted,

******"Rice didn't issue the same demands in advance of travel by Sen. McCain.

McCain visited the Middle East four months ago -- but officials told the paper they didn't make similar demands because he was part of an "official congressional delegation."

AND on another article it says:The Illinois senator — traveling in a congressional delegation with Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. — arrived in the country early Monday. Their first stop was Basra, the U.S. Embassy said."

Something smells fishy to me. When John McCain panders around the globe with fellow congressional backers, erm, I mean, delegates, it's fine. But when Obama does the same thing, he is to be treated like a rabid animal...provide no assistance, and capture and sedate if possible.

This is just one of the blatant news items coming out of the WH that nobody will raise a finger about...because we're all too busy ranting about it on the Internet on blogs no one will ever see.

All For One, One For Neither

2008-07-21T14:41:00.002-04:00

*Editors Note: I am mostly impartial to our Presidential Candidates at the moment, having decided that NEITHER is even remotely the person I want to see in the White House. I comment merely on the disparity of treatment between the two 'presumptive' (I hate that word in this context, used repeatedly) candidates, as well as the propaganda machines in full effect, those being Fox News, CNN, The NYT, etc. Each one of those media oragnizations has a specific agenda, and they are not shy about banging their prospective drums to their own beat, regardless of taste, ethics, or their listeners/viewers/readers.

New Yorker Forgets What Satire Means

2008-07-14T16:27:00.002-04:00

Regarding the cover of the New Yorker Magazine, in which Obama terrorist jabs/fist bumps his wife, while dressed in evil Islamic garb, this writer finds that the joke is on...well everybody.

Writer David Remnick, responding to an email from a Huffington post reporter, had this to say:

"Remnick responded by email: "Obviously I wouldn't have run a cover just to get attention — I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say. What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama's — both Obamas' — past, and their politics. I can't speak for anyone else's interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama's supposed 'lack of patriotism' or his being 'soft on terrorism' or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.""
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/New_Yorker_cover_angers_Obama_supporters_0713.html

It's all a big joke! Can't you see that? Says the New Yorker.

Well, I have news for you...satire is only funny if the person gets the joke. If not, its usually rude, offensive, and inane. For instance, though wikipedia is not the cast iron source that it should be, it has this to say in it's definition of satire:

"A very common, almost defining feature of satire is its strong vein of irony or sarcasm, but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. The essential point, however, is that "in satire, irony is militant"[2]. This "militant irony" (or sarcasm) often professes to approve the very things the satirist actually wishes to attack." (bold/italics added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

So there you go. Satire, or militant irony/sarcasm, is a literal attack on something that ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY.

Well, how is someone supposed to know that? Taken out of context, or by a reader/viewer who doesn't automatically assume the New Yorker has such a sharp wit, this cartoon does seem to be an attack on Obama. It's a blatant attack, in fact. Because, usually, when the New Yorker posts such a cartoon, it is actually making fun of the people portrayed. So, how is someone supposed to know when the New Yorker is being sarcastic, facetious, or downright obnoxious?

Oh, you don't really it's a joke? Well, geez, where is your sense of humor?

Please. Whoever decided to run that cartoon, ON THE FRONT COVER NO LESS, is an arrogant heavy handed moron who should get out of the office more.

It's disgusting, it's distasteful, and most of all...I bet it's something that Fox News wishes it had thought of first. And that is pretty much the worst insult there is.

News Alert: Iran's Big Bird To Congratulate Mugabe On Victory

2008-07-01T10:59:00.003-04:00

Sometimes you see headlines that make you exclaim so loud that your coworkers then KNOW you're not actually working like you're supposed to.

Toady's 'exclaim outloud headline':

"We 'respect' Zimbabwe election results: Iran

Iran today said it "respects" the outcome of Zimbabwe's one-man presidential election which saw veteran incumbent Robert Mugabe stay in power but was denounced as a farce by the West.

"We respect the will of the Zimbabwean people expressed in the second round of the presidential elections, whatever it is," foreign ministry Mohammad Ali Hosseini said.

"We hope that these results are in the interest of the independence and the development of Zimbabwe," he added, according to the ISNA student news agency."

Story background: Mugabe is a dictator in Zimbabwe whose latest 'election' was a super sham, as the only opposition candidate bowed out of the race - as his supporters were being violently killed by blatantly obvious Mugabe thugs.

One minister had his wife mutilated and then burned alive.

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=424

This 'election' is a despicable act of power over your enemies - instead of holding an election wherein you kill your opponents, why not just let everyone know you're a dictator, and they WILL be killed for opposing you, thereby using the threat of force to save lives? If you're going to be a right bastard in the first place, might as well be honest about it instead of lying, then you have to waste all that energy wasting people.

But I digress. What I'm really writing about is Iran's reaction here. The rest of the world has condemned this election as a sham, condemned Mugabe as a human rights violator and power usurper, and the U.S. is taking this up with the United Nations this week. (Big deal but at least its something.)

So, for Iran to bless this election and Mugabe's power, means that Iran fully supports his bloody methods and ruthless dictatorship. What does this say about Iran to everyone (that you didn't alerady know?)

Well, if I have to spell it out for you, it says, "Iran identifies with bloodshed to keep power politically and domestically, and wants to align itself with nations with whom it sees eye to eye on violence and oppression."

That, my friends, is evil. Bush finally got it right when he called them the axis of evil.

I beg forgiveness from the universe for actually agreeing with Bush. But for once, he actually got it right. Iran is a tumor on the global body, and will slowly kill us all if not removed.

No One Else's Ad

2008-06-23T14:08:00.002-04:00

Well, the political mudslinging season is heating up, now that the official race between McCain and Obama has begun. So we turn our eyes to the first of many New York Slime's 'objective coverage' editorials.

Today, we thank William Kristol for his vitriol-laced op-ed that skewers the latest MoveOn.org ad.

Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/opinion/23kristol.html?hp

And a description of the Ad:

" “Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he’s my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex?

Because if you were, you can’t have him.”

Take that, warmonger!

Now it might be pedantic to point out that John McCain isn’t counting on Alex to serve in Iraq, because little Alex will only be 9 years old when President McCain leaves office after two terms." "

Okay, fine, that ad is a bit much. But then Kristol says,

"I’m not persuaded. Having slandered a distinguished general officer, MoveOn has now moved on to express contempt for all who might choose to serve their country in uniform."

Okay fine...but then what say you about the Swiftboaters who lambasted Kerry for his truly cowardish actions that are far from as heroic as he says they were?

....Nothing...

I just find it very onesided that everyone attacks Democrats for trying to show how destructive the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...but it seems perfectly legitimate to slander a genuine war hero...so that the next president can start and continue more wars. Doesn't that seem Ironic to anyone else?

If not, well, then damn, I must be more perceptive than I thought.

The Mug Calling The Pot And The Kettle Blue

2007-05-24T19:21:00.001-04:00

Please excuse the confusing title. It's meant to be a play on words, regarding some BBC News Reporter who thinks he's the bees knees. This reporter said, while/after visiting Iran,

"President Ahmadinejad is no Saddam Hussein, even if he has hosted a "Holocaust Denial" conference, and does want to develop a nuclear capability.

Saddam Hussein personally shot people he didn't like.
The president of Iran has been pelted by unruly students with eggs and insults and no-one was shot.

I'm not saying he's been grossly misunderstood. I am saying that Iran is far less monolithic than many in Washington like to think. The trick is to sweat out the differences."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6501459.stm

Well, Mr. Matt Frei, allow me this time to take issue with your fool hardy words.

How the hell do YOU know what Ahmadinajed is like, or much he is, or isn't, like Saddam Hussein? What kind of an inane and comepletely baseless supposition is that? Where is your evidence? What kind of unbiased reporting offers a completely ignorant opinion like that?

Saddam Hussein was bad, nobody denies that. However, Ahmadinejad has:

1. Called for the destruction of Israel on almost a daily basis.
2. Convened an Holocaust denial conference, thereby denying the tragedy of millions of slaughtered Jews in WW2.
3. Most probably started and kep going a proxy war in Iraq, killing thousands of Iraqis and of course our own troops.

I am taking issue with you giving degrees of evil to Hussein and Ahmadinejad. By saying one is better or worse than the other, you're making one LOOK better. I just don't get how you can in any way praise the leader of Iran. What the HELL is wrong with you?!

I think you need to have your head examined, Mr. Frei. Please do so before you write something else so stupid it makes me want to have you feel the pressure of Shariah law on your own neck. Something I normally wouldn't wish on anybody. But for you...I might make an exception.

Jews Must Mobilize To Fight The New Anti-Semitism

2007-02-12T17:26:00.000-05:00

Here is an important article everyone should read. It is by Natan Sharansky, a Russian dissident turned Jewish activist who has a helluva story to tell. I know...I helped publicize the book "Defining Moments" by Gordon Zacks, which offers a synopsis of Natan's time spent in a Russian jail...and I was lucky enough to meet Natan briefly as well.

I respect this man more than most...so take a look.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359835461&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Our World: A Look At The Existential Palestinian State

2007-02-12T16:26:00.000-05:00

I found this article (hat tip to Free Thoughts) that I think everyone should see to perhaps widen their perspective. I will bold sections I think are most important:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467841899&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

"Our World: Welcome to Palestine
Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST Jan. 29, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the world of international diplomacy few issues receive more wall-to-wall support than the notion that it is essential to establish a Palestinian state. Leaders worldwide are so busy speaking of how essential it is for a State of Palestine to be founded that none of them seems to have noticed that it already exists.

This state was officially founded in the summer of 2005, when Israel removed its military forces and civilian population from the Gaza Strip and so established the first wholly independent Palestinian state in history. Israel's destruction of four Israeli communities in Northern Samaria and curtailment of its military operations in the area set the conditions for statehood in that area as well.

And so it is that as statesmen and activists worldwide loudly proclaim their commitment to establishing the sovereign State of Palestine, they miss the fact that Palestine exists. And it is a nightmare.

In the State of Palestine 88 percent of the public feels insecure. Perhaps the other 12 percent are members of the multitude of regular and irregular militias. For in the State of Palestine the ratio of police/militiamen/men-under-arms to civilians is higher than in any other country on earth.

In the State of Palestine, two-year-olds are killed and no one cares. Children are woken up in the middle of the night and murdered in front of their parents. Worshipers in mosques are gunned down by terrorists who attend competing mosques. And no one cares. No international human rights groups publish reports calling for an end to the slaughter. No UN body condemns anyone or sends a fact-finding mission to investigate the murders.

In the State of Palestine, women are stripped naked and forced to march in the streets to humiliate their husbands. Ambulances are stopped on the way to hospitals and wounded are shot in cold blood. Terrorists enter operating rooms in hospitals and unplug patients from life-support machines.

In the State of Palestine, people are kidnapped from their homes in broad daylight and in front of the television cameras. This is the case because the kidnappers themselves are cameramen. Indeed, their commanders often run television stations. And because terror commanders run television stations in the State of Palestine, it should not be surprising that they bomb the competition's television stations.

SO IT WAS that last week, terrorists from this group or that group bombed Al Arabiya television station in Gaza. And so it is that Hamas attacks Fatah radio announcers and closes down their radio station claiming that they use their microphones to incite murder. Because indeed, they are inciting murder. What would one expect for terrorists to do when placed in charge of a radio station?

And so it is that in the State of Palestine, journalists - whether members of terror groups or not - are part of the 88 percent of their public who are afraid. Sunday they protested outside the offices of one terror faction or another that controls the Palestinian Authority.
Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, reporter Ala Masharawi explained, "No one goes outside, no one moves without thinking twice. Gaza's streets have become terrible streets, especially at night. Gaza is a ghost town."

As the Post's Khaled Abu Toameh reported last week, in the State of Palestine, Christians are persecuted, robbed and beaten in what can only be viewed as a systematic campaign to end the Christian presence in places like Bethlehem. As Samir Qumsiyeh, owner of the Beit Sahur-based private Al-Mahd (Nativity) TV station lamented, "I believe that 15 years from now there will be no Christians left in Bethlehem. Then you will need a torch to find a Christian here."

MANY GOVERNMENT ministers and commentators seek strategic meaning in the strife in the State of Palestine. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, for instance, goes on and on about the need to strengthen the "moderates" - that is, the Fatah terror group - over the "extremists" - that is, the Hamas terror group.

Helping her to propound this nonsense is PA Chairman and Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas and his men tell Westerners how pro-Western they are at the same time as they name streets and schools financed by US aid after Saddam Hussein and build sports facilities on the American taxpayers' tab in memory of terrorists who killed American soldiers in Iraq.

For the umpteenth time, on Sunday Fatah spokesmen in PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's office blamed Iran and Syria for the escalating violence in Gaza and Judea and Samaria that has killed 29 people, including two children, in four days. "Iran and Syria are encouraging Hamas to continue fighting against Fatah," they alleged.

And yet, just last Thursday the Shin Bet arrested Omar Damra, a Fatah terrorist in Nablus. Damra is accused of manufacturing suicide bomb belts and attempting to smuggle them into Israel. He also stands accused of plotting to place explosive devices along roads in Judea and Samaria with the intention of blowing up IDF patrols.

Damra and his partner and fellow Fatah terrorist Mahmad Ramaha, who was arrested a month ago, were working under the instruction of Hizbullah - that is, under the direction of Iran. According to the Shin Bet, Hizbullah - that is, Iran - has taken over Fatah operations in Nablus. Since Israel's withdrawal from northern Samaria in August 2005, the Shin Bet has noted that, like Gaza, the Nablus area has become a mini-Afghanistan.

So not only are Hamas terrorists operating under Iranian and Syrian direction today, Fatah terrorists are as well. Yet this doesn't stop the US and Israel from pouring guns and money into the hands of Fatah terror chiefs. They fail to recognize that what you see is what you get.
These guns are not used to encourage moderation. These guns are used against Israelis and Palestinians alike in a turf battle between terror groups over money, guns and power that will never end. And it will never end because fighting and killing for money, guns and power is what terrorists do.

FOR THE past 13 years, since the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994, the contours of the State of Palestine have taken form in front of our eyes. Starting with Yasser Arafat's abrogation of the rule of law and murderous campaign against land dealers and journalists, with each passing year and with each move to further empower the PA, the situation has only grown worse. And yet, international pressure on Israel from Arabs, Europeans and the US to surrender more territory, curtail its authority, abrogate its claims to the areas set for Palestine, and finance the Fatah terror group have only grown in intensity.

And with each passing year, as the reality of Palestine has become clearer, the Israeli leadership's will to resist this pressure is increasingly eroded.

So it is that last week Defense Minister Amir Peretz announced that he supports negotiating with Hamas. Peretz laid out his "vision" for the reinstatement of the so-called peace process with the Palestinians, and stated that, to "empower" the Palestinians, he supports extending the ban on IDF operations from Gaza to Judea and Samaria. It should go without saying that such IDF operations are aimed at preventing massacres of Israeli civilians like the one that happened in Eilat Monday morning.

LIVNI, FOR her part, has become the international champion of Fatah. Gushing to an audience of international peace processors in Davos, Switzerland, last week, Livni said, "In order to achieve peace and in order to promote a process, we must stick to this vision of a two-state solution and examine what the best steps to take are."

Of course, neither Livni nor Peretz, who insist that Israel's most urgent priority is to establish Palestine, is willing to recognize that Palestine exists already. They refuse to acknowledge what we already know: Palestine is a terror state and an economic basket case fully funded by the international community. Indeed, over the past year since Hamas won the Palestinian elections, international assistance to the Palestinians has increased dramatically.

As Ibrahim Gambari, the UN under-secretary-general for political affairs, noted last Thursday, official Western aid to the Palestinians, not including Arab and Iranian support for Hamas and Fatah, increased by 10 percent in 2006 over 2005, and stood at $1.2 billion.

The Palestinians, who receive more aid per capita than any people on earth, are needy not because they lack funds. They are poor because they prefer poverty, violence and war to prosperity, peace and moderation. So it is that 57 percent of Palestinians support terror attacks against Israel. (*Editors note: I disagree with Ms. Glick here. The palestinians aren't poor because they prefer poverty...they are poor because those with power in their society have thrown their lot in with those would rather sacrifice their lives, people, families, religion, morals, beliefs, and all else they hold dear, for the possibility of the destruction of Israel. Most palestinians don't have a choice in their terror-filled society...it's either follow, or be killed. Not much of a preference, to me.)

The multitude of protesters worldwide who demand an end to the so-called "occupation" and the establishment of Palestine should be made aware of the fact that Palestine already exists. The hordes of political leaders mindlessly squawking about "visions" and "two-state solutions" should know: This is Palestine. Enter at your own risk."

Global Warming Is A Myth, According To Scientific Genius: President of Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus

2007-02-12T14:14:00.000-05:00

The below linked and excerpted article from the Drudge Report is by far the most passionate and devoid of scientific evidence argument I have yet seen against Global Warming. Apparently, the President of the Czech Republic is THE authority on how man ISN'T damaging mother earth:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

*I'm excerpting almost the whole interview, and will add my comments in bold:

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity

Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

(It'd be nice to cite who these 'every serious person and scientist(s)' are, and exactly what they are saying. That's like, one of the first rules of the scientific method, Mr. President. Or, I'm sorry, didn't you learn about that at age 10?)

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.•

(Yuh-huh...political correctness is the evil that is keeping your worldwide henchmen from blowing the cover off this Global Warming fallacy)

Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

(Ohhhkaaay. So, first you call environmentalism, or thinking about the effects of men on the planet, mere philosophy. 2nd of all, you completely marginalize and disregard the undeniably SCIENTIFIC measuring of the thickness of arctic ice, one of the only true ways to measure our global climate. With NO scientific theory/evidence/thinking to back that up. Right.

You say, "Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science." In other words, it's green ideology when someone points to Global Warming, but it's hard climate science when you KNOW Al Gore is simply a madman and doesn't know what he's talking about. I like to call that sophmoric logic, personally.)

The interview goes on and then we get to the good part:

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

(Ha! This guy is going on and on and on about how Global Warming is a myth...and then, when asked a direct question about it, which is his chance to really make a stand...he dodges it!! How can you take someone like this seriously?

Then, he says, "I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing."

Okay. So, forget about the number of animal/plant/insect/ species going extinct. Forget about the arctic caps melting. Forget about smog, the rising number of asthma/cancer diagnoses, and rising sea waters. Forget about cause-effect. Forget about the growing garbage piles. Forget about nuclear power and radioactivity. Forget about acid rain. And then maybe, just maybe, you'll be as ignorant as the Czech President. But you might also need to eat glue first.

Substitute Teacher Torpedoed By Spyware - And Then Legally Screwed

2007-01-30T13:50:00.000-05:00

This story went straight to my heart strings and played a sad little tune called "How My Computer Illiteracy Doomed Me."

From the Washingtonpost.com (hat tip Sandmonkey)

"Substitute Teacher Faces Jail Time Over Spyware

A 40-year-old former substitute teacher from Connecticut is facing prison time following her conviction for endangering students by exposing them to pornographic material displayed on a classroom computer."

Local prosecutors charged that the teacher was caught red-handed surfing for porn in the presence of seventh graders. The defense claimed the graphic images were pop-up ads generated by spyware already present on the computer prior to the teacher's arrival. The jury sided with the prosecution and convicted her of four counts of endangering a child, a crime that brings a punishment of up to 10 years per count. She is due to be sentenced on March 2.

I had a chance this week to speak with the accused, Windham, Conn., resident Julie Amero. Amero described herself as the kind of person who can hardly find the power button on a computer, saying she often relies on written instructions from her husband explaining how to access e-mail, sign into instant messaging accounts and other relatively simple tasks.

On the morning of Oct 19, 2004, Amero said she reported for duty at a seventh grade classroom at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Conn. After stepping out into the hall for a moment, Amero returned to find two students hovering over the computer at the teacher's desk. As supported by an analysis of her computer during the court proceedings, the site the children were looking at was a seemingly innocuous hairstyling site called "new-hair-styles.com." Amero said that shortly thereafter, she noticed a series of new Web browser windows opening up displaying pornographic images, and that no matter how quickly she closed each one out, another would pop up in its place.

"I went back to computer and found a bunch of pop-ups," Amero said. "They wouldn't go away. I mean, some of the sites stayed on there no matter how many times I clicked the red X, and others would just pop back up."

Amero said she panicked and ran down the hall to the teacher's lounge to ask for help. "I dared not turn the the computer off. The teacher had asked me not to sign him out" of the computer, she recalled. Amero said none of the teachers in the lounge moved to help her, and that another teacher later told her to ignore the ads, that they were a common annoyance. Later on, prosecutors would ask why she hadn't just thrown a coat or a sweater over monitor. On that day Amero hadn't worn either.

Several children told their parents about the incident, who in turn demanded answers from the school's principal. Three days later, school administrators told Amero she was not welcome back. Not long after that, local police arrested her on charges of risking injury to several students. "
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/01/substitute_teacher_faces_jail.html

Um, yea. It sounds like the substitute teacher isn't exactly brainy, and that she basically was too startled to think clearly...such as, oh, I don't know, turn off the monitor?

But to be convicted of these charges is simply ridiculous. She was simply a computer illiterate and generally ignorant person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The jury who convicted her, however, is more than ignorant...they's just stoopid.

Russian Special Forces Used Image of Litvinenko For Farget Practice

2007-01-30T11:02:00.000-05:00

I have posted before about the despicable murder of Alexander Litvenenko, which was highly suspicious, with Russia as suspect #1.

Well, apparently an elite training ground for Russian special forces uses Litvenenko's picture on their firing range...as a target. If that doesn't sound like the Russians were literally gunning for Alexander, I don't know what does.

Methinks the Russians are just as evil and deadly as they always have been...but their talent for secrecy is beginning to lose its color.

http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesonline.co.uk%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2C13509-2573572%2C00.html

Hezbollah Leader Enjoys Irony

2007-01-30T10:45:00.000-05:00

Hassan Nasrallah, "supreme leader" (or whatever) of Hiz'b'Allah, is at it again. This time he is blaming BUSH for the violence in Lebanon. Right. Okay. Sure. I can see that. You, Nasrallah, have infested a sovereign nation (Lebanon) with your soldiers for more than 20 years, who have been abducting and killing Lebanon's political elite (who are against you) for just as long, and who is determined to sacrifice any number of people for your OWN personal gains...you are blaming George Bush for all this?!

"BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah accused
President Bush' Tuesday of creating chaos in Lebanon, rejecting his charge that the militant group and its allies were causing the violence. " and

""The one who fomented chaos in Lebanon, who destroyed Lebanon, who killed women and children, old and young in Lebanon, is George and (Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice who ordered the Zionists to launch the war on Lebanon," Nasrallah said in a fiery speech."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070130/ts_nm/lebanon_ashura_hezbollah_dc

When it comes to irony, Mr. Nassy, you're all spades.

Saudi Arabia In Iraq

2007-01-16T18:15:00.000-05:00

This morning I read that Saudi Arabia is going to send troops to Iraq (but now I can't find any news sites with that article.) I wondered to myself, why? That doesn't make sense!

Then I read Sandmonkey's latest post, and it all came together for me. Shame on me not realizing the situation before. http://www.sandmonkey.org/2007/01/15/that-train-wont-be-late/

Specifically, SM says, "The people who read me regularly and know me personally know that I am a believer that the next war in the middle-east won't be fought between the arabs and the jews, but rather between the Sunnis and the Shia. Iran seems to be overstepping its influence in the region, with meddeling in Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain, which is freaking Saudi and the other sunni gulf states out, and for some reason Egypt's as well. It makes sense that the gulf states would want Mubarak to join the effort, since Egypt is the only country in the region wih population to equal Iran's and a military in par with it (What is Egypt now if not a big ,yet not very efficient, military structure?). "

In other words, Iraq is a boiling point of Shiite and Sunni animosity, and now that Iran is exploiting it to no end, the other Sunni nations are getting worried. Then, I found this random thought:

S Mohanakrishnan
How ironical that Bush is sending more troops to Iraq to bolster a Governemnt dominated by Shiites when Iran (which is a Shiite nation) is Americas arch-enemy. While most of the other oil powers in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Emirates, Kuwiit, etc which are friends of USA are Sunni nations. And American troops are going to battle and kill Sunni militia members. The devil must be having a hearty laugh. Wonder how this will play out?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501154&objectid=10418358

VERY interesting. Because, it raises the question of what U.S. troops are doing over there in the first place. I mean, once Sunni and Shiite go all out against each other, America will have to pick sides. And not the side of Iraq. So yea, how WILL this play out?

When Pharmacists Decide Your Religion For You

2007-01-16T14:28:00.000-05:00

This just in: If the FDA can't tell you how to live your life, then maybe your local pharmacists can.

This is regarding the Morning After Pill, otherwise known as Plan-B, that prevents pregancies up to 72 hours after sex. It was stuck in FDA Purgatory for years before finally getting approval...why? Not because it constituted a health risk, hazard, or was generally unsafe, but because, "The FDA rejected the application...saying it did not have enough information about the possible consequences on teenagers younger than 16." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083101271.html

In other words, the FDA was judging the pill's impact on society. However, is the FDA supposed to work that way? The answer is NO. Here is the FDA's mission statement:

"FDA's Mission Statement

The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health." (bold added by me)
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoices/mission.html

Predicting the effect of a drug on 16 year olds and possible orgies they might get into (yes, that was the reason behind that statement) has nothing to do with the safety of Plan B (whether it'll cause heart attacks if you take it), the efficacy (whether or not it will serve its intended purpose), or the security (whether the drugs themselves are safe from tampering or outside sources.)

Yet, it was the politics of America's conservative (religious) right that has kept Plan-B off the shelves.

So, finally, after years of delay, Plan-B is approved for over the counter sales (even though they are kept BEHIND the counter so that pharmacists can make sure you're the legal age of 18 to buy it.)

So, naturally, MORE roadblocks come into play. Enter Brent Beams, pharmacist a Wal-mart in Columbus, who recently denied selling a couple Plan-B. He said, "he denied the couple's request for the contraceptive pills because "I do not believe in ending life, and life begins at conception." The article goes on to say,

"After the pharmacist turned them down, O'Neill and Byrd asked for a store manager who "came over and said, 'The pharmacist has the law on his side,' " O'Neill said."
http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daytondailynews.com%2Fn%2Fcontent%2Foh%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Flocal%2F2007%2F01%2F16%2Fddn011607ohcontraceptive.html

Um, under WHAT law does the pharmacist have on their side, Mr. Manager? I can understand refusing service to someone...but what specific right does the pharmacist have to spout religious beliefs in someone's face, at his place of business (that he doesn't own), which directly affect someone else's life? I'm still listening...

Also in the news is the TOP official handling women's issues at the FDA has RESIGNED over the Plan-B fiasco, among other items:

"FDA Official Quits Over Delay on Plan B
Women's Health Chief Says Commissioner's Decision on Contraceptive Was Political

By Marc KaufmanWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, September 1, 2005; Page A08

The top Food and Drug Administration official in charge of women's health issues resigned yesterday in protest against the agency's decision to further delay a final ruling on whether the "morning-after pill" should be made more easily accessible.

Susan F. Wood, assistant FDA commissioner for women's health and director of the Office of Women's Health, said she was leaving her position after five years because Commissioner Lester M. Crawford's announcement Friday amounted to unwarranted interference in agency decision-making.

"I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled," she wrote in an e-mail to her staff and FDA colleagues.

Crawford said last week that unresolved regulatory issues made it impossible to approve expanded use of the emergency contraceptive. Wood said the decision was widely seen in the FDA as political.

"Many colleagues have made it known that they are deeply concerned about the direction of the agency," she said in an interview."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083101271.html

So says the women who was the FDA's pick to "be a champion for women's health."

In other words, YES, a political (and religious) agenda is driving the agency in charge of safeguarding this country's medicine and drugs. Boy, is that a relief! Oh, wait, those are the basic sentiments of what fueled the Inquisition...doh!

And get this. Says one opponent of Plan B:

"Wendy Wright, policy director for Concerned Women for America and a critic of easier access to Plan B, welcomed Wood's resignation.

"Thank goodness there is now one less political activist at the FDA who puts radical feminist ideology above women's health," she wrote in a statement. "Now that Susan Wood has some free time on her hands, she can look at the studies from countries that have made the morning-after pill available without a prescription. She'll find it creates a public health hazard, with no decrease in pregnancies, no decrease in abortion, but a substantial increase in sexually transmitted diseases." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083101271.html

Oh, does it, Ms. Wright? First of all, for you to cite Susan Wood as a radical feminist is the crazy pot calling the kettle purple. This coming from a religious ideologue!!

Also, where exactly are your studies, information, and statistics coming from in those countries with the morning after pill?

Personally, I think the morning after pill should be available, at least with a prescription. But to have it pass through the FDA, and then have individual pharmacists sticking their noses into other people's business is simply unacceptable. That pharmacist should be fired so a lesson can be made. I mean, who made the decision to stock Wal-Mart stores with Plan-B? The pharmacist should take it up with HIM, not Wal-Mart's customer's, for God's sake. I mean, stocking the pill and then not selling it is not a very good business practice. It's like buying Humvee's for your car dealership and then not selling them because of the environment.

America the free, indeed.

Why Muslims Deny The Holocaust

2007-01-12T12:21:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting link to a blog that posits why Muslim's around the world deny the Holocaust. In short: They were never told about it.

http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/ayaanhirsiali/english/index.html

Hat Tip Free Thoughts: http://freethoughts.wordpress.com/

A Bird Eye View Of The Prospect of "Palestine"

2007-01-11T12:22:00.000-05:00

The Middle East is a quagmire of age old hatreds, bigotry, dictators, and self-fulfilling prophecies of violence that are perpetuated by families, spiritual leaders, and mafia like government officials.

Israel was planted as a seed there to help the world's Jewish community grow and re-build from the devastation of the Holocaust and WW2. The majority of the nations making up the membership of the U.N. voted for it - with a Palestinian state right alongside of it.

However, that Palestinian state was just not meant to be. Before giving it a chance to even be put on maps, surrounding Arab nations decided they just didn't want Israel to be a part of the picture, and immediately moved to wipe the new born state from the map.

Fortunately, history shows us this didn't work. Nor has it worked when tried again, and again, and again. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0804479.html

These events have pretty much shown that a viable Palestinian state has always taken the backburner to the desire for the destruction of Israel. So, the question is, is a Palestinian state, as envisioned by the U.N. in 1948, still possible TODAY?

Idealists, left wingers, liberals, and the like will say YES, of course, if Israel ends the occupation and harsh treatment of Palestinians! However, this blogger's standpoint is that Israel's treatment of the situation has NEVER been the issue. Instead, if the Palestinians would simply stop trying to kill Israeli's, then MAYBE there could be peace and two states living in peace, side by side, like Canada and the U.S.

Then I see a well thought out and plainly non-favoritist article like this one...which says BOTH of those camps are wrong. I am persuaded by this author's arguments that the answer to the queston of a viable Palestine, unfortunately perhaps...is NO...and yes Regis, thats my FINAL answer:

(Hat tip to Rantings of a Sandmonkey: http://www.sandmonkey.org/)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-sovereign-palestine-no-chance/2006/12/31/1167500013390.html?page=fullpage

"A sovereign Palestine? No chance

Three young brothers, Salam, 4, Ahmed, 7, and Osama, 9, were gunned down outside their school on the morning of December 11. They had just arrived by car when they and the driver died in a wild spray of gunfire. Four other schoolboys who happened to be nearby were wounded.

It was an assassination attempt, and it failed. The target was the boys' father, Bala Ba'lousheh, but he wasn't in the car. He was a senior Fatah official with the Palestinian Authority's intelligence service in Gaza City, and his would-be assassins were almost certainly from Hamas, the rival Palestinian political party which won power in last year's election. After the shootings, demonstrations erupted in the West Bank and Gaza. Within 48 hours, a prominent Hamas leader was shot to death in the Gaza Strip.

The level of conflict between the Palestinian parties simmers just below the level of civil war, even as the spoils keep shrinking. The open wound inspires strong reactions among millions of people around the world with no direct stake in the problem.

For the sake of reality, let's put aside whatever views and prejudices you may hold on the Palestinian question. Put aside any animosity about grasping Jews or murderous Arabs. Put aside the Holocaust, and Muslim anti-Semitism. Put aside hopes and judgements. Simply look at what has happened on the ground. Stripped of all emotion and prejudice, right and wrong, one reality becomes clear: there is no chance of a sovereign, autonomous Palestinian state. Not within our lifetimes. No chance. None.

Not only won't there be a sovereign Palestinian state, there can't be.

It's no longer viable. At every historic juncture since Israel was created in 1948, rhetoric has taken precedence over pragmatism in the Arab world. As a result, every one of these historic junctions has resulted, without exception, in material defeat for the Palestinians.
In 1948, roughly 700,000 Palestinian Arabs - the number remains contested and inexact - heeded calls from the Arab world and fled their homes in the newly proclaimed Israel. The result? The Palestinian position of 1948 now looks infinitely superior to the Palestinian position of today.

In 1967, Israel was invaded by its Arab neighbours in the Six Day War. The result? The Arabs lost control of the holy city of Jerusalem and the Palestinians went from Arab rule to Israeli control.

In 1982, after the Palestinians sparked a civil war in Lebanon, Israel invaded Lebanon and Jordan's army attacked the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The result? The Palestinians were crushed in Lebanon and Jordan and Israel fortified its position in the West Bank.

In 1987, the first Palestinian intifada began at the instigation of PLO leader Yasser Arafat, and suicide bombings came to Israeli life. It lasted almost five years. The result? Israel again fortified and expanded its positions and the West Bank was divided into military-controlled subdivisions.

In 2000, Arafat launched the second intifada, his response to Israel's final offer in the Oslo peace accords. It lasted six years. The result? What the Palestinians were offered in 2000 is now impossible today, because Israel has since encircled Jerusalem with settlements housing 100,000 Jewish settlers. And Israel began building the Wall.

In 2006, Hezbollah attacked Israel, in the cause of Palestine, and Hamas and other militant elements fired rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, as political opposition was Islamicised. The result? Some 175 Israelis were killed by Hezbollah, for which Lebanon paid with more than 1500 dead, and Hezbollah lost its military control of southern Lebanon. It thus lost its strategic forward position for no strategic gain.

In the West Bank, the dividing fence and wall became a reality, effectively halting suicide bombings but also annexing more sections of the West Bank. Israeli military control became more intense. According to B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, 1065 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces in 2006, while 23 Israelis were killed by Palestinians.

Everyone I spoke to while visiting Israel recently hates the wall. One prominent Palestinian moderate, Khaled Abu Toameh, who once worked for the PLO and now writes for The Jerusalem Post, told me in Jerusalem: "The wall is a tragedy. The wall is bad. It is the direct result of Yasser Arafat's intifada. It will become the wailing wall for both sides. I'm not optimistic. Not at all."

A conspicuous critic of the wall is the former US president Jimmy Carter, who, in his new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, writes: "An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, it is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid."

Compare this fenced-off community of today with 20 years ago, before the intifadas. The Palestinian workforce was integrated into the Israeli economy, with relatively free movement into Israel. Education and health systems were built, universities opened, local governments were functioning, corruption was minimal, and life expectancy had soared from 47 under Arab rule to 68. Then came Yasser Arafat and Fatah.

"Fatah is the mafia," Abu Toameh told me. "It is responsible for most of the anarchy on the West Bank. Fatah is a monster." Nor does he think much of Hamas, though he thinks it is much less corrupt, much more competent, and more pragmatic. He believes the West erred shockingly in trusting and subsiding Fatah and has now mishandled the transition to Hamas.
"But on the Muslim side, the message has always been 'No', and 'No', and 'No'. They quote the Koran: God is on the side of the patient . . .

"And what is the West Bank now? It is six Arab cities, two refugee camps, 150 villages. A series of cantons, with no economic base. And Gaza? An awful place."

And Israel? Through all the wars, terrorist bombings and threats of annihilation, and despite intense internal divisions, Israel has grown into a muscular economy of almost 7 million, with a per capita gross domestic product far higher than any Arab neighbours, including Saudi Arabia. The Jewish population has grown from 600,000 to 5.3 million, with a birthrate higher than those in Western Europe. Per capita, Israel has the most engineers and the most high-tech economy in the world.

Untold damage would be done to this economy if one anti-aircraft missile, fired from the West Bank, brought down an airliner flying out of the futuristic new Ben Gurion International Airport. Israel can't afford to let this happen.

Sixty years of years of "No" has put an end to a sovereign Palestinian state, indefinitely. This pawn has been sacrificed in a much larger game.

I Condem The Saddam Hussein Execution

2007-01-03T09:39:00.000-05:00

I hereby state that I condemn Saddam's execution, and I don't believe that the U.S. and its partners have so far acted in good faith when it comes to this situation.

Yes, Saddam Hussein is responsible for hundreds and thousands of deaths. However, I oppose our attacking his regime, arresting him, and executing him, for the same reason I oppose the incarceration of nazi's in Europe.

The reason is: why him? There are hundreds and thousands, and probably more, of leaders and other people who do as much or more harm then him. Darfur, Somalia, China, India...all these places have brutality that barely see's the light of day. So why did we single out Saddam for punishment? Because it served our own agenda. Because we could. Because Saddam was an embarrassment to the world...and its partially America's fault...at LEAST partially. We're the ones who helped his struggle against Iran...and then in turn helped Iran so Saddam couldn't really defeat them.

And then we turn around 20 years later and invade his country on FALSE PRETENSES. Yes, lets remember the fact that the reason Saddam has been executed is because the U.S. led an invasion into his country that:

1. Was predicated on fabricated evidence, i.e. WMD
2. Has led to a sectarian war that has killed close to or more than 100,000 iraqis...more than Saddam EVER KILLED
3. Has actually ruined America's position and dominance in the world, and led to a greater call for Jihad.

So, I am inclined to oppose the right of our country to that initial invasion, and everything that followed after. I just don't see it as justified.

Oh, and the reason I don't condone the arresting of nazi's in Europe is...why just them? There are nazis all around the the world, especially surrounding Israel (or the equivalent of nazis), but they are given carte blanche to hate Jews and conspire against them. So, I don't think its fair that Jew haters in Europe have to pay for their stupidity while others around the world don't. For example, nazis aren't arrested in America! So, I just see it as a mechanism for Europe to continually expunge its guilt for the role it played in WW2. But it doesn't really serve justice, so no, I don't think it should could continue.

UN Chief A Hollow Puppet

2007-01-03T09:21:00.000-05:00

The UN specifically stands against the death penalty...as I do. So, the recent Saddam spectacle should be condemned by both them and myself...except the the new UN Chief, Ban Ki-Moon, might not actually be aware of the UN's position...even though he is now Chief of that world body:

"THE new Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, has backed away from the UN's opposition to the death penalty, saying the execution of Saddam Hussein was a matter for individual countries.

Addressing reporters on his first day as Secretary-General he said: "Saddam Hussein was responsible for committing heinous crimes and unspeakable atrocities against the Iraqi people." However, he added that all countries should pay due regard "to all aspects of international humanitarian laws".

This contrasts with a long-held position of the UN of opposing the death penalty."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/un-chief-in-gaffe-on-death-penalty/2007/01/03/1167777152895.html

I had my doubts about this guy, Mr. Moon that is, from the start. I know nothing about this guy...but what I DO know is that the UN is one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet, run by scoundrels, and the last Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has more dirty skeletons in his closet than Richard Nixon. Hell, the Oil-For-Food scandal blew up all around him, but he didn't get touched...probably because he had dirt on so many people that no one dared finger him.

(The Oil-For-Food scandal involved the funnelling of billions of dollars through the UN and to UN officials to make them see past Saddam's illegal selling of oil for personal profit, rather than diverting that profit to help the citizens of his country.)

So, the above history leads me to believe that no UN official in their right mind would want to a Secretary General that WASN'T corrupt. So, Ban Ki-Moon is highly suspect. Not to mention his personal bungling of the UN's long-held ban on the death penalty.

So, Mr. Moon, I'll be watching you...and you don't fool me.

Holocaust Denial Camp

2006-12-19T15:15:00.000-05:00

I have decided that I am going to try and post something every day I see a story about Holocaust denial.

Personally, I find this one of the most offensive schools of "belief." I mean, an entire generation of people were destroyed, and now you dishonor their memory by trying to pretend they never existed? That is the ultimate insult. Who the hell do you think you are to try and hurt people this way? This isn't just about trying to deny/forget this genocide (so that you monsters can perpetrate another one...those who forget history are doomed to repeat it...); it's about the living families who lost relatives in that horrid act, and people who never lived because of it. Every time an anti-semite says 'the holocaust never happened'...well, I can't help but think about the Jews who were forced to choose to save their own lives instead of their mother's, father's, brother's, sister's, friend's, daughters, son's lives.

For instance, if you watched your father beaten to death, but didn't say anything...because you didn't want to die too. Or if you were forced to watch their execution and you knew there was nothing you could do.

The Holocaust was an act of pure, unadulturated narcissistic hate. It was the pinnacle of horror at the time of its inception, due to new technology and ways of killing people. In 1940, killing 6 million people in only a few years was something that could never have been done before, well at least that easily. In todays world, genocides have occurred, with less effort, and much less attention were devoted to them. In other words, IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN, more so than at any time since WWII.

So, I will post history, personal stories, and information about the Holocaust, until I can't bear to anymore.

Below are stories of people getting loaded onto cattle cars:

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/phistories/

"Putin, I curse thee with my dying breath..."

2006-12-06T15:10:00.000-05:00

The whole world knows at this point that "President of Russia" (i.e. dictator) poisoined Alexander Litvinenko with Polonium-10, a deadly (if ingested) radio active substance. Whoever is giving Putin the benefit of the doubt obviously doesn't know what's on the resume of the ex-head of the KGB.

Here is the full statement from Litvinenko that blames Putin...I'd say we're living in another cold war...but just like our 'energy crisis', 'global warming', and 'non-negotiable American lifestyle'...we can't see it through our blindfold:

Litvinenko's statement

Last Updated: 11:53pm GMT 25/11/2006

Here is the full text of the statement dictated by Alexander Litvinenko:

'I would like to thank many people. My doctors, nurses and hospital staff who are doing all they can for me; the British Police who are pursuing my case with vigour and professionalism and are watching over me and my family.

I would like to thank the British Government for taking me under their care. I am honoured to be a British citizen.

"I would like to thank the British public for their messages of support and for the interest they have shown in my plight.

I thank my wife, Marina, who has stood by me. My love for her and our son knows no bounds.

But as I lie here I can distinctly hear the beating of wings of the angel of death. I may be able to give him the slip but I have to say my legs do not run as fast as I would like. I think, therefore, that this may be the time to say one or two things to the person responsible for my present condition.

You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed.

You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilised value.

You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilised men and women.

You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.

May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/25/npoison525.xml

Response To Comments About Jimmy's New Book

2006-11-28T11:40:00.000-05:00

The previous post to this one talked about Jimmy Carter's new book that demonizes Israel and calls it an apartheid state.

The proffered link is to RawStory.com, where the story can be found, and there are comments underneath.

Almost every, single, comment, is blatant hatred directed at Israel.

Where, here is what I have to say to you people:

"Wow. I thought that people hated Israel before, but now I see I had understated the problem.
First of all, you people who say "all the world's problems can be laid at Israel's door"...are you completely insane?

What about: Homelessness, poverty, disease, slavery, sex crimes, genocide, oppression, murder, and persecution, ALL AROUND THE WORLD, that have nothing to do with Israel?

Would there be genocide in Darfur if Israel didn't exist? Yes.

Would muslims around the world be targeting western culture for annihlation, without Israel? Yes!

Would N. Korea and Iran still be worldwide threats to peace, security, and indeed humanity as a whole...if Israel didn't exist? YES.

You people who blame Israel for everything from muslim tensions to you not getting your Christmas bonus are bigots. At least admit it to yourselves for heaven's sake.

Finally - if you were Israel, and your arab neighbors only wanted to kill and maim you for false reasons (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion)...what would you do? Let them kill you?
You people disgust me. And you ruin my faith in humanity.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if terrorists stopped killing Israelies (which they haven't for more than 30 years, about as long as Jimmy's been "trying to find peace")...there would be peace. Israel cannot do anything to end this conflict until every single one of their citizens dies.

Is that what you people want? If thats so...then yes, call yourself Nazis, and be proud of that. "

Ignorance isn't bliss...it's the fuel of blind hatred.

Jimmy Carter Is Blind...And Doesn't See

2006-11-28T11:19:00.000-05:00

Jimmy Carter, Ex-President, apparently hates the Jewish people. It has been obvious for decades, as he continually spoke out against Israel, and the Jewish people, in favor of the Palestinans, who he thinks are the ones getting persecuted.

He says, "I have spent the last 30 years trying to find peace for Israel and Israel's neighbors, and the purpose of this book is to do that," Carter responded. "But you can't find peace unless you address the existing issues honestly and frankly."
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Carter_Israeli_domination_over_Palestinian_atrocious_1127.html

Well Jimmy, this is news to me. If by "trying to find peace for Israel", you mean stumping for terrorists who kill children for no other reason than they like to....then yea, great job on that peace thing.

Mr. Carter: Either you are very, VERY stupid....VERY, VERY IGNORANT...or you are a blatant anti-semite who might as well top off your infamous career by denying the Holocaust.

The Jewish people have been hated and despised by their arab neighbors since BEFORE they came to Israel. The Arab Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, sided with Hitler during WW2...or didn't you know that?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35563
(or just do a google seach of mufti and hitler...a wealth of information will come up.)

The fact is that Israel's Arab's neighbors have always been hostile towards Israel and its Jewish citizens. And, once the PLO and other terrorist organizations started targeting Jewish citizens around the world...it became larger than simply Israel, or Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

The fact is that Arab treatment of Jews and Israelis, from terrorism to oppression in their own countries, is what has caused this disconnect and harsh treatment of the Palestinians. How are you supposed to treat the people responsible for killing your fellows...for no good reason other than, "we hate you, leave."

Jimmy, you need to open your eyes and realize you're a fucking idiot, and every single Jew on this planet hates you for the universe of trouble you have caused, and continue, to cause us.

Al Quaida On Democrats Victory

2006-11-13T11:12:00.000-05:00

Little Green Footballs has posted about a purported Al Quaida tape praising America for voting out the Republicans (what sense does that make anyway?).
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23291_New_Al_Qaeda_Tape-_We_Wont_Rest_Until_We_Blow_Up_the_White_House&only

This blog's readers decided to comment in droves, and some of them need a few cups of coffee to wake up to exactly what got us into this situation. Some comments:

1

Miss Trixie 11/10/2006 09:16AM PST

Hope you're happy, Pelosi you scum-sucking b*tch!

#3

ghengis was a wuss 11/10/2006 09:17AM PST

let's see Pelosi deal with this one.

12

SpartanWoman 11/10/2006 09:21AM PST

Well done American Voters!
They recognize appeasers when they see it...hand Pelosi her umbrella

#13

Miss Trixie 11/10/2006 09:21AM PST

Now it's time for "building bridges", "understanding our differences" and "negotiating a solid friendship through diversity and cultural training".
/Pelosi's next vapid and naive step
Bloody hell, I think I'm going to lose my lunch.

#14

TotallySirius 11/10/2006 09:21AM PST

I'm sure glad that we'll be safer from terrorism with the dems in charge.

#26

wong fei hung 11/10/2006 09:25AM PST

No - don't blame Pelosi and don't blame the Demoncats.
This is the fault of the AMERICAN ELECTORATE.

THE PEOPLE keep putting the same scum in power, over and over again. No one works in our interests. There are hardly ANY real conservatives left in Government. A real conservative president would have had troops along BOTH of our borders.

We are being BULLIED and PERSECUTED by the army of the Satanic Ummah and its pathetic, socialist, left-wing apostates. Until the people find the will to dedicate their energy to the creation of an INDEPENDENT NATIONALIST PARTY that works in the interest of AMERICA FIRST, defends her borders and does not allow drek like Hamas and Hezbollah to get away with the murder of her soldiers in blood, we will continue to get exactly what we deserve: liberal republicans and democrats whose only concern is the almighty $$$.

Speaker Pelosi, you have the floor. "

These are pretty representative of the rest of the posts.

What constantly amazes me is to what lengths Bush/Republican supporters will go to in order to deny that they're bungling President and corrupt representatives are the ones who not only got us here in the first place, but who still haven't been able to get us out.

Bush started this Iraq war and had it planned 2 years prior to WMD time; with all that time he couldn't have planned better? For the last two years not a single strategy has been created to handle the facts on the ground? After two years we don't have enough arabic trained/ethnic agents to help us get more information?

Basically, these Dem bashers have decided to start criticizing before even the first step is made. The democrats now have their chance to show how lame Bush really is/was, and the Bush supports are sick with fear that their fearless leaders will finally be unmasked as a worse criminal than Nixon.

All I have to say is: You republicans have made your bed, and now you have to sleep in it. Don't blame the democrats, or Pelosi, for hogging the covers, because by the time they were finally invited to bed, Islamo-fascists had already peed all over it. Now its our turn to clean up YOUR mess, and we would appreciate you NOT yelling in ear about how we can't do it before even deciding what kind of detergent to use.

Whether the metaphor is apt or not, I was sick of you people touting how good Bush was two years ago, and I'm sick of you bashing Democrats with your knee-jerk partisanship now. The Republicans have proven themselves to be corrupt, morally bankrupt, and bumbling, again and again and again. Get used to it, and let the Democrats dance, or falter, but let them take a fucking step first. Idiots.

Bush Reaches For Minor Accomplishments

2006-11-13T10:12:00.000-05:00

President Bush's reign is at an all time low. His wars are losing, he just saw his party get massively beaten in congressional elections, and he hasn't managed to really effect any of his key legislation, from No Child Left Behind to his judicial nominees. And now his handpicked UN Ambassador, John Bolton, is about to be kicked out.

So what does Georgie have to be happy about? Well, according to The Carpetbagger Report, during Bush's weekly radio speech this weekend, he said,

"One freedom that defines our way of life is the freedom to choose our leaders at the ballot box. We saw that freedom earlier this week, when millions of Americans went to the polls to cast their votes for a new Congress. Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war.” (emphasis added)"
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9043.html

Um, Mr. President? This country has been holding elections during war for hundreds of years...this is nothing that Americans should be specifically proud about during a time when 800,000 Iraqis have been killed because of the Iraq war. If THAT is all you can think of to be proud about, that your Presidency has been a black mark on our country indeed.

No Mercy: Democrats Hit Bush With All They've Got

2006-11-08T16:41:00.000-05:00

I don't even know where to begin in discussing todays mid-term election results.

The republican's scandals, corruption, national debt issues, and Iraq war sunk their battleship. Not to mention the fact that the majority of Americans are waking up to the fool of a President that they voted for.

However, reading comments at Fark.com (highly reccomended site), I came across this, which definitely should give everyone food for thought.

"If Bush had fired him publicly a month ago, the Republicans might have won last night."

Whoever wrote that is very perceptive, and may actually be more than a little right. If Bush had put the faltering (okay, losing/unwinnable/stupid folly to enter into) war into competent hands, and then used the media to show whats being done about it...Yup, Bush's party might have kept their majority.

But the Republicans were so sure of themselves (read: hubris) that they didn't even bother to use those kinds of tactics. meanwhile, EVERYONE was using SOMETHING against them. Whether its scandal after scandal being exposed, or the editorial from Military Publications about Rumsfeld, or simply dissatisfaction with Bush, the Republicans decided to try and mud sling democrats instead of defending for themselves. Thank God for that!

What Separation of Church and State?

2006-11-07T13:58:00.000-05:00

Last I checked, we were living in a democracy that was embodied by a bill of rights and a separation between Church and State.

However, apparently this 225+ year old piece of news hasn't reached Governor Rick Perry of Texas.

" SAN ANTONIO – Gov. Rick Perry, after a God and country sermon attended by dozens of political candidates Sunday, said that he agreed with the minister that non-Christians will be condemned to hell. "In my faith, that's what it says, and I'm a believer of that," the governor said. "
http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dallasnews.com%2Fsharedcontent%2Fdws%2Fdn%2Flatestnews%2Fstories%2F110606dnTSWperry.351c57c.html

Well, Governor Perry, thats fine and all, freedom of speech and religion and all that - but when you're in public office, representing a large amount of people, don't you think its only fair that you DON'T insult your constituents OWN personal beliefs and religions? By claiming that non-christians are going to hell, as an elected official, you are basically inserting Church back into the state.

This may be a controversial stance, but when someone who isn't Christian reads that, what kind of reaction do you think they're going to have Mr. Perry? It's blatantly offensive, and for one of the most powerful people in Texas to say that...makes me not want to step foot in that state ever.

So, in summary, Perry can say and do whatever he damn pleases. But to publicly state, as the Governor of Texas, that all non-Christians are going to go to hell...Well, thats just not Kosher.

" Democrat Chris Bell said that a state leader should take more caution.
"God is the only one who can make the decision as to who gets into the kingdom of heaven," he said.
Mr. Bell declined to say whether he agrees that only followers of Jesus can go to heaven.
"I'm a Christian," he said. "Rick Perry certainly is entitled to his beliefs, but when you're in public office, you need to respect people of all faiths and denominations." "
(From same article linked above.)

Red Rover, Red Rover, Send The Actions Vs. Words On Over

2006-11-07T13:38:00.000-05:00

Okay, first off is a philosophical discussion. What speaks louder, words or actions?

Words, by John Kerry: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/us/politics/01elect.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Actions, by George Bush: "Iraq, Katrina, fiscal irresponsibility, nuclear north Korea, Cheney, sex scandal, Tora Bora, ear-marked pork, resurgent Taliban, federal debt, Rumsfeld, international scorn, Social Security, overextended military, Freedom Fries, immigration, Harriet Miers, Iran, unfounded mandates, no WMD, Clean Air/Water Act rollbacks, Abu Ghraib, administrative incompetence, Rita, lobbying scandals, Mission Accomplished, global warming, deficit spending, inadequate armor, bin Laden still free, and Bush."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-hamilton/shut-up-and-do-as-bush-te_b_33460.html

Which sparks a greater response? If its not obvious to you, than look at whats behind door number 3: a lifelong GOP membership, replete with lobotomy!

In other words, what Bush and his cronies have done to this country, to the world, and to the Iraqi and Afghani people, is so unbelievably bad and horrible that there aren't words to describe it. He has shamelessly set America back 50 years in terms of international relations, not to mention human rights, and the rights of the average American citizen to live as he or she see's fit.

What Kerry did was try to point this out. So, yes, he's a bad (read: despicable) public speaker, and doesn't know the front of a joke to the backseat of a Volkswagon. But his actions, lies, and false war haven't killed almost a million people. Case Closed.

Convenient Timing From Kazakhstan

2006-11-06T16:45:00.000-05:00

Okay, the title of todays post is a bit misleading. First off, the serious bit:

Did anyone else find it extremely convenient that the Saddam verdict was handed down, as an execution, a mere two days before election day?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/world/middleeast/05cnd-saddam.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

On a separate note, everyone should go see Borat. But please, please, take with a grain of salt. It is meant to be funny - NOT serious. I figure hey, if we're gonna have stereotypes, might as well get some enjoyment out of them, right? Right? Echo, echo echo...

Bush Calls The Kettle Black

2006-11-02T17:37:00.000-05:00

Things have simply gone too far. When Bush starts to chide Democrats about being soft on terror, you can smell the bullshit from half a mile away.

"BILLINGS, Mont. - President Bush, campaigning in a Republican stronghold for an endangered GOP senator, tried to rally his supporters Thursday by portraying Democrats as soft on terrorists and opposed to conservative judges.

Bush chided Democrats who voted against legislation to detain and interrogate suspected terrorists, the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program and the U.S.A. Patriot Act."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061102/ap_on_el_se/bush

First of all, Mr. Bush, what EXACTLY have you done that is HARD on terror? Besides starting two ineffective and losing wars, giving muslim extremists even more ammo for their Imam Mosque "death to America" speeches, and slowly but surely eroding the bill of rights?

Second of all, the legislation that these Democrats voted against were probably regarding torture and the ability of the government to spy on and infringe upon the rights of American Citizens. So I'm okay with that kind of softness.

Finally, I have reached my saturation point of this mud slinging war prior to the upcoming election. The issues are out the window, what people stand for doesn't matter, and I haven't ONCE seen a politician kiss a baby (though we might have to thank Mark Foley for that.) All we get is one party calling the other party soft, weak, dumb, corrupt, etc. This is NOT how a democracy should be run.

And let me tell you, it seems awfully like the run up to some kind of "fall of Rome" collapse of the U.S., through corruption, corruption, and more corruption.

Moderate Islam Is A Myth

2006-10-30T17:10:00.000-05:00

(*It's been a while since posting, as certain developments have taken time and energy away from this bloggers limited supply of both, but never fear, to this bloggers, readers are very dear.)

The world as we know it is in the midst of a titanic struggle between opposing forces and cultures. Those who don't see a war between the "West" and "Islam" are looking in the wrong direction. I believe one major problem is that we have all become used to the fact that "radical Islamists" are waging an endless, and seemingly unwinnable, war on western countries and peoples.

It's unwinnable only if you look at the short term, however. As the Fjordman Reports, um, reports -- Islam takes a rather long view of things.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-we-cannot-rely-on-moderate-muslims.html

" In The Force of Reason, Italian journalist and novelist Oriana Fallaci recalls how, in 1972, she interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her that the Palestinian problem was about far more than Israel. The Arab goal, Habash declared, was to wage war “against Europe and America” and to ensure that henceforth “there would be no peace for the West.” The Arabs, he informed her, would “advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.” "

So, the Muslim strategy is one of patience, persistence, and a sense of blind duty.

But back to the main point: how can there be a massive cultural war taking place but no agreement that this is actually so?

Well, look at the facts. Everywhere that there is war and strife on this planet...you'll find Islam at the core. Look at the Sudan and Darfur - arab militias are genociding the black residents of those areas. Look at Afghanistan - Nato is in the process of fighting a guerilla warfare with Islamic militants. Look at Iraq - another Islamic guerilla war. France - Islamic youths rioting about the fact that they can't assimilate into western culture. Look at Britain - Islamic terrorists have called that that their new #1 target. Look at America - Mosques are recruting and financing grounds for radical Islam.

Try to take off your every day blinders, and view what is happening objectively - do you notice that most of the violence taking place is surrounded by Islamic rhetoric? Again, we are simply used to the fact that Islamic Militants = radical violence. But why is this the norm? Why don't people question that? What is being done about it?

Because, if you read the blog at the above link, you'll start to see that Islam IS waging a war against EVERYONE ELSE. They see Shariah and Islam as the holiest of holies, and it can do no wrong. They want to strike down every constitution, every religion, every belief but theirs. There is no mercy, there is no quarter, and there won't be an end until Islam rules the world.

Why don't people see this? Because Islam lies to us westerners. It always has. The Imams preach hatred and death to all non-Muslims, but their translations say nothing of this. Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat was well known for grand speeches about peace, in English - immediately after which he would denounce what he just said and call for a Jihad on the very people he was just proposing peace with.

And Muslims see nothing wrong with this. I believe that Western and Muslim culture are entirely and fully imcompatiable. One does not understand the other - and cannot. A Muslim will never understand why I, a Jew, hold an individual life as dear as ten, and I will never understand why a Muslim will willingly blow themself up, and kill innocent people. That is a dramatic distinction - but it is true.

So, as the Fjordman report reports...moderate Islam is simply a wolf in sheep's clothing. There will never be an end to this strife until one side or the other is completely destroyed. And at this point, we're looking at MAD instead.

Islamic Violence Building Through Six Incidents

2006-09-27T15:12:00.000-04:00

An interesting Op-Ed article from the Jerusalem Post reflectsupon the increasing quality and quantity of violence erupting from Islamic circles since 1989.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193330403&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"Six times since then Westerners have done or said something that has triggered death threats and violence in the Muslim world. Looking at them in the aggregate offers useful insights.", says writer Daniel Pipes.

"--1989 - Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses prompted Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a death edict against him and his publishers, on the grounds that the book "is against Islam, the Prophet and the Koran." Subsequent rioting led to more than 20 deaths, mostly in India.

--1997 - The US Supreme Court refused to remove a 1930s frieze showing Muhammad as lawgiver that decorates the main court chamber; the Council on American-Islamic Relations made an issue of this, leading to riots and injuries in India.
2002 - American Evangelical leader Jerry Falwell called Muhammad a "terrorist," leading to church burnings and at least 10 deaths in India.

--2005 - An incorrect story in Newsweek reporting that American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay "in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Koran down a toilet" was picked up by the famous Pakistani cricketer Imran Khan, and prompted protests around the Muslim world, leading to at least 15 deaths.

--February 2006 - The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons of Muhammad, spurring a Palestinian imam in Copenhagen, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, to excite Muslim opinion against the Danish government. He succeeded so well that hundreds died, mostly in Nigeria.

--September 2006 - Pope Benedict XVI quoted a Byzantine emperor's views that what is new in Islam is "evil and inhuman," prompting the firebombing of churches and the murder of several Christians. "

Pipes continues, "These six rounds show a near-doubling in frequency: eight years between the first and second rounds, then five, then three, one and none.THE FIRST instance - Khomeini's edict against Salman Rushdie - came as a complete shock, for no one had hitherto imagined that a Muslim dictator could tell a British citizen living in London what he could not write about. "

More:

"These incidents also spotlight a total lack of reciprocity by Muslims. The Saudi government bans Bibles, crosses and Stars of David, while Muslims routinely publish disgusting cartoons of Jews. "

Finally,

"The basic message - "You Westerners no longer have the privilege to say what you will about Islam, the Prophet and the Koran; Islamic law rules you too" - will return again and again until Westerners either submit or Muslims realize their effort has failed."

The Pakistani President And The Bungling Booktour

2006-09-26T22:39:00.000-04:00

Sounds like a cute little children's story, doesn't it? With maybe the man with the yellow hat and Curious George stopping by to get a store-bought copy signed?

Well kids, I wish it was. Instead, it appears that President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan (suffering suckatash!) has gone ahead and written his memoirs, a not-so-cute book that:

"...is expected to counter the biography of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in which the deposed leader, who was unseated by Musharraf, charged him with plotting the Kargil conflict without obtaining permission from the government.

Besides providing an insight into his childhood and his rise in Pakistani army and later as military ruler, Musharraf IS expected to respond to Sharif's charges in detail and provide his version of Kargil conflict as well as his role when Sharif along with former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee signed the Lahore accord."
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1053943

Indeed, while innocent women are raped and killed in his country for the crime of not marrying their appointed husbands, or for other reasons that 'require' honor killings, President Musharraf is traipsing around on book tour, visiting shows like "The Daily Show With John Stewart".

And thats not all, folks. Have you noticed a larger news presence of the Pakistani President lately, and more articles about him? More comments, such as when an emissary of Bush supposedly told him that if Musharraf didn't support his "War On Terror", that he would be "bombed to the stone age."

Gen V N Malik has described Pervez Musharraf as a ‘timid general’. In his view, there is a ‘lot of fabrication’ about the Kargil conflict in Pakistan President’s autobiography, which the Karachi daily The Dawn, says, ‘could well go down in the Guinness Book of Records for many firsts’ like promotion of the book at the expense of Pak exchequer. The daily dubs as a publicity gimmick Musharraf’s ‘bombed to the stone age’ comment. It notes that Gen Musharraf was soft on Benazir Bhutto while being very harsh on Nawaz Sharif in the book.
http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/2181

So, I'm not sure what President Musharraf's end goal is, but I really think it is shameless for a seated leader to tout their memoirs. Because, in the case that they are still politically active (unlike former Governor James McGreevey), their book is politically charged and probably serves a purpose other than generating book sales. President Clinton's memoirs certainly told his side of the story, and was meant to bolster the Democratic Party, but it wasn't meant to effect the current political situation. Which I am inclined to believe Musharraf's book is.

Let's see what else comes out of Curious Musharraf's trap in the near future...

(I'm not sure if you also find it amusing to refer to Musharraf in the vein of Curious George, which is a common theme in making light of our current President's common Gaffe's, i.e., Curious George and Missing WMDs."

Sex Trafficking - Old News

2006-09-26T09:33:00.000-04:00

The title of this post is not to denigrate the importance of abolishing sexual slavery by any means, however it is meant to comment on the recent words of a 'local congresswoman' who is trying to prosecute sex traffickers.

I laud that goal. But, when she says that sex trafficking is a, "21st century form of human slavery", I have to disagree. I understand the concept of making this topic contemporary, but some form of 'sexual slavery' has been ongoing probably as long as the human race has existed.

Clouding that fact, and this issue, won't help the end goal of people trying to put a stop to this. And politically charging this horrid form of control to meet personal goals won't either. It's time to speak the truth about this, and not hedge your bets by claiming this is a new problem.

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Sex_traffickers_target_of_plan_to_change_tax_code/4681.html

"CITY HALL — Proposed legislation that would use the tax code to prosecute sex traffickers could go a long way to end the “21st century form of human slavery,” a local congresswoman said yesterday.

The bill, H.R. 6107, would appropriate $2 million to establish an Internal Revenue Service office that would closely coordinate with the Department of Justice to put traffickers behind bars for violations of tax laws. It would also allow the newly created unit to keep criminal fines it collects from traffickers and to impose increased penalties — fines up to $50,000 and jail sentences of up to 10 years — for criminals who fail to file returns or pay taxes.

“Instead of realizing their dreams of better jobs and better lives, they become trapped in a nightmare of coercion, violence and disease,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney said of the estimated 800,000 people trafficked across international borders each year. “Human trafficking is the 21st century form of human slavery and we have a moral responsibility to hunt down and prosecute the men and women who brutalize women and children for profit.”

Maloney, D-Manhattan/ Queens, said she introduced the bill last week and hopes to see it passed by the end of this legislative session.

“I know that changing the tax code may not sound like much, but you have to remember that the way that the FBI finally got Al Capone was through the tax code,” she said. “I believe this will be a valuable tool for the Justice Department to really crack down on those abusers.” "

Thailand - A Democracy No More?

2006-09-20T17:16:00.000-04:00

I'm sure most of you have heard by now of Thailand's surprise Coup by the military leader, Genderal Sondhi, who took the opportunity to revolt when the nation's Prime Minister was in NYC, at the U.N.

The NYT reports, "As Thais awoke this morning to news of the coup, General Sondhi’s junta sought to consolidate its control, banning public gatherings, threatening to shut down or block telecommunications and urging “farmers and laborers” — many of whom are strong supporters of the ousted government — to stay out of politics."'

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/world/asia/20cnd-thailand.html?hp&ex=1158811200&en=36fdb27c89711194&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Here's the funny thing I'm trying to get my head around. If General Sondhi has seized power and eliminated the country's democracy and constitution, and told the nation's citizens to "stay out of politics" - how is that restoring democracy?

It seems to me that this is the farthest possible thing from democracy. Only time will tell, but I have my doubts that Thailand will revert to its old democratic self any time soon.

Oil Prices Dropping - Don't Gas Up The Car Just Yet

2006-09-20T16:59:00.000-04:00

The news is that, Oh My God, oil prices are dropping! The world is saved! Oil will flow forever! It'll be cheap like the old days!

Unfortunately, my intrepid readers, the exact opposite is much more probably. The theory of peak oil is, in essence, that the world will reach a point where oil production tops out. No matter what, the amount of oil found, dug out of the ground, refined, and sold, will start to drop. Not by a alot, by a little, a few percentage points each year.

This will mean price wars, and there won't be enough oil to go around. That means that rich countries can out bid the poorer ones, who simply won't have enough of the oil they need to run their economies, infrastructures, armed forces, etc. And as the bidding wars increase, the price will only go up.

So, you are wondering, whats with the price drop? Well, here are some suppositions, summarized from Howard Kunstler's site, http://www.kunstler.com/index.html, especially from the week of 9/18.

1) Prices have dropped due to the not so bad hurricane season we're having so far - fears have eased.

2) The Israeli-Lebanon war has calmed down, and there doesn't seem to be an imminent region wide Middle East war.

3) Prices were driven up unbelievably high because certain rich countries were stockpiling, and they have currently stopped purchasing oil, driving the price down.

4. Poorer countries have simply been outbid, so that their demand has been reduced or eliminated. That means that less people can afford the oil, more supply, less demand, less price.

So, oil prices have dropped. But what about production?

Production is DOWN, around the world. By a few percentage points. That hints strongly at the world having not only reached Peak Oil - but also that we're starting to slide down the other side of the bell curve. If you want more details, check out peakoil.net, or the above link to Kunstler's homepage.

Also, some of you might be wondering, quietly - does Bush and his republican party have anything to do with the dropping oil prices, so close to election time?

The short answer is, possibly not, because oil prices are not controlled by singular entities, people, or countries - it is determined by oil companies, their producers, the market demand, and other economic conditions.

The longer answer is, quite probably. In short, it is possible that the U.S. Army stockpiled oil during the last half year, to ease concerns of any drop out in production, or crisis (on the surface.) The other side of this is, if the American Army helped to raise prices by stockpiling, and they now have enough, logically they would stop buying oil currently, which would drive prices down because they are such a large purchaser of refined oil.

So, perhaps the Army IS involved in a conspiracy to help the Republicans, or perhaps they are being used unwittingly. I'm not quite sure. All that is for certain, is that there IS a finite amount of oil, and all the statistics point to us finally reaching the turning point, when oil will stop being cheap, plentiful, and efficable - and will start being a highly prized resource that nations and armed groups will fight to procure.

I'd say thats a pretty good premise for WWIII. What do you think?

Israel Is Ready For Armageddon

2006-08-24T17:10:00.000-04:00

The below article made shivers go down my spine.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_deterring_iran

1) Israel now has an additional two nuclear submarines to its other 3 nuclear submarines, which can stay down longer and have other new capabilities.

2) "The new submarines, built at a cost of $1.3 billion with Germany footing one-third of the bill, have propulsion systems that allow them to remain submerged for longer periods of time than the three nuclear-capable submarines already in Israel's fleet, the Jerusalem Post reported." (bold added by editor)

That is simply amazing. Germany has payed $425 million to help prevent another Holocaust. I am just stunned. A more full reversal could not have been possible. The country that hosted the 3rd reich has just ensured Israel's security against nuclear attack. Unbelievable.

The Corporations Behind America

2006-08-23T22:27:00.000-04:00

There is a growing movement that see's life through a very different lens than most Americans use, and it believes we're living with the veil pulled over our eyes by greedy corporations.

I know, I know, it sounds conspiracy theorist, but I am beginning to see where they are coming from.

I stumbled onto a very interesting essay that I think everyone should read, and this writer, Jane Smiley*, see's deregulation as a main catalyst to our current environmental, military and other destruction:

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/40682/

Here is a couple of tidbits from this intriguing piece that is definitely gestalt:

"Here's what the big ag companies want to do -- they want to own and contaminate the entire gene pool of all the world's food resources for their own profit and without the knowledge or input of anyone who will actually be eating the food or living in the world they create. So far, the French and the Japanese and some other nations are standing firm, but the US government, our government, your government, is trying to enforce the will of the big ag companies."

The writer, Jane Smiley, is talking here about seeding America with pesticide resistant plants, that destroy the fragile ecological systems our lives are sustained on (which we have been effectively unable to replace after we have destroyed it."

She goes on to tell us how our 'free market' capitalism really works, and how its not actually working for us (like we thought):

"Big ag, big tobacco, big war, big oil, and their enablers on Wall Street always congratulate themselves on "wealth creation". This is what the "free market" does -- it takes something that was supposedly worthless, like mountaintops in West Virginia or corn varieties in Mexico or oil deposits in Alaska, and gives them "value".

But this is a fiction. The model here is big water. The earth abounds in rivers and lakes. Wealthy water companies (the water rights in my river are owned by a company in England that is now in trouble for mismanaging their own Thames) go to other countries and buy or take the water rights of those people and then sell them back to those very people at a price they can hardly afford.

This is "wealth creation" -- creating wealth for stockholders, even though they already have more wealth than they know what to do with, by stealing the resources of the poor and the powerless. The "free market" always talks about buying low and selling high, but it specializes in theft. And, as an alternative, if the "wealth creators" cannot use what you own, say a hardy seed that works well for your ecosystem, they will render it useless so that you will have to buy their seed just to live."

She also blames the Reagan administration for opening the door, wide open that is, to corporate interests once and for all. This bit needs the rest of the article for context, but is also a nice nutshell:

"This is what I remember about the 1980 election...Ronald Reagan busied himself deregulating everything he could -- the airlines, the savings and loans, the protections of consumers and workers, health care and the health of the nation itself, the industries that people relied upon for jobs. Babies, children, old folks, farm animals, you name it, he made their lives worse. Possessed of a nice ranch of his own, he assigned James Watt to wreck the environment for everyone else. And he just kept smiling. Americans loved it.

Is it the US that gives corporations a bad name, or corporations that give the US a bad name? In 1980, the Republicans invited the corporate elite to have it their way. The world we have now, violent and selfish and brutal, contaminated and in danger of environmental collapse, is the world they made, both by actually dismantling the regulatory environment and by letting powerful people get in the habit of thinking that doing whatever they felt like, no matter how grossly harmful, was their right and their privilege.

And, she very nicely describes my own position on corporations, and boards of directors, and share holders. It incorporates the basic pyschological theory of "Groupthink", which is simply that a group of people are usually dumber than any one of those individuals by themselves. Sort of like a reverse gestalt. Like when a person is being mugged somewhere in Manhattan, and everyone in the nearby apartment buildings hear their cries for help, and nobody calls 911 because they think everyone else is going to do it instead, so why should they?

In essence, that a corporation is an entity that doesn't exist, and so it can't experience consequences and wouldn't know how to address them if it did:

"American corporations are uniquely free to do business in an irresponsible manner because of what you might call a typo in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which uses the word "person" without defining it as a human being. Since then, corporations have repeatedly interpreted their personhood in their own favor -- they get to have the rights that humans have, such as free political speech (bribing candidates with contributions), but none of the consequences (mortality, moral reciprocity, full liability for bad actions). The result is all around us and threatens to destroy us.

Ms. Smiley finishes with why she feels regulation was a good thing:

"Regulation was good because it rationalized not only business activity and human governance, but also because it rationalized the way the business elite saw themselves. It did not simply confront power with power, as Marxism did; it took details into consideration and broke up the huge gamble that is capitalism into a plethora of smaller gambles with perhaps fewer profits but also fewer consequences."

As a whole, I found Jane Smiley's essay, and some of the articulate comments below it, an eye opening reminder and inside look into how my life is not really what I think it is. Living in a city, you become subject to a lifestyle that depends on big business. But there are other ways to avoid that, such as farmers markets and local fruit stands, and I think I'll be visiting those more often now.

I reccomend reading the whole essay, and then the comments below it, which are interesting too. Here is one of them:

The further away from the land we get, the more we are dependent on corporations for our food, clothing, and shelter. And, for the sake of convenience, corporations get by with murder and monstrous profits because we're too apathetic and lazy to stop it....

Most people haven't a clue how to raise a garden and then preserve the veggies and fruits to have over the winter. In the past, even in large cities, people used to have a little garden to raise veggies or berries or other things to preserve every fall to have food for the winter, and maybe even keep a few chickens for eggs. Not so now; there are zoning laws to keep people from raising their own food within city limits. Most people don't know how and couldn't raise chickens or a pig over the spring and summer, feed them well, and then in the fall humanely kill them, butcher them, and put their meat in a basement freezer to feed themselves over the winter. The list goes on an on of the things most people (younger generations not raised on farms or in small towns, at least) no longer know how to do. There is a radical disconnect with life cycles in nature, and corporations have helped foster that disconnect.

We have made ourselves dependent children who couldn't even keep ourselves alive because we no longer have the knowledge our ancestors had about raising our own food to keep ourselves alive for any length of time. Thanks to brilliant advertising, corporations have made it easy for us to think of buying everything at a store... and we've bought into the "convenience" of purchasing all our food and the fact that we don't have to do any of the work to provide for ourselves is supposed to free our time for other things... which now means going to a mall to buy our clothing (designer labels only, of course - snob element comes into play here, and labels blazon our chests or our butts as free advertising for corporations who provide our clothing), or otherwise entertain ourselves through meaningless movies or other nonsense; all at a price, of course.

We don't even know how to entertain ourselves any longer, but complain of boredom and want someone around who keeps our every waking hour occupied with some form of "entertainment" - we're entertaining our boredom to death, starving for intellectual stimulation. And heaven forbid we teach our kids how to pick up a book to keep their minds occupied, or that we do the same and lead by example. No, we wait for the movie-based-on-the-book to be released and pay for the privilege of seeing the story as interpreted by a director or a producer, not what the author wrote in her/his book that could make our imaginations work and keep our minds occupied. Ditto any of the artistic pursuits, from painting to scupture to music to dance to designing and making our own clothing to... you name it.

Corporations have become our surrogate parents who provide our food, shelter, clothing, and feed our empty minds with their form of 'entertainment' because we no longer keep ourselves occupied with providing any of those things for ourselves. We might be physical adults, but we are mental children who rely on corporations to provide everything we need or want... for a price, because we've been brainwashed to believe we need the convenience the corporations provide.

Only if we break the bonds of dependence on corporations and once again learn to provide our own food, clothing, and shelter for ourselves will we once again become adults fully responsible for ourselves and our offspring.

There you have it. Corporations - faceless, mindless, groupthink tanks that don't face consequences - are running our country, our lives, and are, basically, at the controls of this roller coaster ride that will eventually plunge off of the unfinished track. (I found this article off of another extremely interesting site: Peak Oil.)

*Jane Smiley is the author of numerous books, including Horse Heaven and The Greenlanders.

No, Hamas ISN'T Ready To Deal

2006-08-17T15:52:00.000-04:00

I just don't know what it is with some people, news organizations, institutions, etc. They seem to think that a new document or a few mouthed words will actually change 58 years of Israeli history virtually overnight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/opinion/17atran.html

Says research scientist Scott Atran in the above linked NYT op-ed:

"Recent discussions I’ve had with Hamas leaders and their supporters around the globe indicate that Israel might just find a reasonable and influential bargaining partner."

Right. Sure. Now pull the other one, its got bells on. Can you please name these mysterious Hamas leaders and their supporters, and how exactly have they indicated a willingess to drop their call for the destruction of Israel?

Scott goes on to say, "Many Israelis consider the rescue of a soldier a “sacred value,” worth almost any cost, including military action leading to other Israeli soldiers dying. But the Israeli offensive also had a larger strategic goal: to destroy whatever potential the Hamas government had to prevent Israel from unilaterally redrawing its boundaries to include some West Bank settlements. Doing so was something that Israel had intended as soon as it could convince the United States that with Hamas having defeated Fatah at the polls, there was no legitimate Palestinian partner to negotiate with. "

1. Thanks for putting "sacred value" in quotes, thereby condescending our value for human life. Furthermore, it shows how much you understand Jewish mentality by implying that Jews/Israeli's don't understand the theme of "Saving Private Ryan." To the Jewish people, every life is sacred. Yes, war is confusing, and Israeli soldiers died protecting their homeland. It might behoove you to remember they died because their fellow soldiers were attacked in the first place. And to do nothing, to save soldiers lives out of cowardice, might be something you personally are okay with, but the people of Israel were not.

2. You say, "But the Israeli offensive also had a larger strategic goal: to destroy whatever potential the Hamas government had to prevent Israel from unilaterally redrawing its boundaries to include some West Bank settlements."

You're an idiot, an absolute vapid nutjob. If any outside goal was maintained in the last offensive, it was to recreate Israel's deterrent policty, i.e. you rocket us, we'll destroy your infrastructure. Any current offensive against Hamas is meant to protect Israel from those terrorists to whom life means nothing. I'd rather consider life 'sacred' than not, thank you very much.

Finally, you said, "Mr. Haniya’s government had just agreed to a historic compromise with Fatah and its leader, President Mahmoud Abbas, forming a national coalition that implicitly accepts the coexistence alongside Israel."

Mr. Atran, your entire op-ed article is chock full of inconsistencies, sophmoric opinions, and pure lies. You might as well be a Hezbollah supporter. The 'historic compromise' you site does not actually mean what you think it means. You are referring to the prisoners document, which CAMERA has a lot to say about:

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=34&x_article=1132

"The Prisoners’ Document does not explicitly call for recognition of Israel; and it presses for the "right of return," widely understood as a way to destroy the Jewish state via demographic means. "

Futhermore:

"Indeed, a Hamas spokesman emphasized after the text of the Prisoners’ Document was released that his organization espouses principles similar to those described in the "phased plan": The Hamas Movement's position is a clear one: We refuse to recognize the Israeli occupation, but we do not object to any gradual solutions that do not stem from recognition of the Israeli occupation's state. If we are speaking in the context of a transient and gradual solution, then yes, we do not object to the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders without that leading to the recognition of the occupation's legitimacy. (Sami Abu Zuhri, May 11, 2006, translated by BBC Monitoring Middle East)"

I am no longer suprised by the anti-objective stance the NYT takes in regards to Israel and its position in the middle east. Any student of history, who has managed to pick up an actual book on the subject, is well aware of the fact that Israel has been under attack from its inception. Israel has fought 9 wars, all of which are part of the same overlying struggle - a fight for Israel's very existence.

And personally, I no longer distinguish between anti-zionists and anti-semitists. They simply have too much in common. I have hope though. My liberal Jewish friend was recently persuaded that his long held opinions aren't necessarily based in reality, after reading some documentation I passed along. If only other people would open their eyes too, we'd have more people debating the facts on the ground, instead of seeing these opeds that have no basis in reality.

Unconsciable behavior

2006-08-17T13:37:00.000-04:00

This report made me sick and angry.

http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Ftoday.reuters.com%2FNews%2FCrisesArticle.aspx%3FstoryId%3DDEL264826

"KOLKATA, India, Aug 17 (Reuters) - A group of Indian television journalists gave a man matches and diesel to help him commit suicide in order to get dramatic footage which was later broadcast on the news, police said on Thursday.

The man died from severe burns to his body in hospital in Gaya town in the eastern state of Bihar on August 15, India's Independence Day. Footage of the man, screaming and writhing in pain as he ran with his back on fire, was aired on several television channels. Police identified the man as Manoj Mishra."

And

"The TV crews left the scene without aiding Mishra who suffered burns to over 70 percent of his body..."

That is among the worst behavior I have ever heard of among journalists. I mean, these people basically helped him kill himself, and then walked away when he was still alive.

That is like giving a gun to a thief who then holds up a liquor store, so he can get you a bottle of whiskey, and then walking away like you had no part in the crime.

How desperate for ratings must they be? How inured to pain and tragedy must they be to not care about his fate? How much disrespect can they have for their own lives, and the lives of others, to leave this mark on their souls?

This Just In: Fake News Isn't Real

2006-08-16T21:22:00.000-04:00

Working in public relations, you get a really good feel for the media and certain trends that come around every dozen months or so.

Every now and then, some higher up realizes that TV stations are airing VNR's like they're real news. (Quick Definition: VNR's are 30-60 second videos that are produced by independent companies. They have a voicetrack giving information and statistics, with B-Roll, or just rolling camera shots with no sound, in the background. Independent PR companies will pitch these to TV stations as reports on news, though all reporters should know a VNR is usually little more than a newsy looking commercial.)

This was highlighted during Bush's presidency, when his PR people sent out 9/11 VNR's for his 2nd election and portrayed them as real news. Several legitimate news agencies aired those VNR's, mere campaign commercials, as real news, and the backlash hit the PR industry like a shockwave. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, took VNRs, for at least 6 months after that. To this day many news rooms won't take VNRs. Most other TV newsrooms relented after a while, but every time this crops up in the news, the clamp down happens again.

It happened again.
http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fstories%2F2006%2F08%2F16%2Fnational%2Fprintable1900602.shtml

So if you're in PR, working with VNRs...keep your head down.

Water Shortage

2006-08-16T21:20:00.000-04:00

While we don't feel this in my part of town at all, and you know how I love my morning showers, millions of other people feel the bite of a water shortage keenly.

http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Ftoday.reuters.com%2FNews%2FCrisesArticle.aspx%3FstoryId%3DSYD272763

And people wonder why everyone else wants to be citizens of this country. We don't have a water shortage, and we won't for a while. That's one BIG reason.

It's Good To Be A Superpower

2006-08-16T21:11:00.000-04:00

Personally, when George W. Bush said, "America's way of life is non-negotiable" I cringed inside. I still cringe whenever I think about it.

Because I just don't believe that anymore, for various reasons, including:

1) Unless someone comes up with an alternative energy source that is as cheap and efficient as oil, there simply won't be enough oil to keep our 'way of life' running. It just won't exist.

2) Our 'way of life' is ruining the entire planet. The amount of waste America produces is simply mind boggling and wretched. There are middle class people, known as freegans, who live in NYC and actually eat out of dumpsters to protest our way of life and conserve resources. http://www.nypress.com/19/24/news&columns/feature.cfm

3) The amount of energy America uses is so unbelievably disproportionate to the rest of the world that I'm surprised they don't rise up and kill us all just for that. It's simple: we waste a ton of energy, while many people don't have any at all. This kind of equation simply cannot persist - history is littered with the corpses of empires that became fat on their own gleanings. Just like us.

4) The disproportionate amount of food we have. Billions of people are starving and undernourished around the world - I can walk down the street and get a bigmac, slice of pizza, meatstick, subway sandwich, Carvel, a breakfast sandwich, sushi, etc. People around the world are starving. How can we morally live like this anyway?

Finally, Lou Dobbs has something to say about this, and our non-negotiable way of life. It's good to be a super power!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/15/dobbs.august16/index.html

Costa Rica Bends To Arab Pressure

2006-08-16T20:59:00.000-04:00

Costa Rica, a "shining light of democracy in Latin America" has decided to move its capital from controversial Jerusalem to Tel Aviv. Whats the point/big idea/meaning of this, you ask?

Jerusalem is considered by many nations and people to be an international city, that shouldn't be owned by any one religious group or secular entity. It was originally divided between Palestinians and Israelis in 1948 by the U.N., and was owned by many different empires before that.

Israel captured the eastern/arab part of the city in the 1967 6-Day War, and since then it has been the undivided capital of Jerusalem. Every Prime Minister of Israel since has voiced the sentiment that it will never again be divided,

" "Jerusalem is the anchor and heart of hearts of the Jewish people," said Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, "and we will never be separated from it again. Jerusalem will remain the united capital of the state of Israel forever." " (June 2005)

However, many Arab nations refuse to see Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a nation-state they don't recognize as even existing. This is a hotly debated point of contention, and so many nations move their capitals to Tel Aviv rather than risk the wrath of muslims around the world. This is because Palestinians see Jerusalem as the capital of their country, which they claim is "under occupation." http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-06/2005-06-06-voa48.cfm?CFID=7057243&CFTOKEN=49909018

This is a dissapointing moment. It means that yet another democracy has capitulated to Arab/muslim world pressure, and that that democracy has taken a step further away from Israel. It was probably also a symbolic motion to protest the recent/current war with Lebanon, which has been distordedly widely by several main news agencies, and many other smaller ones. Doctored photos, one sided reports, and blatant disregard for the facts - that is what has typefied this conflict.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525889070&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Ceasefire Upheld...For Now

2006-08-16T20:40:00.000-04:00

The current news out of the middle east is that the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel is being upheld...but for how long? http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525888082&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

The 'Lebanese army' will supposedly be moving down south to guard Israel's northern border for Hezbollah terrorists, but they won't actually confront Hezbollah soldiers - so whats the point?

" "There will be no confrontation between the army and brothers in Hizbullah... That is not the army's mission..." " Says Lebanon's Information Minister, Ghazi Aridi.

So again, whats the point? An empty show of force to basically pin down the IDF from attacking Hezbollah again, while giving Hezbollah terrorists free movement, and quite possibly support. AND now the Int'l Community can point their finger and say, "Look how Lebanon, who you just destroyed, is protecing you...shame on you Israel for attacking them!" To see why I put 'Lebanese Army' in quotes, check out the August 11th comic here.

*Editors Note: A conscious decision has been made, and energy will be expended to update this blog regularly, so that you faithful readers (if you exist) can enjoy a fresh cup of perspective every darned day. This is America after all!

Bias All Around Us

2006-08-15T13:38:00.000-04:00

Todays blog is a reaction to an article online at the Independent, which states the thesis that Americans have a one sided view of the middle east, the Lebanon crisis, and Israel in general.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1219241.ece

I agree. Furthermore, I think the author of this article should follow their thought full circle, and realize: the same is true in the U.K., where the media report an anti-Israel bias day in and day out. But no one writes articles on that.

However, this article's author, Andrew Gumbel, points to certain one sidedness of American's view of certain areas, and then doesn't question why that is. Gumbel mentions that,

"Rupert Murdoch's Fox News has had reporters running around northern Israel chronicling every rocket attack and every Israeli mobilisation, but has shown little or no interest in anything happening on the other side of the border. It is a rarity on any of the cable channels to see any Arab being tapped for expert opinion on the conflict"

This is an extremely interesting viewpoint, since I view media from many different geo-political areas, and I see where different news organizations/cultures focus their attention. Outside of America, and Israel (not counting leftist papers), almost NO ATTENTION has been given to the Israeli side of this equation. Reuters and AP show dozens of photos, some doctored, of the Lebanese destruction, but I have seen almost no Israel destruction highlighted. I have to LOOK for that stuff. So for some American media to take Israel's side in this is more than okay since, and trust me on this, many more people are interested in speaking AGAINST Israel than for it.

THAT is why Jews and Israelis campaign so strongly for Israel, politically and militarily. Israel is a small country, with some 5-6 million citizens. It is surrounded by hundreds of millions of people screaming for it's destruction. It's military is high tech, well supplied, and well disciplined - which means nothing if 15 million soldiers attack it. All Israel has is bluster and the ability to strike extreme damage at an enemy, to dishearted it and its allies. Moreover, Israel has never had any other choice. Israel has never been able to achieve a status of security along all of its borders for its entire existence. The only thing that would appease its enemies is if it ceased to exist.

That point is certainly never discussed in the media.

Finally, Gumbel finds an Israeli hating Jew to back up his stance and show that many Jews don't support Israel,

"frustrating to liberal Jews like Michael Lerner, a San Francisco rabbi who heads an anti-war community called Tikkun. Rabbi Lerner has tried to argue for years that it is in Israel's best interests to reach a peaceful settlement, and that demonising Arabs as terrorists is counter-productive and against Judaism. "

"There is no major figure in American political life who has been willing to raise the issue of the legitimate needs of the Palestinian people, or even talk about them as human beings," Lerner said. "The organised Jewish community has transformed the image of Judaism into a cheering squad for the Israeli government, whatever its policies are. That is just idolatry, and goes against all the warnings in the Bible about giving too much power to the king or the state."

I can't even begin to point out how wrong this quote is, and in how many ways.

1. To quote a liberal Jew and say he reflects major Jewish opinion is just not kosher. Yes, I know a liberal Jew who hates Israel, and no, I don't think his position is very intelligent. Yes, the plight of the palestinians is horrid, but, and this is the important part - how much of the blame should Israel really accept?

2. "It is in Israel's best interests to reach a peace settlement." Peace with who? Peace with leaders who daily say their goal is to destroy Israel? Give me a break. Anyone who says something like that garners absolutely no respect in my book. Why don't you open your eyes and realize Israel's actions are inconsequential - its mere existence is the real crux of the problem.

3. The Palestinians live in horrid refugee camps and don't have an economy or jobs. However, they're not being massacred or becoming victims of genocide - their population has EXPLODED since 1948.

Enter Darfur and the Sudan - Americans get just as little coverage on the extent of the genocide there as they do on the plight of the Palestinians. Which is more important? So I think the blindfold over American's eyes is more than just localized to Palestinians. So I don't think that point has any validity at all.

4. For this rabbi to point to America's Jewish communities' support of Israel as "idolatry" is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. It is people like this who not only boggle my mind but make me angry - where they get off saying such things I have no idea. But anyway - Idolatry is making a person or idol into a God. Support for Israel and its government is socio-political in nature. Not religious. Get your facts and terms straight Lerner.

So, in conclusion, I generally find that bias runs AGAINST Israel almost everywhere I look. In America, its nice to see some fairly balanced reporting, or at least not hinting that Israel is a monster in the foremost headline. For all the blatantly biased reports and media against Israel, I don't think it is too much to ask that SOME areas of the world hear the Israel's position first - before the PR efforts of Palestinians and their sympathizers write up more biased reports.

False Massacres?

2006-08-04T14:04:00.000-04:00

This afternoon we take a look at the 'massacres' that have been committed by the Israeli Defense Force during their incursion into Lebanon, aimed at stopping daily rocket attacks on their citizens.

The most recent massacre was at Qana on August 2nd. There are conflicting reports about what the building was and what really happened.

From what I can tell, that building in Qana was being used as a base to shoot rocket attacks at Israel. Hez-Bo-Allah (got that one from someone else's blog) uses this tactic as a guerilla fighting force. They shoot rockets out from a civilian building or area, then race away, and when the building is bombed, they claim Israel created a massacre.

Well, that appears to be exactly what has happened. Not only that, but there is a discrepancy in the details:

1) The building collapsed 7-8 hours after initially 'hit' by Israeli bombs; why would the people in the building wait 8 hours to evacuate a building that was just bombed?

2) The building did not appear to have suffered a direct hit:

"In addition, as Reuven Koret writes for IsraelInsider, the bombing of the area occurred in three waves. The first bombs, according to CNN correspondent Brent Sadler, did not hit the building in question, but rather landed "20 or 30 meters" away. The second strike hit targets further away, and the third strike, around 7:30 in the morning, landed over 400 meters away. The first reports of a collapsed building arrived a half-hour later.

Another CNN correspondent, Ben Wedeman, noted that there was a larger crater next to the building. He observed that the roof of the building was intact and that the building appeared not to have collapsed as a result of the Israeli strike."

http://mydatastor.blogspot.com/2006/08/evidence-mounts-that-kana-massacre-was.html

CNN, not usually the most pro Israeli, actually had some decent comments to make. My standpoint at this point? Bombs landed too close to a civilian building where rockets were being launched, and the whole thing was blown seriously out of proportion.

Brief Timeline and History of Current Crisis-War

2006-08-04T10:18:00.000-04:00

Back to our regular scheduled programming.

The current crisis in the middle east is two things, that are related, and neither of which are covered, discussed, or even hinted at in American or international media.

1) It is a continuation of the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, when Israel declared its soveriegnty and the surrounding arab countries took it upon themselves to declare a war of eradication that will only end when Israel is no more. In other words, that war has....not.....ended.

2) It is a renewal of serious hostilities by yet another 2nd handed militant organization that is being funded by the latest "i want to control the middle east" dictatorship. I.e., it is now Iran's turn to field the ball and try to score, which means destryoying Israel. Egypt previously tried to lead the charge, failed, and made peace. Oh, and then their leader who ordered the peace, Sadat, was assisinated-murdered.

--The newest chaper of this war started on June 25th, when armed "palestinian militants" killed two israeli soldiers in a raid, and then captured a third, Galid Shalit.

--Two days later, on June 27th, Hamas signs a document that the media hails as "implicitly recognizing Israel." Totally 100% false. Talk to ANY Hamas 'lawmaker' (ha!) , and they will say it doesn't. Here is a letter to the editor of the New York Times on it, from CAMERA

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=1140

"To the Editor:

Your editorial claimed that the document endorsed by Hamas "implicitly recognizes Israel."

Unfortunately, Hamas's leaders and spokesmen have repeatedly made clear that the group still refuses to recognize Israel's legitimacy.

Salah al-Bardawil, a Hamas lawmaker, is quoted in your June 28 issue as explaining that "we did not say we accept two states."

Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, pointed out that "we agreed to all the articles of the document without having to recognize Israel." Others have repeated this unambiguous message.

It seems, then, that Hamas has successfully maneuvered an agreement compatible with its uncompromising rejection of the Jewish state, as enshrined in its founding charter.

That document calls for Israel to be replaced with an Islamic state.

Gilead IniBoston, June 29, 2006The writer is senior research analyst, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America."

So, simply just another public relations mood to sway world opinion against Israel (and to read what we think of world opinion, check out this oped by Dennis Prager: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23635)

--June 28th: Israeli ground forces enter Gaza. Israel says it will use "extreme measures" to rescue Cpl. Shalit, and Washington says, "Israel has the right to defend itself" (which was suddenly reversed after the bombing of an apartment building and the killing of Lebanese civilians, which we will revisit later on.)

--July 1st: Fighting rages, rockets rain down, and Israel rejects a demand to release 1,000 prisoners

--July 10th: Hamas political leader (Now remember children, their political wing is DIFFERENT! than their military wing, get it straight!) Khaled Mashaal says no release of soldier without prisoner swap. (that doesn't sound like politics to me - that sounds like a terrorist operation)

--July 12th: Hezbollah captures two Israeli soldiers, kil 8, which prompts first Israeli ground incursion into Lebanon since 2000.

--July 13th: Israeli planes kill at lest 44 civilians in air strikes across Lebanon. World argues with itself, with the U.S. coming out at the top of the Israeli supporters. Italy criticizes the "disproportionate" use of force by Israel.

--July 14th: Israel bombs beirut home of Hezbollah chief Hasan Nasrallah, who declares open war on Israel. Israel sets conditions for end of war, including halt rocket attacks, release soldiers, and for the UN to disarm Hezbollah.

---More fighting, bombing, reprisals, accusations, and more.

--July 25th: Israeli air strike kills 4 UN observers. Annan says the targeting was deliberate. Which is simply and absoultely deplorable and ridiculous. Annan has always hated Israel.

--July 29th: "An Israeli air strike in the south of Lebanon kills at least 51 Lebanese civilians, including 22 children, in the village of Qana." (This will be covered in the next blog.)

--August 3rd: 200 rockets fired by Hezbollah kills 1 and injures 123. Hostilities continue.

(timeline from http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/s1694729.htm)

In my opinion, this is simply another series of battles meant to tire out Israel's resolve. Beating Hezbollah's military is extremely difficult, because they are so guerilla in nature, and a total victory will mean almost nothing. Killing a thousand or two Hezbollah militants would temporarily end that threat, but there are hundreds of thousands more waiting to take their place. And the enemy's resolve has not slackened, not one bit, since 1948.

However, Israel has no choice. They MUST re-institute the belief in their deterrent capability, i.e., you fuck with Israel and you'll get the horns. And that is what this is, in my humble opinion.

NPR Reveals Bias Once Again

2006-07-20T10:17:00.000-04:00

(* I promise I will resume regular blogging very soon, and will update everyone on the recent events in the middle east and a NYC Jew's take on it.)

I'm a publicist by trade, and I made the mistake of pitching my Jewish conservative Republican author to a National Public Radio syndicated show as a background expert on the middle east.

What the person over the phone told me, point blank, is that "they're not interested in Israeli experts right now". What they want is Lebanese people discussing how bad it is with the bombs falling. They don't want to hear Israel's position AT ALL. How is that for an agenda?

Hamas Created Situation, Now Trying To Find Way Out

2006-07-01T14:50:00.000-04:00

Hamas operatives kidnapped soldier Galid Shalit, and is now whining and moaning about how unfair they are being treated by the IDF.

News Flash Hamas: This is ALL, YOUR, FAULT. If your party was about to form a unity government with Fatah, and sign a document "implicitly recognizing Israel" (which, from what I understand it, is pure sophistry), then it was YOUR responsibility to make sure nothing got in the way of that.

Your actions and words declare that you hold ISRAEL responsible for not only all the conditions possible, but for the behavior of HAMAS itself. It is not Israel's responsibility to make sure you are able to declare peace, a truce, a ceasefire, or whatever bullshit you're trying to pull this week. Israel's responsibility is to itself and its citizens, which are under attack FROM HAMAS.

The bottom line is that Hamas opened pandoras box, and is now blaming Israel for it. They kidnapped a soldier, and are now saying that Israel's response is keeping him from being released. They want negotiation.

So, Hamas is blatantly admitting to abuducting the soldier of a foreign government in order to win concessions from them. And is decrying that foreign government for not conceding to their demands. Sorry, but that just doesn't fly. You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it. Israel has no fault in this, for they are acting honorably and in their own interests, and not necessarily against the Palestinian civilian population. It's not Israel's fault that Palestinian elected leaders are choosing to pick a fight with a much larger and stronger entity. It is Hamas's.

If Hamas wants peace, it can have peace. If they want their ministers back, they can have them back. If they want an end to Israeli aggression, they can have an end to Israeli aggression.

All they need to do is stop their war. That's all they ever needed to do. Stop their war, and decide what they want and need to survive as a people. Israel did that, and now its your turn. Don't expect Israel to do it for you. That's not their job. Their job is protecting Jews and Israelis from you psychos for as long as is necessary. Until the Messiah comes, if need be. And don't you forget it.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885893194&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Into Hamastan

2006-06-30T11:20:00.000-04:00

Here is an op-ed with an interesting look at the middle east conflict and middle east problems as a whole, with a suggestion that neither Iraq nor Palestine can be solved without dealing with all the regional players:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/into_hamastan.html

France Sides With Terrorists - Again

2006-06-30T10:50:00.000-04:00

France is calling for Israel to release the arrested Hamas officials, fearing an escalation of the conflict:

"" Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said France fears that the situation will "feed an escalation and strengthen the most extreme elements, which is doubtless not Israel's objective."

France does not want the situation to lead to "the weakening and, even less so, the disappearance of the Palestinian Authority," Mattei said.

"The Israelis must be very vigilant about the consequences of their actions," the spokesman said during a regular press briefing, adding that Israeli restraint in the situation "is desirable." "A de-escalation must be started," Mattei said.

Referring to the eight Palestinian ministers and 56 other Hamas officials captured by Israel, he added, "We await the liberation of these political officials."

Freeing Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit would also clearly favor a de-escalation, he said. ""

Notice how they only mention the freeing of Shalit as almost a footnote? This is indicative of world opinion about this current crisis: almost no one mentions the kidnapped soldier, and how Hamas ALONE started this escalation.

Instead, they blame Israel for seeking to defend itself, use its strength, and get its soldier back. Nobody cares about Israelis, they only care about the Palestinians, who root for America to be destroyed and salute Osama Bin Laden. Don't get me wrong, I deplore the conditions that Palestinians are forced to live in, but its the fault of their leaders and their culture and their surrounding arab nations, NOT Israel's actions.

In a nutshell, it seems to me that, in the eyes of the world, the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit is pretty much condoned, while any reaction by Israel is condemned. The world somehow sees it as perfectly ok to demand Israel negotiate with terrorists to release its soldier, when negotiations have always always always favored the Palestinians. To the world, the life of a Jewish soldier isn't as important as the price of oil tomorrow.

To Israel and Jews around the world, to save the life of one person is to save the world. There is no negotiation. That is what Israel is fighting for, and I pray that she wins.

Hamas PM Throws Tantrum, Says Israel Doesn't Play Fair

2006-06-30T09:56:00.000-04:00

The latest developments in the IDF offensive to obtain the return of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit are that Israel has arrested over 60 Hamas officials, and bombed the Hamas Interior Ministry.

These measures are aimed at putting pressure on the Palestinian Authority to release the soldier, to hem in the kidnappers so they can't escape, and to hopefully find Galid and get him back through force. Like America, Israel does not negotiate with terrorists. It just doesn't pay.

The Prime Minister of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, has made his first public speech since the beginning of this offensive, and he claims Israel is using force so they don't have to negotiate.

Haniyeh: "When they kidnapped the ministers they meant to hijack the government's position, but we say no positions will be hijacked, no governments will fall," he said.

Another official of Hamas makes another statement:

"Mohammed Nazal, a Damascus-based member of the Hamas politburo, told The Associated Press on Friday that Israel is not serious about negotiating Shalit's release.
"Israel is negotiating by fire," he said. "They're buying time until they can locate the soldier through intelligence and then try to free him." "

(Both quotes can be found at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885888938&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

I'd like to resond in kind.

First of all, Israel did not "kidnap" anyone, Mr. Prime Minister of terror. Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier through the use of a pre-meditated tunnel that took two months to dig. Israel, in turn, arrested the officials of your government which is responsible for this crime and act of war. Those ministers that were arrested are not to be used as bargaining chips - they have been arrested as party to a crime. However, Israel is pretty damned lenient, and if the soldier is returned unharmed, then those ministers will be releases as well, since the crime would have been solved.

Second of all, Mohammaed Nazel, Israel has every right and moral obligation to do whatever is necessary to secure the release of Galid Shalit. In no way, shape, or form should Israel sit back and "negotiate" for the release of their soldier. That is not an option!

Let me put it in a nutshell. Because Hamas kidnapped this soldier, it proves one of two things:

1) Hamas is a terrorist Government, which means they are not to be negotiated with
2) Hamas has committed an act of war, which precludes negotiation (which would be seen as appeasement), and the only option is a use of force in return.

So, Hamas officials, your whining about how Israel isn't playing fair just doesn't cut it. You made the bed, now you have to sleep in it. Don't complain to us that it happens to be made of shrapnel, tank artillery fire, and jet fuel. You get what you paid for.

Also, President Mubarak of Egypt has publicly stated that Hamas has agreed to release the kidnapped soldier, but Israel has not accepted their conditions yet. This was stated yesterday, and as of this morning, Israel still says that have not heard anything about this.

Tie A Blue Ribbon For Gilad Shalit

2006-06-29T12:30:00.000-04:00

Tie a blue ribbon anywhere, on your finger, on a tree, on your shirt, so that people will ask what it is, and you can tell them.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/731487.html

(Hat Tip To Free Thoughts: http://freethoughts.wordpress.com/)

Pop Quiz - Can You Answer Correctly?

2006-06-29T11:38:00.000-04:00

The following post was one posted by Steven Plaut on israelnn.com, to be found at http://israelnn.com/article.php3?id=6341. It stated my own beliefs so coherently that I had to share it. Author info at the bottom.

"Quick, take a fast current events quiz:1. Since the start of the Palestinian intifada, how many innocent Palestinian civilians have been intentionally murdered by Israel?

2. Since the start of the Palestinian intifada, how many innocent Israeli civilians have been intentionally murdered by the PLO, the Hamas and their affiliates?

Now, if you have been relying on the mainstream media, you will be forgiven for not knowing the correct answers to those two questions. The correct answer to the first question is: "Zero"; and the correct answer to the second question is: "All of them."

That's right. Not a single innocent Palestinian has been intentionally killed by Israel during the past two decades of intifada violence. But every single one of the hundreds of Jewish civilians killed was an intentional act of Palestinian murder.

Sure, plenty of guilty Palestinians have been killed, and these include murderers, leaders in terror organizations, rank-and-file terrorists, and people setting up rocket launchers to fire at Jewish civilians. And sure, there have also been innocent Palestinian civilians who were killed or injured when the Jews shot back. These are people who were killed in the same Israeli anti-terror operations necessitated by Palestinian terrorist aggression and atrocities.

There is a fundamental difference, however, between Palestinian civilians getting killed in anti-terror operations and reprisals by Israel, and Israeli civilians who are killed by Palestinian Islamofascists. The Palestinian dead are unintended collateral damage from operations aimed at stopping rocket attacks and other terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.

True, Israeli anti-terror operations are not so "surgically exact" that only guilty terrorists get killed in them. I am quite sure that if and when such a precise military technology is invented, for killing only guilty terrorists when they hide among innocent civilians, Israel will be the first country on earth to adopt it. However, until then, when Palestinians intentionally target and murder Jewish civilians, innocent Palestinian civilians may suffer the consequences of Arab terror.Jewish civilians, however, are always the target of Palestinian terror.

Israeli soldiers hurt by the terrorists are generally the unintended collateral damage.Israel suffers from a fundamental strategic problem, which damages its ability to defend itself; namely, the fact that modern Hebrew does not have a linguistic equivalent to the American slang expression, "Tough!" True, it has some words for "what a shame," but they do not quite convey the same meaning. As a result, Israeli politicians generally fail to respond to whines from the world about Palestinian civilians getting hurt in counter-terror operations by saying, "Tough!"

There has never been a war in which only soldiers get killed, and there does not exist a weapons technology that allows military strikes to take place in an exact manner where no civilians near military targets ever get hurt. Such surgical precision is all the more impossible when terrorists intentionally hide within and behind civilian populations. International law recognizes the rights of countries at war to attack terrorists and even soldiers when they are hiding among civilians, even when such attacks produce civilian deaths.

International law assigns blame for those deaths to the belligerents who use the civilians as their "human shields". When Palestinian civilians are killed by an Israeli shell, then the moral responsibility for those deaths rests squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinian terrorists who necessitate Israeli return fire.

These are the same terrorists who have fired thousands of rockets and mortar shells into Israeli civilian areas, even after Israel completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip. These are the murdering Islamofascists who have turned the Negev town of Sderot, well inside Israel's pre-1967 borders, into the Israeli equivalent of Guernica, under daily bombardment. Sderot's low-income civilians live in bunkers, afraid for their lives.Don't want Palestinian civilians killed when Israel shoots back? Simple. Stop the rocket attacks on Sderot.

Don't like Israeli reprisals? Simple. Stop the terror atrocities committed by Palestinians against Jews.You want Palestinians to move about freely without being searched at checkpoints? Simple. Stop the campaign of bombings, suicide mass murders and atrocities by the Palestinians. When the Palestinians stop murdering Jews, no one will have to check their cars. When Palestinian ambulances no longer carry explosives and murderers, no one will stop them for inspection.You want the Palestinians to earn decent wages, have a comfortable life? Simple. Suppress Palestinian terrorism.

Stop Palestinian rocket aggression. Then, they can even hold day jobs in Israel if they want. They are welcome to shop in Israel and get Israeli medical treatment. But as long as the terror continues, don't expect Israel to respond by turning the other cheek and abandoning self-defense. Don't like it? Tough! Don't like civilians getting hurt in wars? Then don't start wars of terror and aggression against Israel.

The Bash-Israel lobby keeps coming up with new forms of political aggression against the Jewish state. The newest goes something like this: Until Israel is technologically capable of killing terrorists hiding in the middle of cities full of civilians without a single Palestinian civilian being injured as "collateral damage", then Israel should be coerced into adopting a policy of Quaker pacifism, under which it does not respond or retaliate at all to terror atrocities.

In other words, by demanding that Israel only implement 100% pure military tactics, which no other army on earth has ever adopted, the Bash-Israel lobby is, in effect, really insisting that Israel stop defending its own civilians altogether, that Israel should become the first nation on earth to adopt such pacifism as its military strategy. Israel must be disarmed, while terrorism must be rewarded. And if Israel dares to shoot back, then it becomes the aggressor. By the same logic, Britain and the US were the real aggressors against Germany in 1944.

Such disingenuous demands for utopian purity in military operations, even when they come from Israel's own Leftists, are little more than a demand for unconditional Israeli capitulation to terror. Indeed, the only permissible defensive strategy such people are willing to allow Israel to follow is such capitulation.Let us stop with the rhetorical pretenses and affectations. People who are "only" outraged when Palestinian civilians are unintentionally hurt by Israel, but have nothing to say against the mass rocket attacks on Sderot, are naked anti-Semites.

They consider Jewish children legitimate targets of Arab aggression and Islamofascist terror because they hate Jews. In reality, they do not care a fig about Palestinian civilian casualties. Such casualties are merely delightful propaganda tools that can be exploited to demonize the Jews.There is only one effective way to prevent Palestinian civilian casualties, and that is to stop Palestinian terrorist aggression against Israel. But that is the one solution to the problem that the modern day pogromchiki, including academic Brownshirts, will never support."

http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com/
http://www.zioncon.blogspot.com/

Act Of War

2006-06-28T17:04:00.000-04:00

The recent killing of two soldiers and the kidnapping of a third by Hamas operatives is a blatant act of war from government to another.

Hamas is now the democratically elected leadership of the Palestinians, even though they have not achieved nation-state status. (Which leads us to ponder, why haven't they achieved that status yet, when they've had the world on their side for 25 years? Oh yes, its because they'd rather destroy Israel than have a state of their own. Actions speak louder than words.)

So, as the democratically elected government, they now have official status. Which means they can't play at their terrorist atrocities anymore. They can either declare war against Israel, or decide they don't want to fight anymore, and sign a peace treaty.

We don't live in a world of black or white, but in this situation we are. It is beyond obvious that Palestinian militants seek a state of war with Israel. There have been no peaceful moves on their part beyond a cease fire to rebuild their ranks and ammunition, but plenty of attacks on civilians and soldiers. How can you possibly justify kidnapping an 18-year old hitch hiker? What purpose could that possibly serve?

The purpose it serves is as a wakeup call to Israel and the world. And elected leaders Hamas now has a responsibility to its constituents, who voted for them. If by seeking a war they think they are serving those interests, so be it.

I have been surfing the web and viewing comments on this story and these developments. By and large, on neutral non-Israeli sites, I have seen much hatred towards Israel and their invasion. Yet these naysayers don't comment on the kidnapping, the constant state of fear of all Israelis, or how unfair it is to be this small tough country that everyone is always picking on. It's always, "Big Israel picking on little Palestine."

Well, I'd like to ask you naysayers something. Which I haven't seen an answer to yet. What would you suggest Israel do? In general, and in this instance? How would you "make peace" with the palestinians, who have never asked for anything but for you to die?

But as of right now, Israel is on the brink of war for innumerable provocations. This was the straw that broke the camels back.

For more on this, visit

http://israelnn.com/
http://rawstory.com/
http://jpost.com

More Blatant Bias Towards Israel

2006-06-28T09:58:00.000-04:00

After coming home from work, I flipped on the internet, and the first thing I saw on CNN.com was a picture of a powerplant at flames, against a backdrop of a night sky.

I thought, "Oh no", and I was right. I scrolled down to read the text, and it declared that Israel had invaded Gaza only a few hours before, to find the missing soldier and to pressure his release with the threat and action of military force.

So I immediately turn to the news channels, to see what was going on. Like the Iraq war, I felt an immense physical need to be in the middle of the action, to catch the play by play.

So I was more than a little dissapointed to hardly be able to find anything on the TV about it. There was a banner scrolling across CNN that said Israel had invaded Gaza, and that was it. No reports, no live interviews, no men on the ground.

Later in the evening, I checked the news channels again. I don't remember which one it was, but I found one with a british-accent having male newscaster who was doing a live interview with the spokeswoman for the IDF, or Israeli Defense Forces.

I found the interview to be a microcosm of the world opinion of Israel. The broadcaster, rather than being concerned with the welfare of the missing soldier, or the lives of the other invading soldiers, or the missing soldier's family, instead focused on what the IDF was actually doing, and literally ignored all of the other information and circumstances to try and catch the spokesperson in a sophmoric logical fallacy.

Basically, the spokesperson was saying that Israel had invaded Gaza to get the soldier back.

So the broadcaster asks, "So, you know exactly where the soldier is?"

Spokesperson: "You know I can't give that kind of operational intelligence right now."

Broadcaster: "So you don't know where he is, and this military action is meant to pressure Hamas and the Palestinians to give him up."

"Spokesperson: "Let me remind you, we have tried every diplomatic channel possible to get him back, and nothing has worked, so this is our only option."

Broadcaster: "You didn't answer my question. Do you, or do you not know where the missing soldier is?"

Spokesperson: "As I said before, I can't release that information."

Broadcaster: "Well, what I'm trying to figure out is, is the intention of the invasion to use specific intelligence of the soldier's exact whereabouts to extract him, or is this meant to put pressure on the Palestinian Authority to give him up?"

Spokesperson: "Ummm, we are doing all that we can to go in there and get him out, while at the same time exerting pressure on the PA to help get him released."

Broadcaster: "I seem to be repeating myself. I'm trying to establish whether you have exact intelligence as to his whereabouts, or whether this military action is only meant to exert pressure on the PA. Which is it?"

At this point, the conversation devolves into the spokesperson saying the same thing over and over again, defending the operation, while the broadcaster continually makes light of her statements, trying to get her to say they know exactly where the soldier was, or they don't know where he was and this was just meant to pressure the PA.

Do you see what I mean? There's this whole WAR going on, Hamas blatantly makes an attack and kidnaps a soldier, IDF responds, and this broadcaster only cares to ask about intelligence the IDF obviously can't give! It was a shameless display of open hatred towards Israel, and sympathy for the attackers. Not once was any blame laid on Hamas for the instigation of this by the kidnapping of the soldier.

I report, you decide.

Kidnapping of a Hostage And Rice's Response

2006-06-27T15:54:00.000-04:00

I'm sure by now most everyone knows that Hamas has kidnapped an Israeli soldier recently.

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=916

I personally call for his release and hope that no additional harm comes to him. At least this is one clear line that can be drawn between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian "militants": Israeli's do not capture Palestinians unless there is evidence they have committed a crime, and when they do, they go to jails, have trials, and have access to lawyers. As opposed to Hamas, who kidnaps soldiers and uses them as bargaining chips, which is among the oldest contemporary examples of TERRORISM (which Arab nations still refuse to define.)

Moving on, you can see from the below linked story that Hamas is pretty much mobilizing for an invasion from Israel. They have lined the streets with roadside bombs, set up sniper positions, and sent out thousands of guys with guns into the streets.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

For what? To protect against a massed Israeli force on their border, which is only there because of the kidnapping. Which kind of looks like - Hamas kidnapped the soldier in order to provoke an Israeli incursion.

At least that what it looks like to me. And how are you supposed to deal with that? How do you deal with the child that keeps stealing your toys, and then destroys them? How do you make peace with that, when that child has repeatedly said, "I'll take all of your toys until there are none left, and then I will burn your house down. I won't stop until that happens!"

You don't ask him to stop. You send the fucker to Juvy.

Which is why I'm startled to see this quote from Condoleesza Rice, "Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice urged Israel to "give diplomacy a chance."" (same link as above)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

Ms. Rice: Isn't the United States of America's policy not to negotiate with terrorists? Isn't negotiation 'diplomacy'? So how can you not only condone, but almost forcibly suggest, that they negotiate with these terrorists instead of striking them (like we did in Iraq?!)

I'm ashamed of you Ms. Rice. This baldly stated contradiction simply shows how thin the veneer of this administration's dedication to Israel's security really is. I have long suspected that Israel has been viewed as no more than a bargaining chip in the middle east, kind of like a dam to hold back the excrement ready to pur forth. This lends credence to that theory.

Well, Israel has enjoyed America's positive attentions for a long time, alongside with some of the negative effects as well. Perhaps it is time to tell our country to put their money where their mouth is. You want to fight terrorism, fight Hamas and Fatah and all those other factions. They are actively targeting our allies, while we not only sit and do nothing - we tell Israel to do nothing too. And so the Israeli war of 1948 continues....

Why Anti-Israel Rhetoric Can Be Anti-Semitic

2006-06-21T12:15:00.000-04:00

Britain's academics are calling for a boycott of Israel's professors, which is dumb and misguided. A Palestinian Professor discusses why he is against it:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/727899.html

'the Palestinian president of Al-Quds University. "If we are to look at Israeli society, it is within the academic community that we've had the most progressive pro-peace views and views that have come out in favor of seeing us as equals," Sari Nusseibeh told The Associated Press. "If you want to punish any sector, this is the last one to approach." Nusseibeh acknowledged, however, that his is a minority viewpoint among his colleagues. '

However, this person describes why people are so suspicious of anti-zionist motives:

'"It just reminds people that somehow Israel is always singled out, that we're the case study," David Newman, a professor of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva, said.....

But the latest resolution by the British association, encouraging a boycott of Israeli academics, touched a raw nerve in the Jewish state.

"I wonder why not China, why not Chile, why not Burma, where the human rights issue is far, far worse than here," Newman said.'

Exactly. Why is Israel singled out for something it has almost no control over, whereas countries with open slave trades, rebel militias destroying entire villages, and governments that jail even mild dissidents, aren't even given a slap on the wrist? You tell me.

New York times Goes To Bed With Iran

2006-06-12T17:09:00.000-04:00

Well, well, well. It is about TIME that the New York Times finally shed its skin of neutrality and joins up with their true fan. Who'da thunk it would be President Ahmidenejad?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html

According to the above linked article, the esteemed NYT questioned the technical and linguistic aspects of a phrase recently attributed to President Stinky (of Iran, see related blog topic "Ahmadinejad Is A Stinker", which is that he said he wants to "Wipe Israel off the map."

I cannot describe to what length I have been offended by this article. In essence, the NYT, is, is, apologizing for this megalomaniac. By rehashing his words does the NYT thinks that they're changing his behavior or cognition? It is beyond obvious where Iran leans - he is vehemently and violently anti-West, anti-Bush, anti-America, and most passionately, anti-Israel, and anti-Jews. So what in God's name is the point of trying to retract this statement? At least it portrays him as he really is, instead of having people be unsure about it.

But for the NYT to blur his hatred like this, well, it makes me think that the NYT wants Israel wiped off the map. Ahmadinejad's statement was in no way ambiguous, just like his continued statements and actions towards acheiving nuclear weapons. He has denied the Holocaust, denied Israel's right to exist, and thumbed his nose at our morals and way of life.

Why, exactly, are you apologizing for him, NYT? Or have you no decency?

Israel Is NOT A 4-Star Restaurant

2006-06-12T12:12:00.000-04:00

Ok, I have reached the terminal nexus when it comes to how the world views the treatment of Palestinians by Israel.

I'm only going to say this once (and then again, and again, and again, until I have no more breath left in my body): Israel is at war, and has been since its inception in 1948. Not once has it not needed a formidable fighting force/army to enforce its soverignty. Without at least a strong deterrent Israel would be attacked by million of Arabs who have not stopped calling for its destruction.

The simple truth of the matter is that Palestine has been imbued with the hate that all arab countries seem to feel en masse towards Israel. They have been indoctrinated with the belief that Israel is evil, Jews are evil, and both should be destroyed. And the Palestinian people have never been fairly represented or given a shot at being real citizens of this world. They have been kept in squalor by their arab neighbors so they can be used as a chess piece against Israel.

In effect, Israel is at war with Palestine. Have been especially since the start of the "2nd intafada" of 2000, which Arafat started. There is no way out. Nothing Israel can do will end this war while remaining in existence. I'll say that again. There is nothing Israel can do, no one for Israel to bargain with, that will end this war with Israel still existing.

So how is Israel supposed to treat Palestinians? How is Israel supposed to be fair and balanced to people dedicated to killing it? How can it be vilified for treating Palestinians like crap when everyone of them is a threat?

Israel is not a waiter at an upscale restaurant that has to treat its customers well in order to recieve good tips (and not worldwide boycotts.) Israel is a legal nation state built with the blood, sweat, and tears of good people, and it is under attack by bigots and fascists who try to portray it as a country that is racist like South Africa. Give Israel and its people one, simple, chance at a life of peace with its neighbors, and see what happens. Until that does happen, it is at war, and its actions are appropriate. You wouldn't hug the person trying to kill you, would you?

Ann Coulter Is An Opportunist Vampire

2006-06-08T10:07:00.001-04:00

This will be my only post about Ann, because I don't want to give her any attention she doesn't deserve.

One of her latest ploys was to lambast women who lost their husbands on 9/11 as "witches" and "harpies".

http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsday.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Flongisland%2Fny-licoult0608%2C0%2C637390%2Cprint.story%3Fcoll%3Dny-top-headlines

Thats funny, because it falls into the school of thought many governments and thought leaders are using today, which is: label someone else what you actually are. Like Palestinian terrorists calling Israeli's murderers. Like Iran calling the U.S. a demonic power. Like islamo-fascists saying the West is fighting to kill Islam.

In short, Coulter is a witch/harpy herself and is, in psychological terms, projecting.

However, my main problem with Coulter isn't actually what she says, because it is all hot air. My problem with her is that she has made a living saying the things that are despicable. (I'm having a hard time deciding just how I want to illustrate how I feel about her.)

Let me clarify. If she were to take to the airwaves saying we should cure AIDS by screwing the Catholic Church and offering people rewards for using condoms, push the palestinians into Jordan, kill all islamo fascist leaders, castrate Bush, lobotomize Cheney, take over Russia, implant chips into the brains of terrorists so we can understand how they think, etc., that would be different. She would be saying things that SHOULD BE SAID, but nobody wants to because they don't want to become a target.

Instead, she disparages everyone she can. Everyone who seems to be the enemy of her conservative base receives scorn that ranges from outlandish to downright stupid and mean.

9/11 widows are trying as hard as they can to get someone to accept responsibility for the attacks and to learn more about them, using their widow status to spearhead their campaign.

Ann Coulter is trying as hard as she can to use THEIR plight and THEIR cause to get HERSELF some publicity. Just like she does every time she lances someone and their beliefs.

And that is about the long and the short of it. Ann Coulter is despicable because she is a loud mouthed sociopathic bigot who uses the beliefs of others as ammo for her stardom. Get a life Ann.

UPDATE

I wrote a response to a blog and its comments I read after posting the above today, this is at

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/06/06/ann-coulter-conservative-lout/

' To #7 and all defenders of Ann labeling 9/11 widows as “bitches” and “harpies”.
You are completely wrong. A person, ESPECIALLY a citizen of the United States of America, has EVERY right to push forward their agenda, whether it is widows asking for answers, or whether it is a conservative lambasting them for doing so.

What exactly have these widows done except try and throw some light into murky waters your warrior president has clouded?

And to say that these people are “using victimhood to silence debate” (#7) is completely bogus. They are not trying to silence debate for Heaven’s sake, they are trying to crack the debate open in the middle! They want answers! They want a memorial! They want accountability!

Finally, a personal loss or experience is all we have in this world as a driving force (unless you count using religion as a shield for your unwarrented convictions.) Natan Sharansky’s wife used his imprisonment as an impetus to get him released and fight oppression in Russa. That was not wrong, and neither are the widows who you and your fellows are so shamelessly slandering.

Is it so impossible for you to imagine yourself in their shoes? How would you feel if you lost your husband/wife like that? How would you react? Answer that, and then insult them again.

An Argument Against Palestine

2006-05-30T16:43:00.000-04:00

In war, you are forced to take a side. You can either fight for one side or another, surrender, or be 'neutral.'

If you are looking for a reason why you should fight for Israel's right to exist, and it's people's, go to the below link. Many of your questions will be answered. And if you don't agree with what this document says, feel free to share your comments why.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/pdf/BigLies.pdf

Russia's Morals 'Cleaner' Than The Rest/West

2006-05-30T15:06:00.000-04:00

Ohhhhkay, here's where Stephen Colbert would insert a dry witticism that would praise Russia on the surface but really lambast their short sightedness.

Russia is apparently claiming their morals are 'cleaner' than the west's, as voiced through their communist mouthpiece, er, I mean, mayor:

http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fnm%2F20060530%2Fwl_nm%2Frussia_gays_dc%26printer%3D1%3B_ylt%3DAgtgTt.ue.xYyxNUP4bgwzVn.3QA

This was in response to a gay protest put down by Moscow police:

"They had wanted to lay flowers at the grave of the unknown warrior, a monument to those who died defeating Nazi Germany, but police blocked their path.
Mayor Yuri Luzhkov said such an action would have been a desecration of the sacred monument, and rejected Western criticism of his ban as prejudiced and homophobic."

Let me get this straight. Millions of soldiers and citizens died to end Nazi Germany's persecution of everyone, which includes gays, jews, gypsies, blacks, communists, etc., and yet having homosexuals pay tribute to this is a desecration?

I think that is a GREAT way to pay tribute - let the ones who were persecuted protest where they never could before.

But apparently the mayor of Moscow feels differently, especially since their "morals are cleaner." Did you mean that in the same vein as Hitler, who wanted to make his 'race' cleaner, Mr. Mayor?

Da Vinci Code Harbinger Of New World Order

2006-05-24T10:18:00.000-04:00

In the past year we have seen a jump in the level of intolerance and its backlash around the world.

First you have the un-ending hatred imbedded in Muslim culture towards the Western religions of Christianity of Judiasm. This is reflected in almost every aspect of Islamic society, from their education system, to their politics, to their religion. (Even western music is banned in many Islamic societies for its tendency to promote creativity and freedom of thought.)

This is most evidently seen in a recent report on anti-western/pro-Jihad material published in Saudi Arabian schoolbooks (which Saudi Arabia said they had cleared of all of those hateful references.)

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060502-124847-2092r

Next, you have the latent and subconscious dislike and mistrust of Islam by the west, as shown by the Dutch cartoonists who caricatured the prophet Mohammed. They were simply trying to promote their freedom of speech, and ended up channeling the frustrations many feel about the connection between terrorism, Islam, and our changing (for the worse) way of life. However, these cartoons unleashed an extreme response almost all Westerners saw as obscene - calling for the deaths of those cartoonists is simply unjustifiable.

And most recently, the Da Vinci Code. An article in The Raw Story reports on the latest reaction to the film/story: Indian Christians have called for a ban on the movie, and one enterprising Roman Catholic has placed a $25,000 country for Dan Brown's head.

http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A//www.eni.ch/articles/display.shtml?06-0391

Citing the movie/book as "sheer blasphemy" and saying it has "deeply upset Christian sentiments, one Christian offered this reasoning:

' "In a country like ours where vicious propaganda is used against Christian minorities by Hindu bigots, the movie will be handy for them to tarnish our image," Arnold James, a Church of North India member and Christian representative in the Commission, told Ecumenical News International.'

I CAN understand where Arnold James is coming from. When movies like "Passion of the Christ" or, on the extreme side, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", come out, then its my turn to scream bloody murder. When any kind of medium comes out that is purposely trying to tarnish the image of a religion or any kind of group, outrage is 100% legitimate and to be expected.

Here is the part where I should say, "But I don't condone the method of violence or a call for someone's death as a reaction to a book, movie, or other avenues of mass communication that aim to portray a group in a negative light...."

But I'm not going to. It has gone far past that. We're living in a time no one ever foresaw, and there are no precedents to dealing with the level of mass communication we currently have. Propaganda is a very short step from pop culture, and those who own the means of production are pretty much the ones who define what their medium is.

So I'm not going to be a hypocrite. Personally, I call for the destruction of Iran's leadership, and the leadership of Islam as a whole. I don't see how the nature of Islam can peacefully coincide with any other religion or way of life. Their Koran calls on them to wage Jihad until the world is Islamic. Their Imam's preach hatred and death to young children, and they force their women into subservience at a very young age, going so far as genital mutilation to make sure it sticks.

Yes, I know there are moderate muslims, whom I have met, but they are NOT in control of their religion's destiny.

So, I view the Da Vinci code as a historical marker, with the movie as the definitive touch. Now, just about every player has been attacked with something, in what I'm calling the opening shots to WWIII. Christians have been attacked with Da Vinci, Jews/Israel have been attacked by Iran and Islam, and Islam has been attacked by Danish cartoonists.

What will the next step be in escalation? My guess: a violent altercation/battle with Iran. And that will only be the start....

Don't Appease Iran

2006-05-22T16:41:00.000-04:00

I think the title of this one says it all.

Iran is quickly mirroring the type of build up shown before World War 2 in a dismaying number of ways. And Europe is reacting the same way as well, trying to come up with concessions to limit Iran's imperialistic dreams.

It. Won't. Work. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. I hope Europe doesn't forget what happened last time it appeased a totalitarian fascist state. They got their asses handed to them.

Here we go again....

Mexican Immigration Vs. U.S.A.

2006-05-22T16:08:00.000-04:00

President Vincente Fox of Mexico is uring Bush and Americans to accept illegal Mexican immigrants into the U.S., no holds barred.

However, Mexico's immigration laws are just as harsh as America's, if not more so:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060521/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_
limiting_immigrants;_ylt=Arg6Vci_opazzj2z08abh1as0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA
3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

So. It seems like Mexico wants immigration to be a one edged sword, with them holding the hilt. Well, I have to tell you, my feelings are mixed on this subject. EVERYONE is weighing in with their two cents, and here is mine:

On the one hand, I can't help but identify with the immigrants. Their situation is similar to those Jews fleeing WW2 Germany. Ok, ok, ok! I get it. There isn't much of a similiarity there. But how can I condone the desire to give citizenship to Jews all over the world after that, while at the same time denying Mexicans the chance to become a part of America?

Well, on the other hand, many new latino immigrants aren't assimilating. They have turned Miami into a spanish speaking cuban province, and Southern California is following suit. Also, there are immigration laws for a reason. We DON'T live in a world or society without barriers, quite the opposite, and those barriers are necessary to promote peace.

We're all hard wired to hate anything different, while loving the group we came from. Borders help turn "them" into "us", and vice versa. Until humans can love each other unconditionally, there needs to be borders and rules about how to cross them.

Which bring us to the current dilemma. Amnesty, mass deportations, or a compromise between the two? At this point, I just don't see anything America does as fair. BUT IT IS NOT AMERICA'S FAULT. In fact, I blame the immigrants. THEY are the ones who have put both their countrymen and this country at risk. If they hadn't immigrated over here in such numbers, we wouldn't have a xenophobic outcry, and we wouldn't be forced to decide what to do with them.

I feel like we should ask hispanic/latino/mexican immigrants, legal ones, what they think. Maybe they'll be able to shed some light on this culture clash. Because I just don't see a solution in sight, and we're going to need one SOON.

Morris Motamed's Jewish Origins

2006-05-22T15:48:00.000-04:00

First of all, an honorable mention to the NY Post, who must have read my blog or my mind. I posted last week with the headline of, "Is Iran The 4th Reich?"

They used the same headline on their front page the next day, on Saturday, May 20th. Great minds think alike.

Next: What is the deal with Iran's singular Jewish parliamentarian? I checked him out on Wikipedia:

"In the Parliament, he has been active on the subject of suppressing the discriminations against Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians, e.g. the different amount of blood money (diya) between Muslims and non-Muslims. He played also a prominent role in the efforts to alleviate the sentences against some members of the Jewish community for alleged spying or for illegally trying to flee the country through Pakistan."

THIS is the guy who has been chosen to reflect Jewry in Iran? Boy, he's doing a GREAT job of suppressing discrimination against Jews.

Also: "Real Jews, in concord with some Muslims, continue their war against Zionists and against Israeli crimes. The oppressed people of Palestine living under occupation must feel that believers of all faiths support them. (Tehran, October 28, 2005)"

Uh huh. Ok. So, Motamed works to reduce discrimination against Jews in Iran, while using the phrase, "Real Jews" to describe his anti-zionist cohorts.

Actually, what I'd call him is "A Self Hating Jew." Thats how we Zionists refer to those people who are (or perhaps aren't) Jews who decry the occupation of "Palestine", the treatment of the "refugees", and who call Israel illegal.

I mean, how can you defend the Iranian government? HOW CAN YOU?! They want nothing but complete Shiite musliim dominance over all arab/muslim nations, followed by the world. They want every single citizen of Iran to "be a living symbol of Iran's power" through a national uniform. They deny the Holocaust, and are living breathing demonic proof of, "If you forget history you are doomed to repeat it", as they work to deny a law they passed that mandates Jews and Christians to wear colored arm bands to identify themselves.

Finally: I would LOVE a bio/backgrounder on this Morris Motamed guy. Nothing came up on google, and Wikipedia wasn't very informative. I want to know:

His Jewish heritage, where he learned to be a Jew, and WHY, if he's an Iranian Senator, his family lives in America, in Los Angeles.

Is Iran The Fourth Reich?

2006-05-19T11:08:00.000-04:00

I read an extremely disturbing report today, which may have well been the tipping point in my feelings towards Iran.

The Raw Story (Rawstory.com) reported that Iran passed a law two years ago that Christians and Jews have to wear colors identifying themselves in Iran (because if a muslim shakes hands with a non believer it is supposed to make them 'unclean').

http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.940news.com%2Flocale.php%3Fnews%3D2512

A local 'expert' has denied this story and is claiming it is absolutely false. I really want someone else to weigh in on this. Any other angles/sides to this story? Is it true?

Basically, I feel Iran is being led by an evil regime hellbent on crushing resistance to their authority and beliefs. Now, if Iran has taken the step towards identifying its citizens as one thing or another, they have stepped from the world of evil to the world of 'must be destroyed.'

I will say it again. If this report is true, I whole heartedly support an invasion of Iran to remove their leadership. This may not be the best idea, I admit - but the heart wants what it wants. Never again.

Orders For Oil

2006-05-16T13:50:00.000-04:00

Is it just me, or is the reasoning of Oil Execs/CEO's that their price gouging is simply " to represent the shareholders" eerily similar to the excuse of, "Just following orders...."?

President Ahmadinejad Is A Stinker

2006-05-15T11:18:00.000-04:00

Finally, someone told Mahm to get some Axe Body Spray.

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.287519686&par=0

"Tehran, 14 April (AKI) - Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has apparently been incensed by an anonymous text message suggesting he does not wash enough.

Ahmadinejad has taken legal action over the offending text, has fired the president of a phone company and has had four people arrested and accused of colluding with the Israeli foreign intelligence service, Mossad, the anti-government website Rooz Online reports. "

And so we are rewarded with a glimpse into how the President of Iran reacts when HE is now the butt of someone's criticism. I mean, I think we should all cherish this moment. Ahmadinejad has been making cruel and heartless remarks that criticize the West, Israel, President Bush (He's out President dammit and we're the only ones who get to call him an idiot), and Jews as a people. Now, someone hits back, with a mild joke, and he reacts so heavy handed? From an amateur psychologists point of view, this guy has got the WORST self esteem I've seen a ruler have since Hitler.

"Poking fun at the president, the regime's senior figures and its policies, has reportedly become a national pastime in Iran.

The Iranian authorities are paying particular attention to jokes comparing Iran's nuclear programme with sex. Several people are widely believed to have received court summonses for sending nuclear-related jokes, according to Rooz Online."While the outcome of the recent arrests in connection with SMS messaging is not clear yet, what is certain is that SMS jokes have already put some people into serious trouble," wrote Rooz Online.

The clampdown is in line with the authorities' uncompromising stance on Internet bloggers. Large numbers of the nation's estimated 70,000 to 100,000 bloggers have faced harassment or imprisonment. The regime has acknowledged monitoring text message traffic. This apparently began in the run-up to the presidential election last June. "

People of Iran: wake up and realize that the person leading your nation is a psychopath, and bring him down before it is too late, and you're made into caricatures of nazis. It is in the cards.

The Tyranny of Israel and the Jews - Everyone Must Eat Bagels!

2006-05-11T13:34:00.000-04:00

Our favorite psychopath, the new millenium's Hitler, President Ahamadinejad, is at it again. (By the way, is it just me or does Ahamadinejad's name bear at least a slight resemblance to the guy from Office Space, "Nagheenanajar"?)

This time, he has said, "Israel is a tyrannical regime based on evil..." Would you care to back that up, you wildebeast faced slimo? Your remarks are so out there they would be comfortable orbiting Jupiter. Let's look at this statement, shall we?

The definition of Tyranny, as quoted by Dictionary.com:

1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: “I have sworn... eternal
hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson).
4. Use of absolute power.
A. A tyrannical act.
B. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

In what way does Israel match any of these definitions? Hmmmm? (From YOUR point of view, it might be 4.B., due to how the world views the treatment of Palestinians. However, I would put down the plight of the Palestinians to the their leaders, who have squandered billions that could have turned Palestine into a paradise even nicer than Israel.)

So, Mr. Ahmadinejad, what say you? You go on, and on, and on, with rhetoric about how evil Israel is, how it should and will be destroyed, and how America will face more severe consequences if it continues to try and sanction Iran. Empty words. You have NOTHING to back ANY of this up, and you are simply saying what you wish to be true. You wish you had some reason to hate Israel and Jews other than, well, to be honest, I really don't know. I wish someone would tell ME why you hate the Jews so much.

Now lets look at evil: the most commonly used definition is:

"Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. "

And what, exactly is so morally bad about Israel? Oh, you forgot to mention that? You forgot that in order to posit one thing, you needed some fact or instance with which to BASE it on? For instance,

"President Ahmadinejad is a tyrannical ruler for imposing harsh laws and sanctions on his own people, such as the ban on American music; President Ahmadinejad is evil because he forments hatred against innocent people and threatens their destruction; and President Ahmadinejad is morally wrong because his position is based the desire for power and control, which he would use for further evil purposes."

Now, THAT is how you take someone to task, you reprehensible imbecile.

One other topic I would like to touch on briefly: America's response.

I should say, America's NON-EXISTENT RESPONSE. Iran has been spouting rhetoric that attacks America's and the West's credibility, and no one even responds? I'm not saying we should censor him, though in fact that is what I'd like to see, but can't SOMEONE take a stand and say what this blog has? I would campaign for the first politician or well known person to do so.

Two New Blogs: Funny And Powerful

2006-05-04T12:18:00.000-04:00

Okay, we'll start off with Israelismoral.com, with some interesting perspectives on the turmoil surrounding Israel and its Palestinian problems. I call them problems, because they're not citizens of Israel, and I would certainly categorize their abhorrent desire for the destruction of Israel as a problem.

Says yaron Brook, in June of 2002:

"Since its founding, Israel has been the victim Since its founding in 1948, Israel has had to fight five wars - all in self-defense - against 22 hostile Arab dictatorships, and has been repeatedly attacked by Palestinian terrorists. Arafat is responsible for the kidnapping and murder of Israeli schoolchildren, the hijacking of airliners and the car bombings and death-squad killings of thousands of Israeli, American, Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. Today he ardently sponsors such terror groups as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al Aksa Brigade.

The land Israel is "occupying" was captured in a war initiated by its Arab neighbors. Like any victim of aggression, Israel has a moral right to control as much land as is necessary to safeguard itself against attack. The Palestinians want to annihilate Israel, while Israel wants simply to be left alone. If there is a moral failing on Israel's part, it consists of its reluctance to take stronger military measures. If it is right for America to bomb al-Qaida strongholds in Afghanistan - and it is - then it is equally justifiable for Israel to bomb the terrorist strongholds in the occupied territories. "

Well said.

Now, if you're looking for the lighter side of blogging, check out zug.com, my new favorite humor site. Learn about the most disgusting drinks a bartender can make, the # of ways that credit card security is akin to airport 'security' (there to make you FEEL safe, not actually MAKE you safe), and how to pull off the biggest Michael Jackson hoax of the decade. Good stuff.

Angelina Jolie Is NOT The Most Beautiful Woman

2006-04-27T10:20:00.000-04:00

People magazine needs its collective head examined.

http://socialitelife.com/

Angelina Jolie is so not the most beautiful woman in the world. First of all, she's farking pregnant right now. 2nd of all, she's a freaking tramp. Third of all, yes she's sexy and seductive and alluring, but please, more beautiful than anyone? No, definitely not. I'll make my own pick for you faithful perusers.

Da Vinci Judge Needs Idiot Code

2006-04-27T10:13:00.000-04:00

A judge in Britain needs his head examined.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/04/27/vinci.code.ap/index.html

Apparently, this guy is presiding over the Da Vinci code plagurism case, right? So, to get into the mood of things, he put his OWN code into his judgement. Weird letters italicized, things like that.

Sorry buddy, but if you're a judge you don't get to doodle in the corners of your Trapper Keeper. Try to show some decorum. Geez.

MTA Is A Sore Winner

2006-04-27T09:49:00.000-04:00

We've been waiting for months for the other shoe to drop, after the Transit Union Workers strike in NYC over the summer of '05.

The whole scenario was ridiculous and despicable. On the one hand you have the MTA, which was covertly breaking the Taylor Law, tailor made to support the rights of transit workers, by trying to reduce their benefits while increasing the retirement age without their permission. Not to mention they didn't offer their workers any of the surplus the MTA had "earned" over the last couple of years, in terms of raises, increased vacation time, more benefits, or even improved working conditions.

On the other hand, you have the TWU, The Transit Workers Union, led by the cartoon villian Robert Toussaint (I almost spelled his name right on the first try.) Toussaint became a media whore and a despot, arguing his way or the high way. Now, I never got the full laydown of how the MTAs final offer didn't exactly match what Toussaint had lobbied for, but the deal seemed good to me.

So, against all good reason, against the pleas of an entire city and its government, Robert Toussaint used his power to shut down the transit of the biggest city in America.

Which is against the Taylor law. In exchange for the right to have certain of their benefits protected, and not to be messed with by the MTA, the TWU is NOT supposed to strike.

Which they did. For 3 days. The MTA caved. And then. AND THEN. The TWU voted the improved contract down.

So that strike did nothing, nothing! It cost us millions of dollars, thousands of man hours, and plenty of griping, and it didn't accomplish anything! Also, the MTA then said that offer was withdrawn from the table.

Now to the nuts and bolts of this post. After another month or two, the TWU finally voted again, accepting the proposed contract they had initially shot down, which the MTA then said was not on the table anymore.

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/MTA_to_TWU_No_deal/2270.html

The MTA had a chance, right now, to be the bigger person and say, we're happy to resolve this conflict and give you this contract. Instead, they say, NO DEAL. WTF? What can you possibly hope to gain from this shameless maneuver? You're helping to screw thousands of workers that pay the MTAs salary, and for what? They didn't offer a new contract, and they wouldn't offer reasons why they won't re-offer the old one, now that is been approved and accepted across the board.

The MTA has now convinced me they are a bunch of pathetic sore losers that can't let go of a grudge. The only thing MTA Chairman said in defense of their refusal to consider the contract the TWU had finally accepted was, "There was a criminal act committed against the riders of this system...They have no right to push that deal in its exact form down our throat."

What does that say to you? It says to me Kalikow is pissed that they pulled one over on him, the strike, and this is his revenge. You're one bitch pussy cat, you know that Kalikow?

Side note: I think Toussaint got what he paid for when he headed to jail. It was HIS decision to do that strike, HE stood behind it, so HE should pay for it, and do it graciously. Not holding a sit in to protest his own illegal action. He's also a pathetic loser.