An Ignorant American's Blog of American Arrogance

A Little Post Before my July 4th Vacation

2007-07-02T18:26:00.000-04:00

Before I leave today to take a brief July 4th vacation, I would like to share a video for everyone to think about while I'm gone. I think the lesson of it is very important.

Penn and Teller do a brilliant, albeit controversial act during their stage show in Las Vegas. I think the point of it is the essence of what July 4th should be about. It's more than fireworks. It's about ideals of freedom birthed in 1776 as detailed in The Declaration of Independence. One thing that makes America great is the importance of choice. Millions of men and women have died for choice. Many are still dying. Others in other parts of the world are still fighting and dying for choice in places around the world. Without making this into another sappy screed, I would like to call all Americans and her friends around the world to let us celebrate choice today, this July 4th, as well as the ideals of our country. It isn't the wealth of America, nor its might that make us great, but our values. All other positive attributes are secondary, and come from these values. We are free people. We will not bend to the will of tyrants.

On a Related Note...

2007-06-27T02:28:00.000-04:00

On a related note, due to the recent protests, I recently bought a copy of Sir Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses in defiance of the religious fascists who desire that I do not. I suggest anyone reading this blog do the same.

Rushdie Redux

2007-06-26T23:13:00.000-04:00

Since 1998, many had assumed that a Fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie in 1989 had died out, including the author himself, supposedly. His recent knighting had, predictably with the current events being what they are, made the intolerant army of Allah angry, calling for his death for his blasphemy towards Islam, etc., etc., and all that.

Thankfully, this continued vocal Fatwa has led to a backlash against the intolerance of the Slaves to Allah from so many intellectuals. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former MP of Holland's Parliament, and now a US citizen, likened the new "outcry" by the fundamentalist mobs to "...a crowd of Englishmen marched in London carrying effigies of Muhammad, peace be upon him, stacks of the Koran, miniatures of the Kaaba in Mecca and Saudi flags" and making a bonfire, throwing "...the items one at a time into that fire screaming 'Long Live the Queen!' each time the flames shot up." Ayaan has had to deal with the Islamic hatred of competing belief systems, as detailed in her two books, the manifesto, The Caged Virgin and her memior, Infidel, which I am currently reading.

Daniel Pipes, going against the popular belief that the knighting is a sign of "British Backbone", correctly points out that the Fatwa wasn't over in 1998, when a false sense of security fell over the Rushdie's backers after an Iranian official claimed the death sentence was over. Now with his knighting, we see the security that was imagined quickly disappear with each chant of "Death to the Queen". What Pipes gets wrong, however, is that he criticises the British government for not thinking of the "implications" of their honoring him, a sentiment echoed by the British Conservative Party MP Stewart Jackson. Instead, perhaps we shouldn't worry about the "implications" of what people thousands of miles away think about how we use our freedoms to honor those who we find to be of value to literature and society. Perhaps we shouldn't worry about the "implications" of our continuing to be free and exercising our freedoms. In fact, we shouldn't worry about the feelings of fascists who hate free societies that don't bow to their idea of law. Such thinking is bowing to their belief system, giving them veto power over our every action.

Christopher Hitchens, close friend of Sir Rushdie has been a constant defender of him in this whole charade. In his latest Slate column states that we should disregard the anger of perpetually outraged religious fanatics and let them be angry while we freely exercise our freedoms. All attempts to please these people are pointless, he says.

I agree with Mr. Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali that we shouldn't live at the mercy of their delicate, impoverished egos. In fact, I think it's time that we relish their miserable rage and let them threaten us with death. We already have a Fatwa on all of us right now who don't follow such disgusting practices as "female circumcision" and "honor killings". I wish more people would see that. If we cease to be a free society because we let these thugs have veto power over how we use our freedoms, then we are no longer a free society. We might as well convert right now, if that is the case.

Note to the Right: Concentrate on Something Important

2006-12-22T23:00:00.000-05:00

To see the spectacle of countless right-wing pundits upset over Keith Ellison's swearing in being planned using a Qu'ran instead of a Bible is something that nearly crushes my belief that the Conservatives are the people we need to fight this threat. It saddens me when I see Dennis Prager become the opposite extreme of Multi-culturalism and say that the Bible should be the only book of which our public officeholders swear upon. The more I read Mr. Prager's November 28th column, the more I find his justification for this to be more and more vacuous. According to Prager:

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Okay... sounds like a stretch of the imagination, but let's give him a chance to explain.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible.

His first assertion is that this is all the work of the multiculturalists. Sorry Dennis, I am hardly what you would call a "multiculturalist". I do in fact believe that Secular Western Culture is superior to the rest of the world. I also believe that the Koran does not hold any divine influence behind it and that it, like the Bible has warm and fuzzy quotations, as well as parts that encourage intolerace, hate, and bigotry. And I don't believe in cultural relativism. However, if the cultural relativists say that what is important in using as a book or other object for the swearing in should be what the individual being sworn in deems important, then I have no problems with the multiculturalists there.

Mr. Prager also fails to make a decent point in his statement that "America is interested in only one book..." Swearing on something that other people believe in but you do not is ultimately meaningless. Ellison, as a Muslim, believes that the Koran is the divine word of God, or Allah, if you like, not the Bible. If those who see the Bible as the divine, inspired word of God were to swear upon a Koran in a Muslim majority society, it would be just as silly.

To illustrate this, imagine this fictional and a little out-there example of an alternate Earth. In this Earth, the politicians in the United States swear upon the Sacred Rubber Chicken of the Church of Chickenology, the majority religion of the United States. However, a member of another religion has been elected to political office. He decides that instead of swearing to uphold the Constitution on the Sacred Rubber Chicken, he instead will swear upon the Divine Plastic Cheeseburger, as he is a member of the Church of Beefology and that is the sacred object of which his religion is based. The Right, however, furious that this one individual wants to break a tradition, they furiously demand "This tradition has never been broken! For centuries, we have sworn on the Chicken, even some of us who didn't believe in it because that is what America thinks matters." The stupidity of these statement is of the same stupidity of what Mr. Prager is stating. Like the Sacred Rubber Chicken in my ridiculous fantasy universe, the Bible is not believed by all, even if the majority supposedly does. And even so, Ellison, like the fictional politician from the fictional universe, does not believe in the Bible as the most sacred object or word of God or whatever. To him, the Koran is what is most important. Swearing upon that thing is what is important to him and carries more weight.

Of course, Mr. Prager isn't finished, and neither am I:

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.

This supposed precedent is unimportant and of no consequence. The deference to tradition in performing a serious oath is unimportant. Whether Jews and other practitioners of different religions have sworn with the Bible before is unimportant as well. In fact, it shows a lack of honesty in deference to a Judeo-Christian traditon in a secular and increasingly religiously-diverse country. Isn't it better to ask them to swear to uphold our Constitution on something THEY believe in, or should we continue a supposedly written-in-stone tradition where the person doing the swearing-in is swearing upon something which the majority of the country believes is extremely or the most meaningful, while the elected office-holder deems it to be of lesser or of no importance?

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

I only agree to a very small extent. I do believe much of this ado-over-nothing is over the fact that Mr. Ellison is a Muslim and that this is a leftist publicity stunt. But, it goes both ways. There is as much evidence that this is also a concern of the Right for the very same reasons. What better way for the Republican party to get supporters back from the great Election loss of '06 than to create a tempest in a teacup that is the use of a different book for a swearing-in? Ultimately, this is a publicity stunt for both groups. The Left is using this as bait to capture their opponents and distract them. Like an all too eager catfish catching a minnow on a fisherman's hook, they have let the ravenous appetite of the Religious Right blind the Republican Party from uniting the country against the shark that is Jihadist Islam, among other issues that matter (one can make a parallel between the Right in this issue and the plethora of Secularists who are more concerned with getting rid of Christmas trees than Islamic Terrorism). And of course, the Left and the Saudi-sponsored CAIR organization and their ilk are using it to show how intolerant the right and America is to Muslims. For the Right, this is a battle not worth fighting, as it is unwinnable and has nothing to gain.

While I believe that the Politically Correct Leftist crowd has ridiculously bent over backwards to avoid offense of Muslims or Islam itself, I don't think that this is primarily a case of that attitude here. In fact, imagine if Mr. Ellison's plans for his swearing-in are implemented. What is there to lose or gain? There are only three losers I would see in this scenario. The first are, of course, some of the misguided Right-wingers who decided to march alongside Mr. Prager in this issue. The second, are the multi-culturalist left-wingers who constantly hammer the insane idea that America is an intolerant country, afraid of social progress, change, and tolerance, especially to Muslims. To have a Muslim elected and use his holy book for the swearing-in would be a slap in the face to that narrative. And most importantly, we have the the ones we really want to lose, the corrupt holy leaders who are constantly searching for gullible Muslims to die for their 72 virgins. One of their most important places of recruitment are within the borders of the United States, in the Islamic communities. How can the extremists be taken seriously when they claim that the United States is hostile to Muslims and there are people in the communities that know of, or even voted for a Muslim candidate who won and had a swearing-in ceremony. What would even make it harder for the Jihadist leaders is that this Muslim was allowed to swear upon his holy book! This will obviously not "embolden" them when their recruitment numbers begin to dwindle. Chances are, they will not see this as a victory for their sick cause, as their cause demands the destruction of the United States, not integration into and cooperation with it, as Mr. Ellison has done so far. The fear of the "Islamification of America" coming from this is so absurd, it almost exactly matches the hue that the Anti-War Multiculturalist Left wants to paint all of us who are serious about fighting terrorism with one swift stroke. The Right should go back to fighting the real enemies of our civilization, instead of making up new imaginary ones.

Add to del.icio.us

And Now... A Time for Civil Disobedience in Response to McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform

2006-10-26T11:15:00.000-04:00

(Hat-Tip goes to Misha, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.)

I believe that whatever the traffic that goes to my blog, I have to participate in an act of Civil Disobedience that is taking the blogosphere by storm. In this post, all you have to do is promote whatever candidate for any political office. Why am I allowing this? Because the McCain-Feingold bill is opposed to allowing supporters of candidates for a federal office from using soft money donations to fund ads 60 days before the general election. In essence, I believe this is an attack on the First Amendment rights of our citizens, as these so-called "soft money" groups are actually a way for less wealthy and politically active individuals to equalize their influence on candidates versus the more wealthy individual donors.

Also, the law is now being broadly interpreted as meaning that even posting a link to a preferred candidate may in fact be a violation. Just read this and see what I mean.

If this is considered a law, then I, as a free individual who chooses whether or not to consent to the laws, must refuse to recognize this one. It is a violation of Free Speech, and I will not let this stand any longer.

All are free to comment in the comments section of this particular post, and endorse any candidate regardless of political views or affiliation. No endorsement will be moderated or censored in any way. This is what America SHOULD be, and it may take many citizens of this country to disobey this law, shouting in one voice that no law in conflict with our Bill of Rights is a law worth obeying.

Zucker's New GOP Ad Should Be Put Up

2006-10-11T00:19:00.000-04:00

(Hat-tip goes to Drudge)

David Zucker, Producer and Director of such films as Airplane!, Scary Movie 3 and 4, and my personal favorite, the Naked Gun films, has recently finished an ad for the GOP that he is hoping to get circulated on TV stations. Unfortunately, this video is seen as "over-the-top" by GOP strategists, and is currently not being distributed. What a shame.

Here is the video:

According to one GOP Strategist:

"Nobody could believe Zucker thought any political organization could use this ad. It makes a point, but it's way over the top."

Source: http://www.drudgereport.com/flashma.htm

What a pity. The truth is that this video, while showing the over-the-top comedy that made Zucker so famous in Hollywood, shows the intellectual and moral failing of the Democratic Party in dealing with terrorism as seen by so many Republicans and Conservatives. What these GOP strategists fail to see, either due to not understanding comedy, being spineless, or both, is that the over-the-top nature of this video is the very point of the film. One of the many weapons in Comedy is to show a flawed idea is to take it to its extreme logical conclusion and thus show the sillyness of the other side in doing so. This film shows EXACTLY what I see as wrong in the "Peace and Stability" crowd that infects the halls of Academia, the Democratic Party, and countless blowhard political talking-heads. And that is the reason, that despite the Foley scandal that's been shown on our TV screens on endless repeat, I will NOT choose to vote for Democrats in this coming election, and perhaps many elections to come. The GOP does indeed have its flaws, and I believe there is a desperate need for a change within the party with bringing less fire-and-brimstone religious Conservatives and RINOs who are for big government in the economic sector out of office. Despite that, their one strength is that they back this War for Civilization we are now fighting when so many are unwilling. Defense of our country of our civilization is the most important issue. It is a damn pity that whether or not to do so has become a heated debate, as opposed to debating on how to accomplish victory. Thankfully, people like Zucker, through their intellectual and artistic skill, show how the ultimate failure of those who made this unnecessary debate occur.

My Thoughts on the Axis of Evil Summit at the UN Headquarters

2006-09-21T04:46:00.000-04:00

Much coverage has been made about the recent speeches by ~~presidents~~ Dictators Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the press and commentators. What is important is that we, while approving or disapproving of their words, understand exactly WHO they are. Leftists most likely will strongly agree with their statements against "American Imperialism". But, to paraphrase the oft-quoted statment, "The enemy of my enemy is not my friend." In Lou Minatti: The Chavez-Chomsky-Ahmadinejad Asshat Triad, Lou points out an obvious question: Do you hate George Bush and/or the United States so much that you want to side with these individuals?

This is exactly the thought that went through my head when I visited a local bookstore in Raleigh, The Reader's Corner, had one of Ahmadinejad's idiotic "letters" to President Bush. While one can merely debate the the merits or lack thereof concerning the arguments in the letter, one must at some point "Consider the Source", and possibly find the myriad of more decent people critical of the Bush Administration saying the exact same thing.

So, what makes these individuals so unsavory for those with some knowledge of who they are? Plenty. For instance, the beloved Ahmadinejad is well-known to have stated that the Holocaust was a myth and even was a major force in starting a cartoon contest whose focus was on the Holocaust being a hoax. That, included with his well-known mention of a desire to "wipe Israel off the map", makes many look behind the "Moderate", "Anti-Imperialist" facade and see a raging anti-Semite. While the left gives Mel "What do you think you're looking at, sugar tits?" Gibson hell for the things he said while drunk, it's amazing that they won't criticise what the Iranian Dictator said while sober. Wouldn't Ahmadinejad be more important, given that between him and Mr. Gibson, he has an army and nuclear weapons at his disposal to implement his sick dream and Mr. Gibson doesn't? As an aside note on Mr. Gibson, does it not surprise you that the two men also have the same opinion on the Iraq war now?

As for Hugo Chavez, it should be obvious. Under his populist mask, you see a conniving, slithering snake. He gives goodies like lower oil prices to Native American reservations and now Harlem, both places where the population is prone to bwe critical of the United States. But while the short-sighted will praise his kindness to these people, they will fail to see the political strategery behind it. More frighteningly, they will also fail to see his restructuring the Venezuelan government to gaurantee his victory in every election and make sure that any opposition to him on any political move is futile(Bugmenot Login). In fact, it can be said that he is the living example of the Left-Wing characature of George W. Bush. Such an observation is quite ironic, given that Casey Sheehan's mother, who blames Bush for her son's death and makes the same accusations towards Bush that Chavez is known to have in fact done, visited him to rally against US Imperialism.

The image of Mr. Chavez holding the book by Noam Chomsky is almost emblematic of the Left today. The political groups that used to stand for Universal Suffrage, Freedom of Speech without question, and Equal Opportunity have now been transformed to the groups that make excuses for, nay, back up Dictators, Terrorists, and other assorted thugs. It is sad to see behind almost every evil occuring in the world today, the Left is not far behind in their support or excuse-making of it. Mr. Rangel and Ms. Pelosi's half-hearted denunciations of what Mr. Chavez said may have softened the blow, but the point remains. Chomsky has many followers who will undoubtedly vote for and support Mr. Rangel and Ms. Pelosi when given the chance, and will also doubtlessly regard Mr. Chavez highly for the things he said last week. There is an important lesson to be learned in all of this. The company one keeps doesn reflect one's character. Like the Right and it's sad excuse-making for "anti-Communist" dictatorships that were no different than the enemy we were facing in the Cold War, the Left stands behind and makes excuses for some of the worst monsters of our time. Like I said earlier in this post, The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

The Islamic Community Needs to Wake Up

2006-08-11T22:26:00.000-04:00

I was looking over the BBC News website and came across this article, which shows a continuing trend of willed ignorance on the part of Muslims towards American attitudes towards Islam, which has been brought back into the spotlight due to Bush's recent comments in the wake of Islamic Fascist extremists' failed attack on the United Kingdom and the United States. Let us now look at this BBC article point-by-point:

Bush's language angers US Muslims
By Richard Allen Greene
BBC News, Washington

In the days after the horror of the 11 September attacks, President George W Bush made a point of saying Muslims per se were not America's enemy.

But in the five years since then, he has taken less care to emphasise that message, US Muslim leaders are saying.

They are upset about his use of terms like "Islamic fascists", which he used this week both for Hezbollah and the suspected bomb plotters held in the UK.

"It offends the vast majority of moderate Muslims," Ahmed Younis said.

"The use of the term casts a shadow upon Islam and bolsters the argument that there is a clash of civilisations between Islam and the West," Mr Younis, the national director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (Mpac), told the BBC.

He said it was wrong to link the actions of violent Muslims to their religion.

"There is nothing Islamic about their fascism. The Prophet [Muhammad] and the Koran clearly articulate that this type of activity is outside of bounds for Muslims."

First, the term "Islamic Fascism" is a perfect term to describe these violent theocrats. For example, Dictionary.com's definition of Fascism is "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." So far, I don't see any difference between this word and the ideals and methods of the Islamic Fascists. And, of course, Islam in the Dictionary.com definition is "A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God." So far, I have yet to see any difference between these definitions and the people that follow that murderous belief system. There are Christian Fascists, Left and Right-wing Fascists. Does that mean that Christians and people who are Left or Right-wing are all Fascists? And what about the claim that the Koran is against violence and terrorism? A few quotes from the source should alleviate any curiousities -

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.)
-Quran 2:191-2

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
-Quran 4:89

Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve.
-Quran 9:3

Any questions?

Regular refrain

Mr Bush used the term on at least two separate occasions this week.

On Monday, during a press conference from his ranch in Texas, he said terrorists "try to spread their jihadist message - a message I call ... Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism".

A moment later, he said "Islamo-fascism" was an "ideology that is real and profound".

Then, on Thursday after the arrest in Britain of two dozen people suspected of plotting of bomb planes travelling to the US, he said "Islamic fascists... will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom".

That day, the Council on American-Islamic Relations wrote to him to complain.

Its chairman Parvez Ahmed condemned his "use of ill-defined hot-button terms", which, he said, "feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam".

The council had not had a reply from the White House as of Friday afternoon, its legal director Arsalan Iftikhar told the BBC.

Neither the White House nor the State Department responded to BBC requests for clarification of the term.

Mr Younis of Mpac said he believed the president's use of the term was "a mistake" and that Mr Bush's speechwriters would drop it in the future.

He added that the idea that "there is a school of thought called Islamic fascism is a misnomer".

'Different breed'

Security expert Daniel Benjamin of the Center for Strategic and International Studies agreed that the term was meaningless.

"There is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology as it was developed by Mussolini or anyone else who was associated with the term," he said.

"This is an epithet, a way of arousing strong emotion and tarnishing one's opponent, but it doesn't tell us anything about the content of their beliefs.

"The people who are trying to kill us, Sunni jihadist terrorists, are a very, very different breed."

Most thinking people will know that this is not what Bush meant by the term. But the Saudi-backed Council on American-Islamic Relations obviously has no faith in the intelligence of Muslims. What I believe the real fear from CAIR is, is the possibility of the moderate Muslims whom they claim to speak for while being funded by the extremists will differentiate between the Islamic Fascists who blindly accept the extreme literal interpretation of the Quran and those who follow a more moderate Islam, that respects plurality and a diversity of religions and other belief systems living in peace, such as the Free Muslims Coalition. As for the term "Islamic Fascism" being a misnomer, that is untrue. While the Islamic Fascists don't call themselves by that term, their beliefs and practices certainly apply.

Zanab Chami, a Muslim community activist in Dearborn, Michigan - home to one of the largest Arab communities in the US - said the administration had seized upon a new term to frighten people.

"I think the word terrorism has lost its edge. They are looking for something with a little more oomph."

And she is afraid that such language does have an effect on how Americans view Muslims.

"In the post-9/11 era, people are apt to fear Islam. These terms get thrown around so easily and it builds upon a foundation of fear that has already been instilled."

In fact, a Gallup poll released the day of the arrests in Britain showed that two out of five Americans admit to feeling prejudice against Muslims.

While the concept of the word "terrorism" losing it's "oomph" as Zanab Chami so eloquently put it is correct, there is also another cause for the redefinition. The term "terrorism" is ill-defined in light of who the Western World is fighting. This war isn't against terrorism in general, but in fact a war on Islamic terrorism, which after 9/11 has been deemed the most pressing terrorist threat to the United States and the West.

As for prejudice, it is a sad thing, but this prejudice was most likely due to the actions of Islamic radicals in the past coupled with a lack of contact with more moderate Muslims on the part of these people who partook in the polls, not Bush's rhetoric.

In Washington, Mr Younis said the president's linking of Islam with fascism would alienate "moderate Muslims who are needed at the front line of any effort to counter terrorism or extremism by Muslims".

But in Michigan, Ms Chami said it was already too late to worry about indelicate phrases.

"Members of the Muslim community here do not believe in the administration. They rightfully discount much of what President Bush says. People have closed their ears to him."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
americas/4785065.stm

And the Muslim community will continue this PR slump at their own peril for not listening to the President's statements. Instead of decrying his words, they should show some actual proof, not rhetoric, that the majority of Muslims support putting an end to the Islamic extremism. It's pathetic that the poor definition of these terms mixed with the willed ignorance of Muslim leaders has led to this debacle.

Israel May be on the Way to a Huge Mistake

2006-08-11T21:13:00.000-04:00

(Hat-Tip goes to Drudge)

Israeli PM Has Accepted Cease-Fire Deal

Israeli Prime Minister Accepts U.N. Cease-Fire Deal, Officials Say

By KARIN LAUB

JERUSALEM Aug 11, 2006 (AP)— Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has accepted an emerging Mideast cease-fire deal and informed the United States of his decision, Israeli officials said Friday.

Olmert will recommend that his government approve the deal in its meeting on Sunday, the officials said on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to brief journalists on the internal discussions.

It was not immediately clear whether Israel's expanded ground offensive would be frozen. Defense officials said it appeared the campaign would be halted.

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/
wireStory?id=2303062

Sadly, pressure from the international defeatists may have caused Olmert to weaken his stance on fighting Hezbollah. It's a pathetic spectacle unraveling if what I believe that this "cease-fire" will turn out to be when revealed to the press. What people fail to realize, either through ignorance or a weak hope for no conflict, is that terrorists and tyrants bent on domination of a part of the world or the whole world will NOT by any stretch of the imagination respect truces, treaties, nor cease-fires. If they do obey for some time, it will only be temporary, as a permanent agreement to such binding international agreements are inconsistent with their beliefs. And fervent believers as a whole will NEVER change their ways. The wiser option for Israel or any nation facing such a threat is to disregard the entities calling for a treaty, safe in their part of the world not affected by the enemy's attacks. If Israel is participating in a cease-fire like a fear, they will only delay the war, not end it. And the cost may indeed by greater when the time comes again where action is the only choice.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Acts like a 'Tard

2006-07-23T19:03:00.000-04:00

I'm sorry. At least retards have an excuse because they were born that way. He's just stupid.

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann used a Saturday morning breakfast session at the Television Critics Association press tour to fire yet another shot at Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly, holding up an O’Reilly mask while raising his right arm in a Nazi salute to mock his on-air rival.

“It’s just so much fun,” said the host of Countdown with Keith Olbermann when questioned about why he pursues his on-air rivalry with O’Reilly.

Olbermann also told the story of seeing O’Reilly at a celebrity fundraiser in New York, but said O’Reilly “never got within 20 feet of me. Every time I looked at him, he looked down.”

Olbermann did, however, note that his show and network have to “take more chances” in the race to compete with CNN and Fox News Channel, which he called an “ingenuously-placed political product.”

Source:http://www.broadcastingcable.com/
article/CA6355563.html

Cute, real cute. Just like that shrill bitch Janeane Garoffalo (who accounts for 99% of Tampon company profits), we have here a stunning advertisement of a space for rent inside Olbermann's skull. I'm no fan of O'Reilly, but despite O'Reilly's chickening out in confronting Olbermann (assuming the man with diahhrea of the mouth's account is true), O'Reilly ends up looking like the bigger person not due to any virtue of bravery of his own, but by the blatant stupidity of the mediocre mind of his obsessed opponent. This action seems more like the actions of an out of control 12-year-old, not a thinking adult. Sure, people do silly things in criticizing their foes, but comparing people with no Nazi ties to the Nazis just doesn't have much truth and merely shows a lack of intelligence.

And MSNBC wonders why their ratings are so low in comparison to Fox News and CNN. Truly pathetic.

**UPDATE!** I just came across an excellent blog on The Madness of Keith Olbermann, and thus I've decided that it should enjoy an esteemed place on my Mile-Long List of Links (TM). Congrats guys, and good work... now welcome to my nightmare! MWAHAHAHAHA!

Gore's Fallacious Rhetoric Frightens Me

2006-06-21T17:25:00.000-04:00

I was reading a story on Al Gore's recent TV appearances, and I can't help but feel a sense of dread that I couldn't put a finger on until today, when I read this example of his recurring statement on Global Warming:

Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/
archives/ic/2006/6/20/134405.shtml

"That's strange", I would say to Mr. Gore, since many prominent Climate scientists who study the CAUSES AND EFFECTS of climate change through observation of the actual phenomena say that Gore's arguments are rooted in weak argumentation and even weaker science. Now, these are scientists who study the causes and effects of climate rather than those who merely the effects in flawed computer simulations, whom Gore has marching behind him in his vain crusade.

So, basically, Mr. Gore states that he hasn't met any scientists who dispute his assertions and anyone who denies it is merely being illogical like a person claiming the moon landing didn't happen. Why? Because "The debate is over."

Such thinking troubles me. This is merely a childish way to tell you "YOU'RE WRONG, SO SHUT UP!" If people fall for this, then it creates orthodoxy and stifles debate, therefore creating a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas. The problem creates an atmosphere in which people use ad hominem attacks on those who make assertions otherwise not even for unrelated character flaws, but for the assertions themselves. What makes the attacks ad hominem? Because the person simply asserted a different idea that was different from orthodoxy, and that is the only reason they are being attacked, as if their very assertion is a character flaw. Instead, in the world of debate, both sides should counter each other with the truth and NEVER declare the debate to be over. This doesn't mean one shouldn't take sides and become a relativist. However, it does mean that debate should continue and there should be no attacks on a person for an assertion that isn't an undeserved attack or threat. Gore's temper tantrum indicates a lack of a desire for dialogue. Instead, it indicates a man wanting a world where no-one with an opinion or even information contrary to his assertions would be given a chance to speak up. And that, perhaps, is the sign of a closed-minded, dogmatic individual, afraid of the possibility that he is wrong.

Okay, I'm back this time... Honest!

2006-06-07T04:49:00.000-04:00

Well, it seems that college, studying, and other activities were very time and energy consuming for me, so it was rather difficult to find the time to read up on the news AND write on it. Of course, after recuperation in the Bahamas, along with some moving from college and helping my parents move, I finally found the time to re-enter the website, especially with my commentary on the current state of events.

So, newbies, welcome. And to all my frequent readers that may (or may not) be out there, sorry and welcome back!

Good Reads (2/22/06)

2006-02-22T23:01:00.000-05:00

"Appeasement 101" - Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/articles/
hanson022206.html
"Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?" - David Horowitz
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/
ReadArticle.asp?ID=21370
"Punishing Silly Sentiments" - Klaus Rohrich
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/
klaus022206.htm
"Indoctrination of our youth" - Walter E. Williams
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/
walterwilliams/2006/02/22/187189.html

Good Reads (2/21/06)

2006-02-21T22:48:00.000-05:00

"Think Again: Islamist Terrorism" - Christine Fair,
Husain Haqqani
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3359
"What Will Europe Really Do?" - Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson021906.html
"Climate of Uncertainty" - Stephen F. Hayward
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23912/
pub_detail.asp
"Stand Up for Denmark!" - Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/id/2136714/
"Those Danish Cartoons and Me" - Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3405

Return from Hiatus and Spouting the Obvious

2006-02-20T01:39:00.000-05:00

Sorry about not updating the blog lately. I happened to have classes and wanted to get a better academic footing than my previous semesters, so I dedicated a lot more energy than usual to get better grades. Thankfully, it paid off. Now that I'm having a new semester that's going okay, and recent events have become the hottest in a long time, I decided I'll throw in my opinions of the major issues of the day.

First... The Dick Cheney hunting accident - What Cheney did was tragic, although based on a mistaken action. I am no expert on guns, nor am I possessing any experience or skill with guns. That being said, Cheney's actions should be taken as a mistake that should be punished through the extents granted by the local, state, and federal laws. No more. Democrats, predictably, are trying to look for a scandal. Recently, I overheard a local Liberal talk-radio host saying that there was a "cloak of secrecy" involving Dick Cheney's not informing the media until a day later of the incident. This, however, does not indicate a conspiracy. Instead, it indicates that perhaps Mr. Cheney did not want a huge alarm to sound before he informed Mr. Whittington's family of the horrific mistake. Cheney's action was unfortunate, but the policking of Administration critics making an issue out of a non-issue is approaching to be just as tragic.

Second... The "Protests" of Danish Cartoons - I'll repeat what countless bloggers and talk radio hosts have to say about this issue: The cartoons in the Danish newspaper are not a reason for the recent violence on the part of some in the Muslim community, it is an excuse. The Wahabbi-dominated Muslim communities of Europe have openly declared their enmity time and again towards Western values, even before all this foolishness with cartoons. Much like many Academics today, they are against Democracy and free speech. They wish to smash the very table from which they dine. What is the objective of these violent actions? The objective of any form of violence and terrorism: intimidation with the intention of submission. See how quickly Europe has caved in to these individuals. Even the United States, the supposed haven for freedom of speech has succumbed to an extent to this travesty. Christopher Hitchens, responding to a statement by Sean McCormack of the US State Department calling the cartoons and any criticism of religious figures "unacceptable", says:

What does he mean "unacceptable"? That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a "spokesman" cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people.

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2135499/

The following will be shocking to many PC Leftists and the "America is a Christian Nation" Conservatives: Due to freedom of speech rights, no figure, religious or secular is beyond criticism. Even bigoted statements are protected under freedom of speech. What recent events having to do with this leads me to believe with more certainty that this Muslim "protest" is merely another act of Jihadist terrorism, creating a sort of de facto Islamic law against criticism of their religious figures. The sad thing is that the buckling under because of this controversy will only make the Wahabbi community only increase their "outrage" in order to get more political weakness to exploit from the West.

Both of these two issues seem to show a sad pattern in modern Democratic society. And that is this: Perpetual outrage brings political points. The Left tries to make up conspiracies to do with the current Administration being "power-hungry" and can seemingly do nothing right. The Right often gets upset over the actions of the Left, sometimes to the point where they have compensated by verbally attacking anyone even with a VALID criticism of the Administration or even questions a certain action. And, as I've just said before with the Islamists, the act of being outraged about actions of private individuals in different countries criticising their religion and blaming the entire government and populace of a country for it, and doing it in the most violent way possible. This strategy, whether new or as old as politics itself leads to a system of political bullying for political capital. And political discourse and freedom, along with those who cherish them are those who suffer for this travesty.

Good Reads (8/19)

2005-08-20T18:07:00.000-04:00

"The Biteback Effect" - Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson081905.html
"What Cindy Sheehan Really Wants" - Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/id/2124788/
"Canada Blames Us" - John R. Lott, Jr.
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23041/
pub_detail.asp
"The End of Treason" = Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2865
"FOIA Exposes Clinton Anti-Terror Blunders"
- Mark Tapscott
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marktapscott/
mt20050820.shtml

My Last Say on Casey Sheehan's Mother (I Hope)

2005-08-19T01:53:00.000-04:00

I never, EVER thought I'd ever have anything to do with the Huffinton Post. But, I did. It seems Casey Sheehan's mother finally responded to all the accusations against her with a retort that was not very convincing to say the least. Saying it was not about her is very strange coming from a person who's had cameras surrounding her 24/7. Anyways, here is my comment, which I hope they'll allow to be posted:

"The issue is a disastrous war that's killing our sons and daughters and making our country less secure."

This issue is more than the war, Casey, as we have seen. We have you making statements that Israel must leave "Palestine" or even that our country "isn't worth fighting for". Also, you have done little to prevent the people in the news media from pointing the cameras at you and basically making it about you and having so many left-wing commentators like Maureen Dowd and Bill Press from making you into a celebrity.

Anyways, what really irritates me about what you have done is basically this:

Your son makes a decision based on his beliefs. They contradicted your own beliefs and you didn't want him to fight this "illegal war" in which he RE-enlisted to fight in. Then he dies, and I have my sincere condolences to you and your family. For a year after his death, you got to meet President Bush and you praised him, saying you felt happy again. Now, you claim that Bush "killed" your son, not focusing on the fact that it wasn't Bush who killed your son, but Terrorists. So, by your way of thinking, you believe that your son, a grown adult with his own values was not intelligent enough to know the risks. It seems to me that you are primarily upset merely not that your son died, even if it was something he believed in, but that he died for something you didn't.

That being said, I extend my wishes that your mother gets well.

Having Fun With MoveOn.org

2005-08-17T00:18:00.000-04:00

(Hat-Tip goes to Right Thoughts)

It seems MoveOn.org, the most popular political failure of a PAC wants to hear our opinions. Let's do something they don't want the average common-sense American to do: GIVE IT TO THEM!

Click here to take the survey

Cindy Sheehan Performs Seppuku with Her Image

2005-08-14T13:45:00.000-04:00

(Hat-Tip Goes to Drudge) Hey, this guy's good, alright?

Cindy Sheehan has just shot herself in the foot, big-time:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX AUG 14, 2005 08:02:39 ET XXXXX

BUSH PROTESTING MOM CALLS FOR 'ISRAEL OUT OF PALESTINE'; VOWS NOT TO PAY TAXES

Anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is calling for Bush's "impeachment," and for Israel to get out of Palestine!

"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares.

Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President Bush, says defiantly: "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."

"And now I'm going to use another 'I' word - impeachment - because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail."

The 48-year-old California mom remains tented up in a ditch along the one-lane road that leads to Bush's Texas ranch.

As her protest entered its second week, hundreds of people with conflicting opinions about the war in Iraq descended on the area.

TIME mag reports in new editions on Monday: Sheehan gets support from her surviving son, Andy, in principle, but he recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her, "to come home because you need to support us at home."

Developing...

Sorry, Miss, but your statement that getting the US out of Iraq and Israel out of "Palestine" will not exactly solve anything. Hell, it's so stupid and ridiculous that my normally open-minded self can't help but sneer at. In fact, most Americans do. In case you didn't notice, ma'am, Israel IS pulling out of "Palestine" and the Jihadists are still determined to attack Israel. In case you haven't heard, "Palestinian" terror groups still say that they will continue their attacks. And as for the US in Iraq? Well, unless my memory is going away early, 9/11 happened before the US went to Iraq. Americans may disagree on how exactly to deal with terrorism, but her arrogant demands are believed by most to bring only defeat for the US. Watch her fame disappear better than Houdini. And her promise not to pay Taxes ought to piss off some Democrats...

Your 15 minutes are over, darling. Go back to the mental institution from which you came.

Cindy Sheehan's family

2005-08-13T13:21:00.000-04:00

(Yet again, hat-tip goes to Drudge)

Now it seems Cindy Sheehan's family is not exactly pleased with her actions. God knows the pain she's caused by dancing on her son's corpse and yelling "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!". Here's their statement, which is largely ignored by the mainstream media:

FAMILY OF FALLEN SOLDIER PLEADS: PLEASE STOP, CINDY!
Thu Aug 11 2005 12:56:21 ET

The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president's Crawford, Texas ranch.

The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey's aunt and godmother:

Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.

Thanks, Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

Developing...

Perhaps Bush should meet with them instead of this Michael Moore parrot in love with herself.

Cindy Sheehan, Mother of a Fallen Soldier in Iraq Who Wants to See Bush, is a Liar And an Opportunist

2005-08-08T13:10:00.000-04:00

(Hat-tip goes to Drudge)

It seems Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq that wants to speak with Bush seems to be playing a different tune than she did one year ago:

PROTESTING SOLDIER MOM CHANGED STORY ON BUSH
Mon Aug 08 2005 10:11:07 ET

The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch -- has dramatically changed her account about what happened when she met the commander-in-chief last summer!

Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who last year praised Bush for bringing her family the "gift of happiness," took to the nation's TV outlets this weekend to declare how Bush "killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity."

CINDY 2004

THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

CINDY 2005

Sheehan's current comments are a striking departure.

She vowed on Sunday to continue her protest until she can personally ask Bush: "Why did you kill my son?"

In an interview on CNN, she claimed Bush "acted like it was party" when she met him last year.

"It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.

"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one.'

Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party.

BLITZER: Like a party? I mean...

SHEEHAN: Yes, he came in very jovial, and like we should be happy that he, our son, died for his misguided policies. He didn't even pretend like somebody...

END

On her current media tour, Sheehan has not been asked to explain her twist on Bush; from praise to damnation!

Developing...

Hmm... Until I read this news flash, I believed that this woman was a poor, miguided, bereaved mother being used as a tool by the left to try to stir outrage at Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq. Not anymore. I now strongly believe that Mrs. Sheehan has decided to crusade against Bush this year and float with public opinion on the ocean made of her family's tears and her son's blood. What could have changed her mind? Very likely the celebrity she recieved and the gratification of seeing the President after her seeing him last year. Now, even having had the President see her isn't enough. Now, she wants the approval of the world back, and with the lower approval for the Iraq War and President Bush, and the respect Americans have for military families, she basically made a deal with leftist groups to back up her BS quest to see Bush and basically flood him with abuse. The desire for fame has corrupted her tortured soul and now that soul is next to nonexistant. Reading what she has said, it seems she has more problems with how Bush reacted to her during the 2004 meeting with him which from her own lips then sounded like it went rather well than the war itself.

Her obvious ignorance on this whole war is obvious, blaming Bush for the death of her son, and not those who actually killed him, whom her now-despised President is dedicated to fighting. How many more opportunistic wenches like Cindy Sheehan will come out, I don't know. But I do know this: the more that come out, morale will be threatened and will most likely cause more Casey Sheehans to die in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps people like Cindy Sheehan should think about that before spouting their ignorant filth. The Leftists of America have created a partnership with these bereaved families, parading and showing them off like an elderly millionaire celebrity shows off his young trophy wife. And like the millionaire and his wife, there is no real love between them or motivating their partnership.

Hiroshima in a More Perfect World

2005-08-06T19:10:00.000-04:00

Scott Ott shows what the people of Hiroshima would be doing if they hadn't been so emotionally affected by the attacks:

Hiroshima Survivors Celebrate Life-Saving Atomic Bomb
by Scott Ott

(2005-08-06) -- Japanese survivors of the atomic bomb blast at Hiroshima marked the 60th anniversary of the first use of nuclear weapons in war by celebrating the end of the totalitarian rule of Emperor Hirohito, whose blind ambition caused 1.5 million Japanese military casualities and some 672,000 civilian casualities.

If you want to see more of the article, check out this post on Scott's site, Scrappleface. If only this were true...

Hiroshima's Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba Speaks of Matters He Obviously Knows Nothing About.

2005-08-06T12:43:00.000-04:00

It seems the Mayor of Hiroshima can't keep his mouth shut at a somber memorial ceremony before using it as a pedestal to spout his ignorant filth:

In a "Peace Declaration," Hiroshima's outspoken Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba vowed to never allow a repeat of the tragedy and gave an impassioned plea for the abolition of nuclear weapons, saying the United States, Russia and other members of the nuclear club are "jeopardizing human survival."

"Many people around the world have succumbed to the feeling that there is nothing we can do," he said. "Within the United Nations, nuclear club members use their veto power to override the global majority and pursue their selfish objectives."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/
wireStory?id=1014484&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Selfish objectives? It seems Mr. Akiba doesn't realize that these "selfish objectives" are actually legitimate. If we simply try to disarm all our nuclear weapons like so many pie-in-the-sky nuclear disarmament utopians desire, then there are many risks that all these "selfish" nations would have to take.

For one, they will have to perform the impossible task of making sure that all are cooperating, which would be impossible in a realistic world where nuclear powers are at each other's throats. If one nation is fully compliant and assured that their fellow nations are eliminating nuclear weapons and disarms its arsenal, it may later find out that one nation actually has nuclear weapons hidden. Thus, it wouldn't change anything and instead would lead to merely fewer nations with nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, if all nations cooperate in such a plan, even then it would be redundant in terms of preventing nuclear exchanges between nations, as the MAD policy mixed with a desire to stay alive keeps most of the nuclear powered nations (with the possible exception of North Korea) from using such weapons on each other. The real nuclear threat today is in fact from terrorists and their supporting states. They have no fear of death and no country of origin. Also, nuclear weapons today are also able to be BUILT and smuggled. Dismantling conventional nuclear arsenals of non-rogue states will not help in any way, shape, or form with this issue.

It seems to me that Mr. Akiba is using emotionalism to push forth a very ignorant policy idea that is ineffective at best, and suicidal at worst. Unfortunately, what makes him dangerous is how easily people fall for it due to the emotional connection between his location's having been attacked by an atomic weapon and his stance on such similar weaponry. However, that does not make him an expert on how to deal with such issues. He is the mayor of a city, nothing more.

Mr. Akiba, you are better off keeping your mouth shut on such matters during somber ceremonies such as these instead of mouthing off to gain political points with your people. You obviously are a political cretin of the worst kind, preying on people's emotions to advance your political agenda. Be quiet and try to respectfully honor those who died and stick to the issues and the functions of your elected office. Those whose families and friends died on that fateful day deserve no less.

Perhaps my post about Hiroshima was a bit early...

2005-08-06T12:03:00.000-04:00

Today marks the anniversary of the Atomic Bomb attacks on Hiroshima. I guess I should have waited for today to have done this post. Impatience has claimed another victim, it seems. Anyways, click the link to see the post, or perhaps you can scroll down. That helps, too.

R.I.P. Stephen Vincent

2005-08-03T10:50:00.000-04:00

(Thanks to LGF for bringing this to my attention)

I would like to extend my condolences to the friend and family of writer Stephen Vincent after his unfortunate demise. I must confess that I had not found out about his work until now, and I greatly regret it. His most recent column, published just hours before his death really caught my interest. He truly was a symbol of an ideal journalist, putting one's life on the line to get the story to those far away and wouldn't dare take such a risk. Not to mention, he was also had a blog, as well. I am definitely adding his book, In the Red Zone, to my wish list.

I hope the people that did this are found and brought to justice. And once again, my prayers to his friends and family. They should be proud of him.

Annoying Lie #2: It Wasn't Necessary to Use the Atomic Bomb on Japan, and the U.S. Knew It

2005-08-02T11:06:00.000-04:00

(Hat-Tip Goes to Spoons and Austin Bay)

A recent article by Richard B. Frank, a World War II historian in The Weekly Standard refutes the simplistic claims that the US bombed Japan while knowing that Japan was already planning peace. The truth is far more complex, according to Mr. Frank:

The diplomatic intercepts included, for example, those of neutral diplomats or attachés stationed in Japan. Critics highlighted a few nuggets from this trove in the 1978 releases, but with the complete release, we learned that there were only 3 or 4 messages suggesting the possibility of a compromise peace, while no fewer than 13 affirmed that Japan fully intended to fight to the bitter end. Another page in the critics' canon emphasized a squad of Japanese diplomats in Europe, from Sweden to the Vatican, who attempted to become peace entrepreneurs in their contacts with American officials. As the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary correctly made clear to American policymakers during the war, however, not a single one of these men (save one we will address shortly) possessed actual authority to act for the Japanese government.

An inner cabinet in Tokyo authorized Japan's only officially sanctioned diplomatic initiative. The Japanese dubbed this inner cabinet the Big Six because it comprised just six men: Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Army Minister Korechika Anami, Navy Minister Mitsumasa Yonai, and the chiefs of staff of the Imperial Army (General Yoshijiro Umezu) and Imperial Navy (Admiral Soemu Toyoda). In complete secrecy, the Big Six agreed on an approach to the Soviet Union in June 1945. This was not to ask the Soviets to deliver a "We surrender" note; rather, it aimed to enlist the Soviets as mediators to negotiate an end to the war satisfactory to the Big Six--in other words, a peace on terms satisfactory to the dominant militarists. Their minimal goal was not confined to guaranteed retention of the Imperial Institution; they also insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled.

Also, Mr. Frank makes note that the proposal of a US invasion of Japan was not an action that was gauranteed to even be done. In fact, he argues that Truman had to choose between extending the war indefinitely if an invasion didn't take place, invading Japan and suffering horrific losses that may have caused a serious morale problem in war-weary America, and the choice he made, to use the Atomic Bomb on Japan in the hopes of never needing to invade Japan and still delivering damage to the country in which the Japanese could realize that perhaps unconditional surrender would be preferable to fighting a war with a power with such a devastating weapon.

This issue is perhaps very personal for me, due to the fact that I may very well would not have been born if such an action had not occurred. My grandfather had actually been drafted to the military late in the war, first as a cook for a POW camp for captured Nazi soldiers, then he was sent to fight in the proposed invasion of Japan. Even if we did not invade Japan and not use the Atomic Bomb, he, as well as many soldiers may very well have died fighting the Japanese who still did not see the situation as hopeless as it is not remembered to be. This does not mean I don't have sympathy for those who have suffered from Atomic Bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that doesn't mean that I should condemn my country for being warlike in a time of war. Unfortunately, too many academics and ill-informed individuals have taken the other side of this argument.

I highly recommend people read this article. It has extremely good arguments that may very well help you in the next argument with bleeding-heart hand-wringers who blindly accept the flawed lie that the US simply nuked Japan just for the hell of it. Also, it has some great info for the World War II history buff.

Why Do Some Americans Hate America?: The Legacy of Elitism

2005-07-31T09:59:00.000-04:00

Since my earlier post on the origins of foreigners disliking the United States and adopting false preconceptions of what Americans are really like, I decided that another, perhaps more important issue needs to be addressed: HOW THE HELL CAN AMERICANS BELIEVE THIS STUPID CRAP AS WELL?!

In a lot of ways, it is basically fueled by the same willful ignorance to the facts in order to preserve one's worldview that the Europeans have. Their subconscious minds know it is not true, but unfortunately, that doesn't help if they want the security of knowing they're right. Despite this, there is, unfortunately, more to the story in terms of the Anti-American American.

There is, and this is also true to the well-traveled and well-educated foreign person, a desire to be smarter than everyone else. Being in the academic environment sometimes traps people into this desire. Being in "higher education" makes certain types of people want to have that desire fulfilled. Often, this is due to the professors and their prattling about how people aren't as "free-thinking" as they are. This desire to be smarter and more free-thinking leads students to want to think differently than anyone else, and thus, they adapt ways of thinking that are unpopular to the average American and thus, they believe that in doing so, that makes them smarter than them. Paradoxically, they also desire social acceptance for their seeming superiority, and they find it in the Academic world. Sex and Gender roles can also play a role in this too, as some female students can use their supposed superiority to show how they and all women are somehow inherently smarter than those knuckle-dragging men. This is, of course, re-inforced by feminism on campus, with programs that even go so far as to say that women should identify themselves by a certain unique part of the *ahem* female anatomy and that men are the source of all the world's troubles because they are inherently stupid and violent. Also, males can then court females using this, by talking in what I like to call the "Academic Drone" whenever they want to "correct" people who say something against their worldview, which seems to impress girls looking for an intelligent guy, but can't tell the difference between someone who is intelligent and one who acts like it. I've found, through others, that the "Academic Drone" is more often used by those who simply try to act like it. But, anyways, certain "frustarations" mixed with political disagreements with certain individuals are now threatening to go off-topic, so I will stop on the subject of the gender aspects.

Also, there is the desired goal among Professors that college should "change" the students and their outlook on the world. They decry how, God forbid, up until then the parents provided the students with their worldview. I remember almost 2 years ago, one of my professors lamented that somehow, our college wasn't causing the students to "change" enough, and how he feels a horrible, sinking feeling when parents say proudly about their newly-graduated former children that "he hasn't changed a bit!". Now, there is a fallacy to this thinking, that somehow, for the hell of it, the student MUST change their views by the end of college. College is not meant to change a person's views, but to help give them the facts and expose them to other points of view, not have the students adopt them. If the student believes that the facts they have been exposed to in college are more consistent with the point of view that they had generally since before their college years and the other points of view and ideologies are in their opinions, inconsistent, then college has done it's job. Sadly, many Professors have trouble seeing it this way. Instead, too many wish that the college is a place to teach their "enlightened" worldview with the young students that they view as indoctrinated by narrow-minded, ill-educated parents. This is of course, hidden, but sometimes they have trouble hiding in this way of thinking and end up exposing it, although perhaps with more sugary rhetoric.

And what messages do these individuals espouse? Hatred and relentless criticism of the United States. In an effort to look different, all these individuals I have mentioned tend to want to find a contrarian view. To do this, they find a punching bag in the United States. They criticise the US even when there are well-known facts in the US's defense and shrug it off as media lies without much evidence to support their claims. Another unfortunate side-effect is the attraction to conspiracy theories. While it is okay to question the commonly thought wisdom on history, they blanketly disagree with any element which does not in effect tear the US's reputation and re-inforce their viewpoint. Such examples are the works of Howard Zinn, and the conspiracy theories of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the more recent conspiracy theories on the 9/11 attacks. Not agreeing with what is commonly believed gives these people a feeling of superiority over people they see as blindly believing what is thought to be the truth. The problem is that they are no different in that regard than the straw men they imagine are their opponents in these debates. They have blanketly chosen what is outside of the mainstream not on the merits of the arguments for their position, but because it's not the common interpretation.

And after college? Well, some people grow out of it, while others don't and continue on their regular lives. And sadly, most of our professors are the latter.

Good Reads (7/30)

2005-07-30T08:37:00.000-04:00

"Reformation or Civil War?" - Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson072905.html
"The Attempt to Establish a World Dominated by Muslims, Islam, and the Shari'a has Begun — But the World is in Denial " - Daniel Pipes
http://jewishworldreview.com/0705/pipes2005_07_26.php3

Paratrooper @ Moorewatch Makes an Excellent Point

2005-07-27T05:20:00.000-04:00

Are any Americans out there astounded at how little leftist Europeans and other foreigners know about the American people, seemingly relying on almost cartoon-like stereotypes of Americans? Well, it seems Paratrooper at MOOREWATCH has a really good theory about that, and it seems the very people who decry our beloved "image" in "the world" may have a part in this little game:

I have often heard how “decadent” and “immoral” and “violent” Americans are from folks across the pond, even though many of the most opinionated among them have never been here. But who could blame them? Would not a Englishman or Spaniard who saw “Bowling for Columbine” have a lesser opinion of us “racist” Amerikkkans as a result of having seen that film? Would not people from Syria or Saudi Arabia think that Americans revel in the thought of killing Arabs after watching “True Lies”? Would not people from Denmark think we’re a violence worshipping people after watching “Kill Bill, vol.1”? Do the Germans think we’re all as stupid as Ernest P. Worrel or Joe Dirt? Probably so.

Source: http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/
is_hollywood_to_blame/

Yes, Hollywood does indeed have a part in this unfortunate trend. The real tragedy is that these people are intelligent enough not to make such judgements based on media imagery. Some, in my opinion, don't want to believe otherwise. The desire to make a straw man out of Americans in the European left is far too great. Why give credit to the point of view Americans who believe in less strict gun laws than you would want when you can just consider it derived from brainwashing and a "glorification of guns and violence in American society"? Such attitudes give a feeling of superiority over the other argument without looking at the other side. However, as most of us Americans know, the average American who is against extreme gun control like they have in Europe is not basing his opinion on a cultural glorification of guns, but on their belief in being protected should a potential violent attack on them take place, and because they believe that if they are using guns responsibly and making all the necessary precautions, they should be able to own these guns and not have the government confiscate them. But, such acknowlegements are inconvenient, because they feel having an argument that would take into account these views would be too much work. Their ideological bretheren in Hollywood advance such stereotypes through film, and thus, the system is re-inforced. Hollywood's fault is to blame in the re-inforcement, but in the other cases that I have mentioned, it is the viewer who should bear the blame of their thinly-veiled ignorance.

Anyways, read the article I linked to, because it is an excellent, quick read.

The 9/11 World Trade Center Memorial: What Can You Do About It?... PLENTY!

2005-07-23T03:16:00.000-04:00

Read this article.

Then decide whether or not you are outraged. If you aren't, it's obvious you don't realize the inappropriate placing of 300,000 square feet dedicated to preaching a left-wing view of "freedom" while only 50,000 square feet is actually dedicated to the event that shook our world and especially America. I have no problem with exhibits on lynchings in the South, Nazi Concentration Camps and Soviet Gulags, or even an examination of Abu Ghraib. However, such exhibits have absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 and deserve to be elsewhere. Such exhibits on the Concentration Camps are already visible, not to mention more appropriate, at the National Holocaust Museum, and exhibits on the Soviet Gulags should be shown somewhere, but this is hardly the place, and I would judge for different reasons than the IFC planners desire. Other memorials are dedicated entirely to the events of which they are to memorialize. To have such obvious political propaganda as an exhibit on why the Patriot Act is wrong on the ground of this event, taking over 4/5ths of the area while the actuall memorial gets 1/5 just sickens me like nothing else. I have no problem if these organizations wish to place such an exhibit somewhere else, but asking for their exhibit to be put at Ground Zero would be just as inappropriate as if someone had a 9/11 memorial at the National Holocaust Museum or put the an exhibit about Vietnam at Pearl Harbor. It's all ridiculous, and we can thankfully do something about it. A movement called Take Back the Memorial has been created and has had the signatures of 1,600 9/11 victims' families. Their opponents are saying that this is a "minority of unusually vocal family members of 9/11 victims with a Conservative agenda" which is far from the truth. If such an allegation is true, so what? There has been hardly much of an opposition to the 9/11 families' demands for a proper memorial from this group, while the others seem to call them a "vocal minority" most likely to cover up their own lack of support from 9/11 families. Take Back The Memorial may be our only hope to have a truly respectable memorial dedicated to the events of 9/11.

There is a petition at their website. I have signed it, and I hope you will, as well.

Website: Take Back The Memorial

Australian Prime Minister John Howard Gets it Right

2005-07-22T12:20:00.000-04:00

(Hat-tip goes to Boortz)

In a recent press conference yesterday after the London attacks, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain stood their ground against the horrible fallacy that these recent attacks are only because of their support for the US-led war in Iraq. Here is PM Howard's response to this pathetic idea:

Question:

To both Prime Ministers, what was your immediate reaction on hearing that some incidents had occurred, was it here we go again? And do incidents like this, coming just 14 days after the horrific attacks, suggest that the war against terror is being lost on the streets? And yesterday an Australian bomb victim of July 7 linked the bombings to Iraq. Does that suggest that the propaganda war against terrorists is also being lost?

Mr Howard:

Could I start by saying the Prime Minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it, and my first reaction was to get some more information, and I really don't want to add to what the Prime Minister has said. It is a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here. Could I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government, and indeed the policies of the British and American government on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it has given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq; and could I remind you that the 11 September occurred before the operation in Iraq; can I also remind you that the very first occasion that Bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor.

Are people, by implication, suggesting that we shouldn't have done that? When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on 7 July, they talked about British policy, not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Melo was murdered in Iraq, a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, immensely respected for his work in the United Nations, when al Queda gloated about that they referred specifically to the role that de Melo had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor. Now I don't know the mind of the terrorist, by definition you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber, I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I have cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq, and indeed all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggest to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of the principles of a great world religion that at its root preaches peace and cooperation, and I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances, rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

Prime Minister:

I agree 100% with that.

"Prime Minister" by the way, is Tony Blair in case you didn't know. In my opinion, these 2 men deserve to have some sort of honorary US Citizenship.

Good Reads (7/17)

2005-07-17T03:49:00.000-04:00

"War of the Worlds" - Ronald Bailey
http://www.reason.com/links/links071105.shtml
"Canada's Unhappy Birthday" - David Frum
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22766,filter.all/
pub_detail.asp
"Our Wars Over the War" - Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071605.html
"The Jews" - Michael A. Ledeen
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22832,filter.all/
pub_detail.asp
"Conversation with a Pacifist" - George Orwell (1940s)
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/pacifist.html

We're only making more terrorists by fighting them...

2005-07-15T01:38:00.000-04:00

... NOT! A recent Pew research study refutes that the general trend is that more and More Muslims all over the Muslim world are gathering to the Jihadist cause. Recently, it was said that while support for bombings and Bin Laden/Al-Queda increased in Jordan, generally in other Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Turkey, and Morocco, it has significantly dropped.

Support for Osama bin Laden and suicide bombings have fallen sharply in much of the Muslim world, according to a multicountry poll released on Thursday.

The survey by the Pew Research Center examined public opinion in six predominantly Muslim nations: Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan and Lebanon. It also examined views in nine North American and European countries as well as in India and China. In all, more than 17,000 people were questioned either by telephone of face-to-face.

"There's declining support for terrorism in the Muslim countries and support for Osama bin Laden is declining. There's also less support for suicide bombings," said Pew Center director Andrew Kohut.

"This is good news, but still there are substantial numbers who support bin Laden in some of these countries," he told a news conference.

In Morocco, 26 percent of the public now say they have a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, down from 49 percent in a similar poll two years ago.

In Lebanon, where both Muslims and Christians took part in the survey, only 2 percent expressed some confidence in the Saudi-born al Qaeda leader, down from 14 percent in 2003.

In Turkey, bin Laden's support has fallen to 7 percent from 15 percent in the past two years. In Indonesia, it has dropped to 35 percent from 58 percent.

...

A similar picture emerged when respondents were asked whether suicide bombings were justifiable. In Morocco, 13 percent said they often or sometimes could be justified, down from 40 percent in 2004.

Unfortunately, not all of the countries polled had such a favorable outcome to their polls. In Jordan, sadly, "confidence in bin Laden, who took responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and many other attacks, rose to 60 percent from 55 percent." Also, Pakistan's stance on the issue is 51 percent favorable towards Bin Laden, as opposed to its previous 46 percent.

Thankfully, though, many countries see this terrorism as the evil it is:

Both in western countries and the Muslim world, respondents expressed fears about Islamic extremism.

Seventy-three percent in Morocco and 52 percent in Pakistan saw Islamic extremism as a threat to their country. The figure was 84 percent in Russia, 78 percent in Germany, and an identical 70 percent in Britain and the United States. The poll was taken well before last week's bombings in London.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050714/ts_nm/
muslims_binladen_dc&printer=1;
_ylt=Ap_gAVoD1LZEgR9lC_MGgTtg.3QA;_ylu=
X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

There is much more work to be done if we are to win hearts and minds, of course. But to simply assume that the whole front for the US and the Western World to gain favor in comparison with Jihadists has been a failure because the US and others were fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere is pure uninformed silliness. Now, that being said, while I would not be surprised if these polls were a strong reflection of truth, I also have to admit that statistics are often very fuzzy in their collection of data, and often either merely reflect the biases of the pollsters, the takers' ignorance on the subject, and of course, the fact that one area or segment may, more often than not, be very different in views from the country as a whole. However, whether this poll ends up being 100% accurate or not is not entirely important if someone wishes to refute polls that may say the opposite of this poll. If this is a poll that does not truly represent with 100% accuracy the attitudes of the country, one can point out to an anti-war person that their poll may, in fact, be formed with such flaws as well. And if this poll is truly for the most part accurate, I doubt this will be seen anywhere in the Mainstream Press, who, along with the extreme Left and some of the Paleoconservatives and some libertarians, have succumbed to a certain nationalist-masochism where good news about our country is phased out and the bad news is hammered into people like there is no tomorrow.

This is a good sign. Progress is being made in getting the hearts and minds of more truly moderate Muslims in some countries, while others are slowly gaining more extreme views. We have done a good job, but as always, there is room for improvement. Of course, the more people the terrorists kill, the more they will be despised. Such viciousness does not gain fans when it is out in the open like what we've seen in London last week. Hopefully, this means that those worldwide who are not infected with Cranial-Rectal insertion will feel the push and gain the desire to call into question terrorists and their apologists.

Good Reads (7/15)

2005-07-15T01:35:00.000-04:00

"Can You Fight an Idea?" - Mona Charen
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/
mc20050715.shtml
"Enemies, Foreign, and Domestic" - Charles Krauthammer
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/
ck20050715.shtml
"Dishonest and Deadly" - Bruce Thornton
http://victorhanson.com/articles/thornton071405.html

Good Reads (7/12)

2005-07-13T00:13:00.000-04:00

"What We Should Expect From Muslims" - David Frum
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22827,filter.all/
pub_detail.asp
"Revising History" - Oliver North
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/
on20050708.shtml
"British Islamists Threatened Violence" - Daniel Pipes
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0705/
pipes2005_07_08.php3
"Terrorism: Too Many Canadians Still Don't Get It" - Arthur Weinreb
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/weinreb071205.htm

Good Reads (7/11)

2005-07-11T22:05:00.000-04:00

"The Anticipated Attack" - Christopher Hitchens
http://slate.msn.com/id/2122186/
"How to Lose a War" - Victor Davis Hanson
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071105.html

Yes, Virginia, There IS an Exit Strategy

2005-07-11T21:08:00.000-04:00

Buzzwords are a peculiar thing in politics. These days, the term so often used by politicians who are against the Iraq War and some of the more "Moderate" Republicans and Conservatives who seem to have found that the Iraq War was not the slam-dunk for their political careers that they hoped it would be. So, like fair-weather friends, they are in the process of distancing themselves from the war effort and slowly joining in the chorus of the war effort's determined enemies on the Left. Recently, it came to my attention that my Representative Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) has become one of these groups of Republicans. SInce I am among his constituents, I thought it was my responsibility, as with all constituents in my district that are likeminded on the War in Iraq and how to fight it to prove how wrong he is to demand an "exit strategy" of the sort that the Left have been demanding. So, I sent him a letter, pointing out that if we have a withdrawal based on time instead of results like the Democrats and others have so gotten wrapped up in demanding that our troops have an exit strategy to get out of Iraq. I recently got his letter in response, and I've been led to believe that neither he nor those hired to go through his correspondence from his constituents truly read what is written to them or they simply are unable to comprehend it. Of course, he most likely has his office send a prewritten statement on the subject at hand, but what his statement shows is an obvious ignornance to the facts. Here is part of what has been sent back to me from Rep. Coble's office:

"As you will recall, the coalition forces turned over control of the governing functions to a provisional Iraqi government on June 28, 2004, and from every indication, it appears the January election process was a resounding success. In early May, Iraq's first-ever elected Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari formally swore in 29 of his cabinet ministers. The country's 275-member elected parliament, represented by a large Shia majority, has already made overtures towards enfranchising more of the Kurd and Sunni minorities. Finally, the parliamentary committee charged with drafting Iraq's constitution should have its initial proposal completed by the end of August. Sadly, I have no doubt certain sectors of the media have played a part in downplaying some of these measurable accomplishments."

"That being said, over the course of recent months, it is no secret that I have become increasingly disheartened by the apparent lack of a high-quality exit strategy incumbent upon our initial invasion. I am discontent with the present reality of learning of new fatalities on seemingly a daily basis. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the recent Iraqi election process will yield the promising future we are all hoping for in that country. As I have publicly stated, while I applaud the transition of governing authority to the Iraqi people, I also believe it is only right that this administration keep a full U.S. withdrawal on the table. Again, I am not saying it is the only option, merely that we owe it to our brave men and women, steadfastly serving in harm's way, to give it the full consideration it deserves. I will continue to follow this situation closely and I welcome your input as this process moves forward."

As you can see, Rep. Coble is using a series of "What if it all goes completely wrong?" statements to make his point. The unfortunate thing is, this isn't a war we can afford to lose, and we have a lot more to lose in this war than the public, and it seems Rep. Coble seem to think. People are sadly under the impression that this war is one where either the place is fine enough left alone, or irreparably sunk into Islamofascism no matter how much or how little we do there and that in either case, we won't lose as much getting out of there as staying there. This is an unfortunate side-effect from the specter of Vietnam that seems to infect so many of our people, even today.

This specter has infected some of the most hawkish foreign-policy advocates, many of which most likely have one of those "Support Our Troops" ribbon stickers that seem to be on almost every vehicle in Middle America. Most of this stems from, in my opinion, this "Specter of Vietnam" feeding upon the part in all of us that says "what if I'm wrong?". Normally, this is a halpful mechanism to keep us humble, but if this is exploited negatively, it can lead to irrational decisions just as bad as if this mechanism did not exist and the person was believing everything he does and believes is 100% right, even when the facts conflict with such an attitude. Thus, I believe Rep. Coble may in fact be a victim of this, along with others, fearing that it may still all go wrong and fall apart, despite the obvious progress made in this conflict.

Not to say that things can't change for the worse, but even then, in this conflict specifically, we can't afford to lose. It is obvious that the people we are fighting now, many of which are called "insurgents" in the news media are the same people who bombed London a few days ago, the same people who attacked the World Trade Center, and the same people that hate our country and want to destroy it. Their attacks in Iraq against the US and coalition forces are acts of desperation, not bravery. They are attacking the coalition forces because of their fear over the Western Democratic influence on their countries, and thus, are on the Defensive. While this may seem simplistic, but I personally would rather them be on the Defensive in Iraq, then on the Offensive in the US. This is not a popular, native front like the Viet-Cong, and if it was, we would have had a much higher body count than we do and would have left the country much, much sooner. This is an invasion of terrorists from Iran and other Islamic radical states assisting former Ba'ath party loyalists who are not numerous and desiring to scare the Iraqis from supporting the rebuilding of their country under a truly representative state. However, their attacks may very well be backfiring against them. The Iraqis are growing in anger against these attacks which leave many more of their people dead than they do ours. The sad thing is, the News Media refrains reporting much of the deaths of civilian Iraqis that are killed in these attacks, instead mentioning merely the coalition, particularly American, deaths. Leaving this country because of the body count of brave men and women who chose to fight in our military, and perhaps implied, die if necessary to make Iraq and the world a better place is a move that will have made our troops die in vain and basically change nothing for the better and further convince the Arabs that we are petty, self-interested people who compose nothing more than a "paper tiger" that can be beaten if pushed enough.

There is a working exit strategy that the Bush administration has put out, but it isn't a full withdrawal like the Democrats have so desperately wanted. This is a gradual withdrawal based on the sufficient training of Iraqi soldiers and policemen, as well as other forces, not on time or how bad it gets. Bush clearly set out in his speech at Fort Bragg to talk to those with the outlook of Rep. Coble who could still have their minds changed. To Pro-Iraq Republicans, this was just more preaching to the chior, but to the undecided this was a way to win their hearts and minds. The President did an excellent job, but he should have mentioned one more fact, and perhaps I should have mentioned this to Mr. Coble. As much as it seems that America has been given a "black eye" according to the conventional wisdom of foreign policy types and Academia (which, in this case "wisdom" should be changed to "belief") abandoning Iraq would be even worse than whatever evil happened to that country whether when we came in or before it. I would rather have my country have a "black eye" in the eyes of the world if we stayed there and did what was right, no matter the consequences, than have my country be seen as a selfish one with a black heart that deserves more martyrs to attack it and eventually extinguish it from this earth.

Annoying Lie #1: Cuban vs. American Literacy

2005-04-18T18:31:00.000-04:00

During my many debates, and I'm sure that many of you have had these such debates on the failures of Communism/Socialism, a liberal may parrot the talking point that "Cuba has a higher literacy rate than the United States" or that "Cuba has an 100% literacy rate, which even the US can't compete" and so on. Obviously, such statements are bogus. In fact, literacy is generally the same. According to the CIA World Factbook, the total literacy rate of Cuba is at 97%. To illustrate the data, I have copied and pasted the information from the CIA World Factbook on Cuban Literacy:

Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 97%
male: 97.2%
female: 96.9% (2003 est.)

Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
geos/cu.html

As you can tell, Cuba's literacy is not terrible, but it refutes the "100%"
myth. Now let us look at the United States:

Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 97%
male: 97%
female: 97% (1999 est.)
Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
geos/us.html

Thus, if the CIA Factbook is accurate, then men in the US have a -.2% literacy rate difference in comparison to Cuba. Meanwhile, what's this? Women in the US have a .1% literacy rate difference compared to Cuba. But ultimately, this means nothing, as the Cuban and American literacy rates for all of both countries is at 97%, giving an even percentage in total comparison. This means that in all truth, Cuba has the same literacy rate as the US.

Ultimately, though, this lie is merely a tactic of distraction used from uninformed Castro apologists who have heard this parrotted somewhere and assumed it to be true. This statement is a conscious or unconscious method to distract Castro regime opponents in debate to make people believe that because there is a higher rate of literacy in Cuba, then it must not be all that bad under the Castro regime and that all the stories of political and religious oppression, as well as rampant poverty under a state-run system are all leftover Cold War lies from paranoid Conservatives trying to hide the wonderful state that Cuba is really in. Next time you debate with a person spouting this lie, make sure to note that Cuba's literacy rate is actually the same percentage as that of the United States and that there has yet to be a large influx of Americans going to Cuba from Hollywood or anywhere for that matter. I think it is pretty obvious that in Cuba, or anywhere else for that matter, literacy is good for the person and their mind for both practical and intellectual reasons. But it cannot feed you, and it is next to useless if you are in a totalitarian regime in which you are restricted to government-approved publications and writings. I believe that the influx of Cuban migrants to the US floating to Florida's coast for a better life, often dying in the process is testament to this truth. It is also interesting to note that most of the Westerners living in more Capitalism-oriented countries have been reluctant to move to Cuba, especially the pampered pundits who sing the praises of the Castro regime.

Maybe the EU Should Hold Off Popping Open The Champagne...

2005-03-01T23:07:00.000-05:00

... Seems Germany and the Euro's at least hit a speed bump in its leading the EU to being the worker's utopia.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0a07b7a6-8a49-11d9-98b6-00000e2511c8.html

The euro fell on Tuesday as German unemployment worsened
still further and eurozone-wide inflation data reinforced perceptions that
interest rates would stay on hold for the foreseeable future.

Germany’s jobless rate rose to 11.7 per cent in February, with the
unadjusted jobless tally jumping to 5.216m, the Federal Labour office said.
Meanwhile the flash estimate for inflation across the 12-nation bloc in the year
to February came in at just 2 per cent, a fraction below consensus
forecasts.
...
...0.2 per cent to a two-week low of £0.6867 against
sterling...
That last thing I notes must really make the UK want to adopt this wonderful new currency. It's quite obvious despite the Europhile hype, that the Euro and the European economies aren't quite as wonderful for people as one may think. According to the Cia World Factbook, the US's unemployment was 6% (2003), which is small potatoes compared to Germany's 11.7%. It is quite obvious that the nations in Europe, if they ever are to become any real competition to the US as a place to live need to find out what America is doing that's causing it to still be ahead of them and start adopting those practices.

Brainwashing 101

2005-03-01T00:56:00.000-05:00

Recently, Conservative filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney is working on a film that will hopefully be widely distributed in feature length sometime this year regarding academia's attempts at silencing Conservative opinion on College Campuses in the United States. The film currently has a working title of Brainwashing 101. I have had the pleasure of seeing a 46-Minute preview at AcademicBias.com, which pretty much showcases the sneaky ways in which colleges across the nation have attempted to stifle free speech on college campuses.

Many people on the leftward side of the politicaly aisle have used the adage that perhaps it turns out that the people who are smart enough to become professors are liberal. This inference is working under the assumption that conservatives, generally, are not smart enough to become college professors. But, they fail to realize that the real issue conservatives have with Academia is not that the professors are liberal, but that their viewpoints are forced upon the students, often not adding other viewpoints into the course requirements. Perhaps an even more disturbing development in college campuses across the country is the creation of "speech codes" that have caused the intimidation of students with frivolous cases of harassment or intimidation of leftist students and faculty, even when what the conservative students have said had no malicious intent, just another point of view. These speech codes have become a vehicle to silence students with opposing viewpoints, using undefined offenses such as "offensive" or "hate" speech.

When a College Republicans Club at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington advertised a speaking event with Daniel J. Flynn, with his book title "Why the Left Hates America", all hell broke loose. When students complained of the flyer, claiming it was hateful, they were subsequently torn down, some of which was done by administrators. One administrator, David Lindsay, the university's Director of Student Activities, said that "I took one down because our publicity policy says that we don't allow hate speech to be posted around campus." After the group was repremanded and told to fix their flyer to point out that the offending phrase was a book title, students still complained, causing the College Republicans to have a disciplinary letter in their file. Thankfully, unlike Mr. Lindsay, University President Robert Spitzer saw reason and realized that such silencing of expression was a travesty, especially after being notified about this incident by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Effectively, he removed the disciplinary letter from the College Republicans' file.

Sadly, other cases do not end so quickly or as civilized. In fact, Brainwashing 101 features one student at Cal Poly got in trouble for putting a flyer up for an event with black conservative Mason Weaver, which featured the title "Its OK to Leave the Plantation". Claiming the word "Plantation" was offensive, several students complained and even brought in the police to the college. After a year and a half of legal battles between the college and the student, the college had to reimburse the student with $40,000. The very fact that such a case even made it to court is a travesty. It is obvious in both the cases, it was not a concern about hate, but the fact that it espoused a different political view. I strongly recommend this film, not just to the Conservative choir of whom they will be preached what they've already come to believe, but also to potential college students of all political persuasions and liberals cynical of Conservative concern over a left-wing monopoly in Academia.

Well, now this is interesting...

2004-10-19T00:06:00.000-04:00

Well, according to the Guardian newspaper, Vladimir Putin Supports Bush for President, which is quite interesting considering that he was against the war in Iraq:

The endorsement was a significant boost for Mr Bush who has been
under fire from John Kerry for failing to maintain international support for the
US "war on terror".
"International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the
maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term," the Russian
president said at a central Asian summit in Tajikistan.
"If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory
over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition. In that case, this would
give an additional impulse to international terrorists and to their activities,
and could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world." He added
he would respect "any choice by the American people".

It was by far his strongest endorsement of Mr Bush to date, and the most
direct intervention in the race so far by a foreign leader.
[Emphasis Mine - D]

Strangely, halfway through the article, it goes on to talk about a completely unrelated, seemingly editorial rant about a Bush appearance saying:

The endorsement came as Mr Bush regained a small but significant
lead in the polls after his mediocre performance in the three debates with Mr
Kerry, and on a day when he accused his rival of retreat in the war on terror,
playing on memories of the September 11 2001 terror attacks in the hopes of
plucking off the reliably Democratic state of New Jersey.

New Jersey lost
nearly 700 citizens when hijacked planes struck the World Trade Centre, and the
president's visit to the southern parts of the state was aimed at exploiting
strong fears of another attack.

I may be seeing too much into this, but isn't it curious how they seem to talk about Bush's reminding New Jersey citizens about 9/11 as "exploitation strong fears" but then Kerry and Edwards' supporters saying that the US's War on Iraq is being mismanaged by an incompetent Bush Administration isn't "exploiting strong fears" enough to be mentioned in the article?

Introduction to what will hopefully be a long-lived Soapbox

2004-10-14T23:14:00.000-04:00

Well, first off, I wanna welcome you to my new blog. Second, I want you to know that this is my first attempt at starting a blog of my own. Primarily what has caused me to start this blog is that I have gotten so sick and tired of the lies that have been spread about my country, the United States, it's principles on economic and social liberty, and its allies and actions. These lies range from the constructively critical, yet uninformed to the most vitriolic and hateful. The first often sound like well-meaning statements from people who aren't really hateful, although some may very well be, but often sound like talking points parrotted to bolster support for their politics. Both sides of any issue do this, so don't mistake what I'm saying as painting this flaw on one particular group, but it irritates me to no end when someone says something that was merely told to them by someone in the media (Michael Moore, I'm looking at you...) or someone they know and respect and then saying it and taking it as gospel. The second, more hateful statements are often meant to play on a certain bigotry against Americans. It can be light, such as "Americans are primarily more ignorant on international and political issues than Europeans" to more hateful statements like "Americans are all bible-thumping, arrogant, ignorant nutjobs in league with the Zionist Jews who want to take over the whole world!" Speaking of Zionism, I am also going to focus on lies often told about Israel and its policies as well, as there have been many fallacious statements that have stained the reputation of a staunch US ally in the Middle East who is not actually as Nazi-like as many would have you believe. Also, these arguments have been used to spread anti-semitism and anti-Americanism through the world, and hopefully by debunking some of these arguments, we can hope to debilitate this steadily growing bigotry that is spreading and poisoning our civilization.

And as for stuff about me, well, here are some stats:

Name: Daniel
Age: 21
Place of Birth: New Jersey
Place of Current Residence: North Carolina
Education: High School Graduate, Sophomore at College
Political Affiliation: Independent, but registered Republican
Religion: Kind of struggling through that one... (note: this is NOT an invitation to Religious chain e-mails!)
Favorite News Source: Internet. There's a lot less BS going on when there isn't the entertainment-orientation of today's television news involved.
Hobbies: Watching Sci-Fi, Action, Comedy, and War Movies. Occasionally playing video games. Listening to my favorite music (as opposed to listening to music I hate, ha ha) even if the music is made by left-wing wack-jobs who are promoting the lies I hope to debunk. Sorry, Toby Keith just doesn't do it for me, along with most country music aside from Johnny Cash. I'll take Black Sabbath, Tool, and Iron Maiden over Toby Keith any given day of the week! I also like researching War, which doesn't mean I like war itself, but mostly the human drama and historical signifigance of it. Particularly, I seem to be finding myself having a lot of interest in Vietnam, perhaps my country's most misunderstood war.

Well, hopefully this introduction is satisfactory and you find my blog of some value. I'm willing to allow anyone to comment, even if they disagree with my own views, just be respectful.