The Can-Do Attitude

Nicolas Sarkozy woos America - Telegraph

I've not said anything about the alleged thaw in our relations with france. I don't think I need to, to be honest. The proof of said warming will be if she follows through.

That being said, important note is made of this by The Telegraph. What will Britain's reaction be to the thawing? Historically, America doesn't move closer to both England and France simultaneously. There is an unwritten mutual exclusivity in relations with those countries. If Uncle Sam's policy is to unabashedly allow france to kiss his ass, expect Britannia's reaction to be one of distancing. My opinion. Informed by history.



Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, France, Britain, Sarkozy, Lafayette, George Bush

Defeatist of the Day

In a morbidly eerie recasting of Chamberlain's 'Peace in our Time' announcement, the Times (of London) is running an opinion today that advates we concede defeat by Iran and attempt to engage them with rewards and trade and other goodies. I'm glad this sort of sentiment isn't yet prevailing today. While the whiff of the late 1930s is almost certainly in the air, we still have some Churchillian-esque backbone left that may avert total catastrophy with appeasement as the vehicle.

The author is the London Times' chief commentator on economic and financial issues. He is also a highly educated mathematician who has been involved in the financial sector for a number of decades. I don't dispute his economic forecasts about the price of oil given the scenarios he describes, but I do absolutely dispute with vigor the scenarios themselves.

The Iranian paradox: to gain victory the West must first concede defeat
Anatole Kaletsky

DEFEAT IS NEVER pleasant, but often it is better to lose than to win. Defeat in the Second World War was the best thing that ever happened to Germany and Japan in their thousand years of recorded history. For America, losing in Vietnam was also a blessing in disguise. While defeat seemed to shatter the illusion of an "American century" of global dominance, it was followed by 30 years of almost uninterrupted prosperity, a political renaissance for conservative values and America's total victory over communism in the Cold War.

Such thoughts may not offer much consolation to George Bush, Tony Blair and Ehud Olmert as they contemplate their defeat at the hands of Iran and its Hezbollah allies. But the ordinary citizens of America, Britain and Israel should try to draw some constructive lessons from history, even while their leaders make ever greater fools of themselves with their idle threats against Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Whoa. Wait a second. Defeat at the hands of Iran and Hezbollah? Nothing has been 'lost' here. The issue is certainly not resolved, but to date Hezbollah has not resumed its previous positions and efforts to destory Israel. So far Iran is still politically isolated, contained and viewed increasingly as a rogue pariah. The United Nations is engaged and various other diplomatic efforts are underway to enforce the resolutions passed by the Security Council. So to say civilization was defeated by barbarians, that Rome has been destroyed by the Visigoths, is silly and premature. This is definately not a time to grab the girl in Times Square and give her a full blown kiss, but it surely isn't the last helicopter leaving Saigon either.

Furthermore, our leaders are not making fools of themselves by trying to implement a policy other than outright concession to and appeasement of a religious fanatic who has repeatedly called for genocide and world domination. The fool is the one who attempts to aquiesce in the vain hope that he won't have to deal with Iran if he simply gives Iran what it wants. History is far more replete with examples of failure due to appeasement than of failure due to aggressive defense.

The "international community" is now totally powerless in its nuclear confrontation with Iran, even more so than with North Korea. Pyongyang needs food and fuel to survive and is therefore susceptible to pressure from China. Iran, at the moment flush with oil wealth, needs nothing and is not dependent on anyone.

The sort of economic and diplomatic sanctions being ominously debated by the UN Security Council - curbing investment in Iran's oil industry or banning exports of machinery and luxury goods - would be worse than ineffective. They would actually strengthen the regime of Iran's fanatically anti-American and anti-Israeli President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This is factually incorrect. Iran is highly dependent on gasoline imports, for example. Iran's leaders cannot remain in power if the people's necessities are denied them. The issue isn't of the ability of sanctions to change behavior in regimes, the issue is the ability of the world to obey UN resolutions prohibiting trade with Iran. Sanctions against North Korea work very effectively. The problem is that we aren't willing to starve the people there into submission. We aren't willing to cut off energy supplies and medical supplies. In Iran's case, the sanctions wouldn't need to go nearly that far. Iran is a highly educated society with a high percentage of young people who are not at all religious and not at all happy with the current state of their nation. Denying them gasoline, cell phones, automobiles, chewing gum, jeans, sneakers, etc. etc. will produce a far faster reaction with a much greater intensity then could be achieved in North Korea where the people have absolutely nothing to begin with.

Economic sanctions would help Ahmadinejad by adding to the xenophobic paranoia that always tends to reinforce nationalist extremists, at least in the short term. In the case of Iran, however, there is another, more important, reason why sanctions would be counter-productive. Far from defeating Iran through economic exhaustion, sanctions would make the country, or at least its Government, even richer and more powerful than it is today. This paradox, which has never before arisen in the use of economic sanctions for diplomatic purposes, arises because of the state of the global oil market today.

Oil prices have more than doubled in the past three years because steadily rising demand, especially from China, has run up against the limits of global production capacity. If Iran, which is the world's third-largest oil producer after Russia and Saudi Arabia, had even a small part of its exports removed by sanctions from world markets, the oil price would shoot up to $100 or more. As long as the percentage increase in oil prices was higher than Iran's percentage loss of export volumes, sanctions would result in the Government's total revenues going up, instead of down.

Again, this is only an issue if sanctions aren't enforced. They are pretty tight on North Korea. They have been for quite a while. They were also pretty tight on Libya. Sanctions are a viable punishment for rogue behavior if enforced and adhered to. The reality is that China and Russia won't abide by sanctions even if they claim they are (since they think nothing of lying to just about anyone about anything). THAT is the truth about sanctions. However, that being said, prohibiting the importation of gasoline is something that may be enforceable and may achieve part of the desired effect. After all, the average Iranian doesn't care if China violates the sanctions by selling Iran some missiles now and then. But Joe Iranian DOES care if he can't drive is car to the coffee shop.

Iran also controls the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow strip that separates the country from the Arabian peninsula and which provides a passage for roughly 40 per cent of the world's internationally traded oil. If Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz or otherwise threaten foreign shipping in response to an attempt to impose economic sanctions, the oil price would jump not just to $100 a barrel but probably to $150 or beyond. As a result, the Iranian Government could quite conceivably double its present revenues after the imposition of sanctions. Thus sanctions would provide President Ahmadinejad with even more money to buy popularity among his domestic voters, and unleash an even greater torrent of oil money to finance Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon and anti- American Shia in Iraq.

Um, newsflash for the London Times. Iran does NOT control the Straits of Hormuz. The 5th Fleet controls the Straits and has since 1995. Even if Iran was able to temporarily (and somewhat magically) close the straits, rest assured that they would rapidly be reopened. The author is quite correct in that nearly half of the world's oil supply transits the Straits of Hormuz. If it were to be threatened, even the Chinese would send ships to prevent the interruption of the flow of oil.

But if sanctions are doomed to failure, what about military options? As a last resort, couldn't America or Israel stop the nuclear programme by threatening to bomb Iran? Sadly or happily (depending on your worldview), the answer is a very clear "no". Militarily, America and Israel have now shot their bolts in Iraq and Lebanon respectively. They have neither the firepower nor the willpower to do anything to stop Iran's nuclear programme - and even if they did have the capacity to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, they could not afford the risk of destabilising their other Middle Eastern interests even further by taking military action. Moreover, both America and Israel now understand that a bombing campaign that could not be backed by an infantry invasion would only reinforce the existing regime's grip on power.

Again, the Times seems to be disconnected from reality here. Implying that the United States cannot bomb Iran into the stone age at a moment's notice is factually incorrect. Whether we would or not is the question. That we have insufficient ground strength (at current force levels) to mount a full blown invasion and occupation of Iran is probably true. That we don't have the ability to send substantial ground forces into Iran is not true at all. Trust that the United States has plenty of capacity to inflict hell on her enemies from the air, sea and land.

The last argument against a military strike, but by no means the least one, brings us back to the oil issue. If the US or Israel were to bomb Iran's nuclear installations, Iran would have the strongest possible pretext to ramp up the oil price to $150 a barrel or higher by closing or restricting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. Thus a military attack on Iran, just like economic sanctions, would increase the Government's capacity to finance global terrorism and curry favour with the Iranian public. It would also cause potentially catastrophic disruption to the world economy when the American public is already turning against the Iraq adventure and Republicans face a potentially disastrous electoral defeat.

I don't doubt that oil would go up. I don't doubt that it would be a tricky and complex socio-political issue to resolve this by force. But the temporary high price of oil is not reason enough to allow Iran to possess the bomb. Internal American politics cannot dictate whether we allow Iran to have a nuclear arsenal. The American public would be incensed if Iran was allowed to build nuclear weapons while the world leadership stood idly by.

What then should America and its allies do in the face of Iran's nuclear defiance? The answer is clear: concede defeat. Iran has won this tussle and there is no point in pretending otherwise. Instead of trying to stop Iran's nuclear programme, the international community must bring Iran back into the civilised world. The only way to do that is to stop issuing empty threats and to start offering Iran real incentives for co-operative behaviour - non-aggression guarantees from America and Israel, removal of the residual US economic sanctions dating back to the 1980s and the prospect of steadily improving treatment in investment and trade. Of course, such a U-turn seems inconceivable while President Bush remains in office. But remember President Nixon's historic opening to China as he was losing the war in Vietnam. To paraphrase Johnson, a politician's mind can be concentrated wonderfully by the knowledge that he is faces defeat.

Try reading this last paragraph without gaping in astonishment. First of all, it is funny that the author extolls the wisdom of LBJ (who ramped UP the Vietnam war that his buddy Kennedy started) and attributes blame for the war's failures to Nixon. Surely there's no bias there. It is also bizarre that the esteemed author believest that Ahmadinejad is interested in non-aggression guarantees and the lifting of residual US sanctions or even in investment and trade. He wants nothing less than to generate chaos and wage religious war in an effort to destroy the world order. He has no interest in participating the existing global structure. He wants to overturn the status quo, not join it.

But quite apart from that, we are to allow a Islamo-fascist extremest regime to possess a nuclear weapon when it has already made clear several times that it will use it against Israel? Give up in our efforts to prevent Iran from triggering a tremendous conflagration in the Middle East as they already have tried to do via Hezbollah? Concede to Iran anything they wish in order to curry favor with the regime and somehow thereby with the people? Guarantee Iran that we will not use force to prevent her leaders from committing genocide, destabilizing the entire region and attempting to conquer her neighbors as her leaders have repeatedly said they wish to do? If this isn't advocating a Munich Pact with Iran, then I surely don't know what it is. This is defeatism in all its glory, folks.

I don't think the solution for Iran is give the enemy what he wants and then hope he doesn't use it against you later. I think the solution is to undermine the enemy at every point possible. Internal Iranian discontent is quite high, even if open dissent is forcibly suppressed. We should be figuring out how to help support and enhance the dissenters and then focus our every dollar we can toward helping them succeed in forcing changes from the inside. The economy there is in shambles and we ought to be figuring out ways to further increase the misery of the Iranian people and at the same time convince them that it is the fault of their leaders. Sanctions alone won't achieve that. It is necessary to wage a war of soft power against Iran. It involves media campaigns, information warfare, financial warfare, harrassment on every front and at all times. We should wage a cold war against Iran. One that involves the gradual undermining of the legitimacy of their government and checks the international adventures of that regime. Oppostion and insurgency should be encouraged everywhere Iran has interests. We need to grab them by the balls and poke them in the eyes. Wherever a mullah goes, he should be scared shitless that the CIA is watching him and may pull the sniper trigger at any moment. The Iranian diaspora must be employed to help in this effort.

I know in my heart that on this side of the Atlantic we have the wherewithal to achieve this. But whither Churchill in Britain? If only he were here to remind his kinsfolk: "Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Iran, GWOT, Appeasement, Churchill, Politics, Media

What? WMD Found Where?

So yesterday comes the news that chemical weapons stockpiles have been discovered in Iraq. I know this only because I went for dinner at Qdoba and saw the breaking news on their TV tuned to FoxNews. I excitedly rushed back to the hotel and switched on the only news channel I had, CNN, to watch coverage. Guess what? No coverage. No coverage at all. Not even a mention of it from 8pm to 11pm CST last night.

This morning I was reading various news sites to get a feel for what had been discovered in the desert. Guess what? The BBC was running soccer scores as their top story alongside a thoroughly negative opinion-report on Afghanistan. Not a single word about chemical weapons found in Iraq. The CNN website? running a giant image of a polar bear with the Gore-esque hysterics about how hot the Earth is and how it is all Cheney's fault. Ok I added the bit about Cheney. But still.

Reuters? Not a word. Associated Press? Nada. Which, incidentally, is ironic given the AP's self-annointed role as "the bastion of the people's right to know around the world." Obviously that right only extends to issues that coincide with their ingrained biases.

You will find the story in two places that I am aware of. First, of course, Foxnews. Additionally you can read about the discovery via the Agence France-Presse wire at Breitbart.

Isn't it strange that the single definining domestic and international division of the past 3-4 years is totally ignored by the media when the story doesn't agree with their opinions and positions?

I can't wait for the retractions. Let's start with Hans Blix. He is on record as saying "we now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction" first to David Frost and then to Jim Lehrer. I want his retraction in print. I also want to see Dan Rather's tearful apology for claiming the same and for being an all around idiot in general. Micheal Moore, Al Franken, Bill Maher, John Kerry, Al Gore, Alec Baldwin, Helen Thomas, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Janeane Garofalo, the list goes on and on. YOU WERE ALL WRONG!

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

You have all attacked the President for not admitting mistakes, so man up and let's hear your glorious chorus of apologies now! Let the retractions ring from the mountain tops!

The Duelfer report might be raised as something that should retract a similar statement, but of course the oft-misquoted report never said that there no wmd in Iraq. It simply said that there were none FOUND.

How can media outlets proclaim objectivity with any degree of credibility? The truth, of course, is they have neither objectivity nor credibility. They are the only ones who seem not to realize it.

You are finding no weapons here! I stake my career on it!

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, WMD, Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bush, Media

ABC News: The Invention of a News Story

ABC News has decided that Global Warming exists, that it is man made, and that there are manifest signs of it in the world. That being said, they can't be bothered to support that with any evidence themselves or do any actual 'reporting'.

No. Instead they are soliciting global warming stories, opinions, and other uneducated views of the masses to support their preconceived 'news' scoop.

When was the last time you heard of a supposed 'news' organization deciding in advance what the story ought to be and then going out into the world, gathering 'evidence' to support their theory? That sounds like scientific theory and experimentation to me, not news reporting.

We're currently producing a report on the increasing changes in our physical environment...We want to hear and see your stories. Have you noticed changes in your own backyard or hometown? The differences can be large or small — altered blooming schedules, unusual animals that have arrived in your community, higher water levels encroaching on your property.

So, here at ABC we've decided that this is actually happening despite the fact that we're not climatologists or even scientists of any sort. We've furthermore neglected to substantiate our claims via any scientific proof. Lastly, we are suggesting to viewers that they too are witnessing increasing changes in our environment (altered blooming schedules for example) and we want them to make a report FOR us and give it TO us as if it were somehow factual and a spontaneous recognition of the inherent truth of our prejudicial belief.

Oh no. We don't make up news. We're not programmed to hold preconceived opinions, generate 'news' stories on our opinions and then attempt to 'prove' our opinions are factual by parading 'documentary' proof submitted by the illiterate mob. Nah, not us over here at ABC. You must be thinking of CBS.

The hubris of these people is unreal. Check out the request for global warming proof over here.

If this isn't evidence of media bias at its worst, I'm not sure what is.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Global Warming, Media, ABC, News

The AP and Fiction, June 21 Edition

The Associated Press has an article up on their site discussing the US-EU press conference this morning. I'm not a media watcher, but I was irritated by an inaccuracy in their report.

They report: "Bush dismissed as 'absurd' a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in which European nations said that U.S. involvement in Iraq was a worse problem than Iran and its nuclear program."

Anyone who saw the press conference knows this is a blatant lie and an attempt to play word games by twisting things to serve some anti-Bush purpose.

The question the reporter asked is, in light of the poll, what was the President's response to the view that the US is a greater threat to world peace than Iran.

THAT is what he said was absurd. Not the poll itself. It is absurd that America is a greater threat than Iran. He did NOT say that it was absurd that US involvement in Iraq was a worse problem than Iran.

It sounds like splitting hairs, but the end result is two totally different things. The AP knows this crucial distinction and they've chosen to portray the President in a negative light. They want to portray him to Europeans as an ignorant cowboy who is dismissive of anything he doesn't like or agree with, especially if it is European.

It is another demonstration of the inability and unwillingness of the press to be objective and report. They are culturally unable to do anything but opine and editorialize by conciously and subconciously insinuating their biases into their stories. Why not simply print the exact wording? The press conference was taped. Go back and put word for word what was said. They can't do that. Because if they did, if people actually heard and read what was said in real life, interpreted things for themselves, the self-annointed 'role of the media' would be diminished.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, George Bush, Bush, European Union, Media, Media Bias, Associated Press

US Government Conspires Against American Citizens

This is utterly unbelievable. Or rather, if one considers bureaucracies such as the border patrol, it is entirely believable but utterly mind-boggling. What does this say about our government when it is clear that it is conspiring with a foreign nation against its own citizens?

While Minuteman civilian patrols are keeping an eye out for illegal border crossers, the U.S. Border Patrol is keeping an eye out for Minutemen -- and telling the Mexican government where they are.

According to three documents on the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site, the U.S. Border Patrol is to notify the Mexican government as to the location of Minutemen and other civilian border patrol groups when they participate in apprehending illegal immigrants -- and if and when violence is used against border crossers.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed the notification process, describing it as a standard procedure meant to reassure the Mexican government that migrants' rights are being observed.

"It's not a secret where the Minuteman volunteers are going to be," Mario Martinez said Monday.

"This ... simply makes two basic statements -- that we will not allow any lawlessness of any type, and that if an alien is encountered by a Minuteman or arrested by the Minuteman, then we will allow that government to interview the person."

Minuteman members were not so sanguine about the arrangement, however, saying that reporting their location to Mexican officials nullifies their effectiveness along the border and could endanger their lives.

"Now we know why it seemed like Mexican officials knew where we were all the time," said Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. "It's unbelievable that our own government agency is sending intelligence to another country. They are sending intelligence to a nation where corruption runs rampant, and that could be getting into the hands of criminal cartels.

"They just basically endangered the lives of American people."

Officials with the Mexican consulate in Washington, D.C., could not be reached for comment Monday.

Martinez said reporting the location of immigrant apprehensions to consulate representatives is common practice if an illegal immigrant requests counsel or believes they have been mistreated.

"Once an illegal alien is apprehended, they can request counsel," he said. "We have to give their counsel the information about their apprehension, and that includes where they are apprehended, whether a Minuteman volunteer spotted them or a citizen."

Martinez said Mexico's official perception of the civilian groups is that they are vigilantes, a belief the Border Patrol hoped to allay by entering into the cooperative agreement.

One of the documents on the Web site, "Actions of the Mexican Government in Relation to the Activities of Vigilante Groups," states that Mexican consulate representatives stay in close contact with Border Patrol chiefs to ensure the safety of migrants trying to enter the U.S., those being detained and the actions of all "vigilantes" along the border.

"The Mexican consul in Presidio also contacted the chief of the Border Patrol in the Marfa Sector to solicit his cooperation in case they detect any activity of `vigilantes,' and was told to immediately contact the consulate if there was," according to the document.

"Presidio" refers to Presidio County, Texas, which is in the Big Bend region and a gateway to northern Mexico.

The document also describes a meeting with San Diego Border Patrol sector chief Darryl Griffen.

"(Griffen) said that the Border Patrol will not permit any violence or any actions contrary to the law by the groups, and he is continuously aware of (the volunteer organizations') operations," according to the document. "Mr. Griffen reiterated to the undersecretary his promise to notify the General Consul right away when the vigilantes detain or participate in the detention of any undocumented Mexicans."

The documents specifically named the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and its patrols, which began monitoring Arizona's southern border in April 2005, as well as Friends of the Border Patrol, a Chino-based nonprofit.

TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing more than 10,000 Border Patrol agents, said agents have complained for years about the Mexican consulate's influence over the agency.

"It worries me (that the Mexican government) seems to be unduly influencing our enforcement policies. That's not a legitimate role for any foreign nation," Bonner said, though he added, "It doesn't surprise me."

Border Patrol agents interviewed by the Daily Bulletin said they have been asked to report to sector headquarters the location of all civilian volunteer groups, but to not file the groups' names in reports if they spot illegal immigrants.

"Last year an internal memo notified all agents not to give credit to Minuteman volunteers or others who call in sightings of illegal aliens," said one agent, who spoke on the condition he not be identified. "We were told to list it as a citizen call and leave it at that. Many times, we were told not to go out to Minuteman calls."

The document also mentions locations of field operations of Friends of the Border Patrol, which patrolled the San Diego sector from June to November 2005. Mexican officials had access to the exact location of the group founded by Andy Ramirez, which ran its patrols from the Rough Acre Ranch, a private property in McCain Valley.

Ramirez said that for safety reasons, he disclosed the location of his ranch patrol only to San Diego Border Patrol and law enforcement officials. The group did not apprehend or spot any undocumented migrants in that area.

"We did not release this information ... to the media or anyone else," Ramirez said. "We didn't want to publicize that information. But there it is, right on the Mexican government's Web site, and our government gave it to them."

If I were John Locke, I would say "The reason why men enter into society is...so that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the society. Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit), provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society."

Since Lockeian political theory is the bedrock of our Constitution, I would think his opinion requires reflection. But of course one doesn't have to go as far back in time as Locke. We can simply point to our own founding documents. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

But of course I don't have the balls to be a real revolutionary on the scale of our founders and I can just sit here and piss and moan about our increasingly self-destructive government. Also, I'm not even a citizen, so my opinion hardly counts for much. It is clear to me, however, that the Republic is in danger of going off its rails and is abandoning many of the defining principles that make this experiment unique. The power to alter this course ultimately rests with the people.

Know your Locke.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Immigration, Borders, Congress, Politics, Mexico, Border Patrol, Minutemen, John Locke, Constitution

Furious

I was just watching the CSPAN broadcast of Prime Minister Blair's speech, (or video here ) today to the Foreign Policy Centre. It was an excellent, finely worded speech. Precise in nature, as British speeches often are, I was enthralled and pined for the day when we too could have executives that were as crafted in oratory. Alas, unless I were to be suddenly transported to the 2nd Inaugural in 1865, I highly doubt I could ever hear such finery of the spoken word in America. The British are somehow blessed among nations to have quality leadership. Except for Baldwin, as we all know too well.

At any rate, I was horrified, indeed furious to hear the announced followup to the broadcast. CSPAN followed Blair's speech with a statement that announced an online poll to question whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States should apply foreign law when deciding cases.

Shock and awe appropriate here.

The mere notion that SCOTUS should even acknowledge a law passed in a foreign land when considering a case in America is pure sacrilidge. The last time I checked, the CONSTITUTION is the supreme law of the land. Any law, any court decision, any executive order (no matter the party in power, and I mean that), that is issued or passed with deference to foreign law is by nature unconstitutional. It left me agape that CSPAN would even conduct a poll that so conflicted with core American law that it was as if one were to conduct a poll on the relevence of the right of assembly. In short, horrifying. I was, and am, furious.

The Constitution is the supreme law, the source of all law, for the American Republic. Foreign law is by nature foreign and totally inapplicable to life within the borders of our nation. The fact that CSPAN, the Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network, should bother asking the public, the mob, whether or not foreign law passed in a foreign land by a foreign people should even be considered in this nation by the supreme law-interpreting body borders on aiding and abetting the enemy. I am so enraged that I cannot even express it. We don't need bloodthristy enemies who are willing to murder women and children at the drop of a burka when we have self-created criticism engines that seek to totally undermine the foundations of the republic that they themselves flourish under. No. We simply have to await the day when the modern media destroys the Republic as surely as Augustus. At that point the modern barbarians will simply waltz into the ruins of our Rome and overturn our very religions, our ways of life and (if I were McCarthiest) our precious bodily fluids, nod to Peter Sellers.

I repeat my admittedly alarmist warning that the media, in this case CSPAN, is as great a threat to the Republic, under the Constitution, as religious fundamentalism (both Christian and Islamic).

And now, I will finish drinking my bottle of Free Range Rex Goliath Giant 47 Pound Rooster California Cabernet. Yes, I have thus far drank three fourths of the bottle. No glass, drinking right out of the poorly corked bottle. What are YOU looking at! Giggedy giggedy!

Bah!

*****UPDATE
sooo thirsty....

Pot Calls Kettle Black, Kettle Punches Pot.

The UN has failed to prevent any conflict since it's inception. The UN has led to many hundreds of thousands of additional deaths that occurred while the commissions and committees endlessly debated and argued as wars were fought and genocide was wrought. Kosovo, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Somalia, Chechnya, Haiti, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Bosnia, Libya, Ethiopia, Zaire, Zimbabwe, the Kurds, the Shiah, Pakistan and India, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Palestine, Cyprus.... The UN has done nothing in nearly 60 years to prevent conflict in any of these cases. It serves not to right the wrongs of the world by restraining the forces of evil. The UN has only served to restrain the forces of good from bringing order and justice to world affairs. This body, which has not often stood by the forces of right, will not even enforce it's own mandates, cannot prevent war or killing and rarely serves as more than a soapbox for those who would condemn the free world, this body does not deserve the support of a nation that has done more than every other nation in history combined to help and assist and protect human dignity.

Great quote huh? Yeah, that was me in 2003. Read it and then read it again.

The United Nations cannot, with any degree of seriousness, produce a report that is critical of what it terms American human rights abuses when that body is one of the greatest protectors of regimes that routinely murder their citizens and commit the worst abuses known to man. This body actively protects these regimes and is therefore an accessory to their crimes. Somebody should write a report about how the United Nations spent 12 years blocking attempts to end this:


Victim of the nitric acid chambers.


Victim of Saddam's use of chemical weapons.


Victim of Saddam's use of crucifixion.


Victim of Saddam's mass murder.


Victim of Saddam's torture.

THAT is the United Nations' record on human rights abuses. They have no credibility accusing us of abusing anyone while at the same time their hands drip with the blood of countless innocents. Want more? Here's the UN record in Cambodia:


Victims of the killing fields.


Victims of Pol Pot.

And in China:


Gao Rongrong after Chinese authorities burned her face for allegedly belonging to Falun Gong.


Wang Xia's body after 2 years in Jiang Zemin's torture chambers.


Suspended like this for days until shoulder's dislocate.


Gagged. Then probably beaten.


Tazer to an old lady's face. Real nice.


Falun Gong members and their torture scars.

And Iran:


Just a nice box of heads. No abuses here!


Mass torture and execution by crane hanging.


Khatami looks on with approval. Official Iranian sanction of torture.


Tried to escape Iran. Beaten senseless and mutilated.


Nothing says torture like having your eyeball removed while you're awake.


So given all this, where is the UN when it comes to writing reports about these abuses? Where is the outrage? Why do the bureaucrats on the Upper East Side abide these abuses? Well the short answer is that they're too busy wringing their hands over Gitmo. BBC:

The US has rejected UN demands for the immediate closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, saying that detainees at the detention centre are treated humanely.

Responding to a report by UN human rights investigators, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Cuba camp housed "dangerous terrorists".

The report says the US should try all approximately 500 inmates, or free them "without further delay".

Aspects of the treatment at the camp amount to torture, the UN team alleges.

One of the five investigators responsible for the report, UN special rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak, said the detention of inmates for years without charge amounted to arbitrary detention.

"Those persons either have to be released immediately or they should be brought to a proper and competent court and tried for the offences they are charged with," he told the BBC.

US officials have dismissed most of the allegations as "largely without merit", saying the five investigators never actually visited Guantanamo Bay.

"These are dangerous terrorists that we're talking about that are there," Mr McClellan said of the detainees.

He described the UN report as "a rehash" of past claims made by lawyers representing the prisoners.

"We know that al-Qaeda terrorists are trained in trying to disseminate false allegations," Mr McClellan added.

In London, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said she could not endorse every recommendation made by the report - but that she could see little alternative to closing down the camp.

The report says the US treatment of detainees, some of whom have been held for more than four years, violates their rights to physical and mental health.

The report expresses concern at the use of excessive force during transportation and force-feeding through nasal tubes during hunger strikes, which it says amounts to torture.

The lack of any US investigation into these allegations is a breach of the UN Convention against Torture, it adds.

The report ends by demanding that the UN be granted full and unrestricted access to the camp's facilities, including private interviews with detainees.

The US invited the UN to the camp last year after years of requests, but refused to grant the investigators the right to speak to detainees in private.

The Pentagon has said only the International Committee of the Red Cross needs free access to prisoners.

Right. So they didn't actually go to Gitmo, they didn't actually do any investigation at all. They interviewed a few former detainee's lawyers and 'gathered the data from news reports'. Oh good. Cause we all know how truthful and unbiased THOSE are. Reuters:

Washington, which denies any international laws are being broken, accused the U.N. investigators of acting like prosecution lawyers.

"It selectively includes only those factual assertions needed to support those conclusions and ignores other facts that would undermine those conclusions," U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, Kevin E. Moley, said in a letter to Arbour included as an annex to the rapporteurs' conclusions.

Washington also denies that the force-feeding of inmates on hunger strike, which was undertaken to save their lives, amounted to cruel treatment.

The five U.N. investigators, who include Manfred Nowak, special rapporteur on torture, and Leila Zerrougui, chairperson of the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, said the findings were based on interviews with past detainees, lawyers and replies to questions put to the U.S. government.

Right. Interviews with past detainees. I'm sure their perspective isn't warped or anything. Who are these jokers? They need to get their collective thumbs out their asses in my humble opinion. There's real torture happening in the world and it isn't at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station.

Technorati: Torture, Human Rights, Gitmo, Detainees, Abu Ghraib, War on Terror, Guantanamo, Politics, China, Cambodia, UN, United Nations

Rusty issues a fatwa.

Hugo or Hitler?

It is May, 1935. German Chancellor Adolf Hitler speaks to a packed Reichstag. He proceeds to accuse foreign nations of attempting to destabilize the German government and nation. In typical soaring rhetoric, he lambasts the imperialistic, arrogant and pompous nations of Europe for unfairly binding the German people's hands and meddling in their internal affairs. He announces the re-creation of the German Army and loudly proclaims it necessary for the defense of the Fatherland. Under no circumstances, he announces, will Germany build weapons for offensive operations. It is only by way of imperial aggression on the part of France or Britain that conflict will erupt again. Four years later, Germany invades Poland.

From the BBC:

Venezuela 'to buy more weapons'
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has told a huge rally of supporters that he wants to buy more weapons to defend his country from invasion.

Speaking in the capital Caracas, Mr Chavez said 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles already on order from Russia were not enough.

Venezuela needed a million well-armed men and women, he said.

Mr Chavez also likened US President George W Bush to the German Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler.

Diplomatic relations between Venezuela and the US have been strained, but they worsened earlier this week when both countries expelled one another's diplomats after Caracas accused the US embassy of spying.

The Venezuelan government has repeatedly accused Washington of trying to destabilise President Chavez - an allegation rejected by US officials.

The BBC's Greg Morsbach in Caracas says the rally - to celebrate a failed coup led by Mr Chavez in 1992 - got off to a militaristic start, with a bugler heralding the arrival of President Chavez at the podium.

Wearing his trademark red army beret, Mr Chavez said Washington was considering invading Venezuela.

"I ask for permission ... to buy another cargo of arms because the gringos want us unarmed. We have to defend our fatherland," he said.

"Venezuela needs to have one million well-equipped and well-armed men and women."

Last year the US tried to block the sale of 12 Spanish military planes to Venezuela that were made with US technology.

But Madrid recently said it would go ahead with the sale using more expensive European parts.

Turning to oil, the president said if the Bush administration wished to cut diplomatic ties to Venezuela, he would have no second thoughts about closing all the Venezuelan refineries in the US.

"Let's see what'll happen to the price of crude oil then", Mr Chavez told his audience.

He said the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been wrong last week to compare the Venezuelan president with Adolf Hitler:

"The imperialist, genocidal, fascist attitude of the US president has no limits. I think Hitler would be like a suckling baby next to George W Bush."

Washington is deeply opposed to the government of left-wing Mr Chavez, who is a vocal critic of the US.

The US has expressed concerns about Venezuelan democracy under Mr Chavez and about the effect of his government's military purchases on regional stability.

But the US has not said it will break off relations with Venezuela, and correspondents say Washington has dismissed threats by Mr Chavez as inflammatory rhetoric aimed at his core supporters.

Hitler, of course, attempted to seize power in failed coup in 1923 just as Chavez attempted a coup in 1992. Hitler used his failed 'putsch' as propaganda and elevated it to nothing short of mythic lore. Chavez is mimicking this to great effect. Their early 'struggle' to free their people becomes the foundation of the cult image that they both cultivate. Both went on to attain dictatorial power over their respective nations. They both utilize powerful rhetoric, militaristic pomp, populist trappings and nationalistic imagery to promote their hidden agendas. Hitler was dismissed as a lunatic by the other world powers in the same way that we currently dismiss Chavez. Using populism and nationalism as the vehicle, Hitler harnessed the anger of the German people at being treated unfairly by the other powers and effectively blaming all German ills on other nations, races and groups. Chavez is treading that path as well. The gringo becomes the new Jew. Someone who, to the common folk of Venezuela, holds all of the instruments of power and wealth and the all of the keys to the chains that they use to enslave the rest of the world. German economic efficiency, highly educated population, highly technical proficiency and the quality of the German Army were Hitler's swords. Chavez has oil, and a lot of it.

The man is not crazy. He is a gathering danger. He should not be dismissed so quickly.





Technorati: Politics, Venezuela, hugo chavez, hitler.

Murtha's Crystal Ball

So Congressman Murtha is at it again. Instead of being satisfied with his elevated public profile following his call to abandon the Iraqis, he's now assuming the role of fortune-teller with his predictions of the future.

From the AP:

Murtha Says Iraq Is Now a 'Civil War'
PITTSBURGH
U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year due to political pressure in a Congressional election year, Rep. John Murtha predicted.

Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran from Johnstown, created a firestorm in November when he called for troops to be pulled out of Iraq. On Thursday, he told editors and reporters from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that the war in Iraq is a civil war and the U.S. should disengage.

"Our troops are the target," Murtha told the newspaper. "We're not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We're fighting a civil war in Iraq. We've got to give them an incentive. We fought our Civil War. Let them fight their civil war."

Murtha, the senior Democrat on the House appropriations defense panel, said many Iraqis think "it's all right to kill Americans" and that most Iraqis want U.S. troops out of the country.

"There is no reason in the world we couldn't do what we're doing (in Iraq) from the periphery," Murtha said. "I've just come to the conclusion it's going to happen and it's just a matter of time."

Murtha, who voted in 2002 to give President Bush the authority to go to war, said he believes Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, had no ties to al-Qaida and wasn't a threat to the United States.

He wants U.S. troops to be redeployed to Kuwait and areas around Iraq. He predicted there will be fewer than 100,000 troops by midsummer and that the pullout by the end of the year.

"We're not cutting and running. We're giving the Iraqis incentive to take over," he said.

Murtha also weighed in on other topics during the meeting, saying the United States should use diplomacy in combating the threats Iran poses to Mideast stability. He also said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., could win the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, but that she would lose in the general election.

Is it just me or is it a silly picture? Can you envision him rubbing a crystal ball and telling a gaggle of reporters, rapt with attention, who will win the next election or how many troops we'll have in theater by this time next year? I wonder what forces he's in touch with, beyond his own lunacy, of course.

Regarding his civil war comments, I think Mr. Murtha is confused. It isn't 1968 and we aren't fighting the Vietcong. There isn't a civil war in Iraq. There is, in a small part of the country, an insurgency being conducted by foreigners and disgruntled former Baathists. Their numbers have been estimated at 5,000-20,000 compared with the Iraqi Army's force strength in low 100,000s. Conflict consists of low intensity skirmishes. The general violence hasn't escalated in the past 3 years. It remains a low-grade conflict that is making no progress at destabilizing the nation.

It is hardly a 'civil war' comparable to the American Civil War (as Murtha suggests) or any other civil war for that matter. There are no armies on the battlefield conducting warfare. In fact, most of the country is peaceful. If anything, the insurgency in Iraq resembles gang warfare in South Central Los Angeles. While there was a lot of buzz in 2003 and 2004 about the murder rate in Baghdad being lower than most American cities, I couldn't find any supportive data (aside from blogger's assertions). I actually spent the entire morning doing some research in this area and collected some statistics on the murder rate in Washington DC for 2005 versus the murder rate in Baghdad for 2005. The numbers vary widely depending on what source you're using and how they calculate their data. For example, some reports include 'violent crime' in their murder rate. This would include attempted murders, rapes, assaults, etc. Other reports have varying population figures for each of the cities. The Army figures don't include American or Iraqi security forces casualties. But however you analyze it, the murder rate in Washington is not much lower than that in Baghdad.

DC pop 553,000
35-60 murders per 100,000 = 192 - 330 per year

Baghdad pop 5,948,000
5-20 murders per 100,000 = 295 - 1180 per year.

Would Murtha suggest that there is a 'civil war' in the District of Columbia? I'm just so tired of hearing him and people like him rant on and on, carelessly tossing out supposed 'facts' that are in reality simply either their own opinion or something they heard from someone somewhere. Iraq is not in the midst of a civil war, the Four Horsemen aren't upon us, the region isn't descending into chaos, were not in a quagmire and most of all, this isn't Vietnam redux.

Technorati: murtha, Iraq, baghdad, lunatic, democrats

French Hypocrisy

So the french, while not busy deriding America's global hegemony and claiming that George Bush is the biggest threat to peace on Earth, are making sure everyone knows that they'll nuke anyone back to the stone age when and if they please.

Almost as if forgetting his opposition to American 'unilateralism' , Jacques Chriac made it clear on Thursday that france would not hesitate to use its nuclear weapons against anyone threatening french interests (ie oil). This sort of gaulist pretense is nauseating to begin with, but made even more repugnant by the fact that france has led the campaign to derail American anti-terror foreign policy for the past 4 years. Often siding with our enemies, it has been the french who held high the torch of opposition to operations against terror groups and states.

From Reuters:

France defends right to nuclear reply to terrorism
Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:10 AM ET6
By Elizabeth Pineau

BREST, France (Reuters) - France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent.

Deflecting criticism of France's costly nuclear arms program, President Jacques Chirac said security came at a price and France must be able to hit back hard at a hostile state's centers of power and its "capacity to act".

...

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part," Chirac said during a visit to a nuclear submarine base in northwestern France.

"This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind."

...

It was the first time he had so clearly linked the threat of a nuclear response to a terrorist attack.

Chirac, 73, did not say whether France would be prepared to use pre-emptive strikes against a country it saw as a threat.

...

"Against a regional power, our choice would not be between inaction or annihilation," Chirac said in his first major speech on France's nuclear arms strategy since 2001.

"The flexibility and reactivity of our strategic forces would enable us to exercise our response directly against its centers of power and its capacity to act."

...

"Our country's security and its independence have their price," Chirac said.

Reeee-eee-eeallly. Talk out both sides your mouth often? I know it can be hard to do so what with your foot in there most of the time, but man you sure are doing a good job at it!


toute votre base sont appartiennent à nous

Predictably, the rest of Europe thinks he's an idiot. Frankly, they're probably a little frightened by le worm and his craziness.

From the AP:

Associated Press
Chirac Nuclear Comments Draw Ire in Europe
By JAMEY KEATEN , 01.20.2006, 09:21 AM

President Jacques Chirac drew scorching criticism in Europe on Friday for suggesting France would consider a nuclear response to state-sponsored terrorism.

Chirac's headline-grabbing comments in a speech Thursday sent a warning to countries like Iran and sought to nip in the bud domestic debate about whether deeply indebted France still needs its expensive nuclear deterrent in the post-Cold War world.

The French leader, with his second and probably final term nearing its end, laid out an updated doctrine for France's military might for the 21st century amid the threat of terrorism.

In the broad address, Chirac warned unspecified "leaders of states that would use terrorist means against us" that they could face "a firm and fitting response." Analysts and presidential aides said he had no specific country in mind, but newspaper editorialists widely read them to be directed at Iran, and possibly North Korea.

Chirac seemed to draw little initial support abroad for his call for the European Union to pool its deterrent forces "in the perspective of a strong Europe."

The volume of criticism could even set back that hope.

"Jacques Chirac is an idiot," chided Belgian daily De Morgen in an editorial. "He lives in a time where France is no longer a world power, but he's still acting as if prolonging a Napoleonic dynasty."

Spain's El Pais called the speech "radical and dangerous."

Many faulted the timing. France, Britain and Germany have been seeking guarantees that Iran will not develop nukes, and have taken key steps toward possible U.N. sanctions against Tehran.

"Such saber rattling in the face of the current crisis over Iran's atomic weapons program is basically a false signal," said Xanthe Hall of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War in Berlin.

If Chirac ends his tenure as president next year, he will have left an indelible mark on France's nuclear deterrent. Shortly after winning the presidency in 1995, he drew international fury by ordering France's final nuclear tests in the South Pacific.

Conservative Milan daily Il Giornale suggested the "pacifist sympathies" for Chirac over his opposition to the U.S.-led Iraq war had worn off.

...

"Another pearl in the words of Chirac - but this one is a bit dramatic and provocative," said Revolutionary Communist League party leader Alain Krivine, a longtime critic of the conservative Chirac, on French TV. "It's a completely irresponsible declaration."

I love how the AP report took the extra step of adding the dig about france being poor and indebted. Classic.

Technorati: jacques chirac, france, nukes

Tell Germany to Shut the Hell Up

German newspapers are blaming Hurricane Katrina on Global Warming and are going further to claim that the storm was a result of George Bush's intransigence on the Kyoto Accord.

Aside from the silly notion that Kyoto would fix global warming (as if global warming can even be definitively attributed to man's activities only), the idea that everything bad in the world is the result of American policy is old hat. I'm just so tired of these damn people. The UN, the french, the germans, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, on and on and on. Why is it that the only acceptable policy for us to follow is what pleases them? They believe in Kyoto. Therefore if we don't then we are being stubborn. They believe in utopian socialism. If we don't then we are being corrupt and greedy. They believe in the UN. If we don't then we are being unilateralist and hegemonic. The list can go on and on.

It is a ridiculous leap of logic to suggest that we created the conditions that allowed this hurricane and others like it to develop and that therefore we deserve what we get. It is incredulous, glib and self-serving for Hugo Chavez to offer at-cost heating oil to America's poor because the evil and greedy and rich George Bush won't.

I am ready to accuse the US Administration of a major failure. It is that they are lousy at public relations. They are lousy at manipulating the media like our enemies do. They are lousy at presenting the generally superior American philosophy when it comes to foreign and domestic policy. To be outwitted and outclassed in media relations by people like Hugo Chavez and Sean Penn and MoveOn.org is inexcusable. And now the germans join this illustrious list.

From the English version of Spiegel:

Katrina Should be A Lesson To US on Global Warming

Seems like everything is President Bush's fault. One day after Katrina hammered the Gulf Coast, German commentators are laying into the US for its stubborn attitude to global warming and Kyoto.

Hurricane Katrina is big news for German commentators, whatever their ilk. For some, the powerful storm which slammed the Gulf Coast on Monday, is a symbol of the sort of environmental terrors awaiting the world thanks to global warming and proof positive that America needs to quickly reverse its policy of playing down climate change. For the more conservative, it is simply another regrettable natural catastrophe.

Regardless of how one views it, Katrina has not only devastated parts of Louisiana and Mississippi and killed dozens, it also has threatened the US and its trading partners with economic instability. The Gulf Coast states refine about 30 percent of America's oil supply and Katrina's damage is threatening to cause already-high oil costs to skyrocket. The fun-loving town of New Orleans, beloved for its moody, French-inspired bars, crooning jazz riffs and free-for-all Mardi Gras spirit, has transformed into a watery ghost town, with 80 percent of the city's 480,000 residents obeying the mayor's call to evacuate. The pictures tell it all: frantic racing through chest-deep water, flooded city streets and uprooted trees. The storm even ripped off a chunk of the roof of the New Orleans Superdome, where close to 10,000 people had run to for cover.

The toughest commentary of the day comes from Germany's Environmental Minister, Jürgen Trittin, a Green Party member, who takes space in the Frankfurter Rundschau, a paper owned by the Social Democrats, to bash US President George W. Bush's environmental laxity. He begins by likening the photos and videos of the hurricane stricken areas to scenes from a Roland Emmerich sci-fi film and insists that global warming and climate change are making it ever more likely that storms and floods will plague America and Europe. "There is only one possible route of action," he writes. "Greenhouse gases have to be radically reduced and it has to happen worldwide. Until now, the US has kept its eyes shut to this emergency. (Americans) make up a mere 4 percent of the population, but are responsible for close to a quarter of emissions." He adds that the average American is responsible for double as much carbon dioxide as the average European. "The Bush government rejects international climate protection goals by insisting that imposing them would negatively impact the American economy. The American president is closing his eyes to the economic and human costs his land and the world economy are suffering under natural catastrophes like Katrina and because of neglected environmental policies." As such, Trittin also calls for a reworking of the Kyoto Protocol -- dubbing it the uncreative title of "Kyoto 2" -- and insisting that the US be included.

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung also delivers a punchy plea for more attention to global warming, saying politicians should pay more attention to Katrina's alarming images than to election polls and economic forecasts. "Hurricane Katrina has delivered terrible photos. Experts are already calling it the worst hurricane of all time. But this year's hurricane season has only just begun. Flooded villages, mud slides, sandbags....Scientists are quite calmly saying that we will see this kind of thing more often. After all, this is what they have been forecasting for years -- climate change, human-caused and irreversible. But a change of policy is not in the cards. Politics is trapped between voters and industry lobbyists. And of course, there is the killer argument: Protecting the environment impedes economic growth." This is not how it should be, the paper opines. Indeed, more "pictures from New Orleans should encourage us to follow science's advice on climate protection."

The business daily Handelsblatt has a more pragmatic approach to viewing the catastrophe. Instead of harping on the cause of hurricanes and other disasters, it insists that the world should better help those in danger get protection. "People will argue about the causes of climate change for a long time to come," the paper writes. "But its effects are already reality. They are called Katrina, or the flood catastrophes in southern Germany, Romania, Switzerland and Austria.... It's not enough now to just call for measures against climate change. Such policies need decades to take effect. But now we must begin taking different kinds of measures, ones that better protect people affected by extreme weather incidents." The best way to begin, says the paper, is to identify areas of the globe most in danger. In Germany, that includes areas around the Elbe and Donau rivers, while in the Netherlands, much of the nation is under sea level. More needs to be done, says the paper, to prevent building in potentially dangerous areas and to create high water emergency policies. The world, too, needs to help nations like Bangladesh, which doesn't have the means to reduce the risks its people face alone. "All of this will cost time, a lot of money and the eradication of old habits. But only in this way can people be protected and the even-higher costs of post-catastrophe damages be reduced."

The Financial Times Deutschland refrains from any commentary about the human costs of the hurricane and focuses on the economic impact it will have on oil supplies. "For the already-strained global energy market, Katrina is a small nightmare: The huge world-wide demand for oil has left producers and workers pushing their limits of capacity. If production platforms and refineries on the Gulf of Mexico have to shut down, the supply holes will not be easy to fill." Even if the current projects of the economic impact of Katrina are exaggerated, one thing is clear, the paper says. In the end, the storm will have proven "the vulnerability of the oil-dependent world economy."

The Süddeutsche Zeitung uses its feature page as a defacto editorial by focusing on the hurricane as its theme of the day. Among its articles, it cites a study by US hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that shows a rising tendency for hurricanes that exactly reflects the curve of greenhouse gases. German scientists from the Max-Planck Institute hail the study as the first proof of a real link. "If this man-made warming continues, we will have to expect stronger storms in future" Emmanuel tells the paper.

The conservative Die Welt, naturally, has an altogether different take on Katrina, insisting that despite the terrible images broadcast, we should not get hysterical about the environmental implications of the hurricane or start screaming for change. After all, it says, "hurricanes are a natural phenomenon. They occurred long before humans could be affected by them. Whether the frequency and intensity of these storms has truly increased in recent years has not yet been proven with statistics." Whether humans have aversely affected the Earth's climate or not, the paper says, one thing is clear "we have modern technology to thank that Katrina was not able to do more damage." Indeed, thanks to early warning systems, the people of New Orleans were evacuated before the storm hit. "One hundred years ago, a tropical storm as strong as Katarina would likely have caused many deaths, because it would have hit people unawares." Now, says the paper, we should be grateful technology allows us to save so many lives.

I have a suggestion for the germans. They can shove their opinions right up their tight assholes. The next time we want an opinion from the race that casually murdered tens of millions of people over the past century without blinking an eye, we'll ask for it.



Oh, and by the way? The notion of global warming causing killer hurricanes is dealt with by this article in the New York Times:

August 30, 2005
Storms Vary With Cycles, Experts Say
By KENNETH CHANG

Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.

In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.

Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.

Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.

"We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out," Dr. Gray said.

Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.

In an article this month in the journal Nature, Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that global warming might have already had some effect. The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, he wrote.

But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, "What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing."

Europeans Marvel at HUMAN FLIGHT!

Only 102 years after Americans successfully tested human flight in North Carolina, the Europeans are in awe at their own progress. Over 150,000 people crammed Hamburg Germany to witness the flight of a European aircraft.

It is a crowning achievement of state construction of impractically sized objects that follows on the heels of successes such as the European Union, the Titanic and Chernobyl.

"We knew if we tried long enough, subsidized enough, generated enough stiffling bureacracy, that we too could enable humans to fly. It is a triumph of socialism!" exclaimed one engineer involved with the project. "Next we hope to build a device that will allow people to stand under falling water, inside their house, enabling them to bathe!" He quickly added, "But we're not sure we see much practical use for this. Especially in Europe."

Yahoo has the full story.

Send Mr. Robertson

About Patty Robertson's call to knock off Chavez, you know what? I'm all for it. Frankly it SHOULD be the policy of the United States to assassinate sleazebags like Hugo Chavez. In fact, I thought that law was revoked in 2001. I guess I'm wrong based on Rummy's statement today.

But the logic of Robertson's statement can't be denied. In fact I would have thought every anti-war Mom in the nation would be out in support of it. The notion of spending $200 billion and 2000 soldiers every time we need to ouster some evil dude is just too expensive. Send in Delta, knock out the guy and extract. Set up puppet government. Increase close relations. Open oil spigot. You know, like Kennedy and Johnson used to do during the Cold War. We need more of the Great Game to be played these days.

They have far too much oil in Venezuela that we need for us to allow that fucker to stay in power forever. We're almost rid of that geezer Castro, is Chavez just gonna take his place?

Send Pat to kill the bastard. In fact, let's start a campaign to send Pat Robertson to sniper school.

Your day just got a whole lot worse motherfuckers!

****UPDATE:
Rusty has issued a fatwa. Everybody get on board! Send Pat! Send Pat!

Hugo's Follies

Since he rigged his last couple elections and is cozy with the dictator in Cuba, maybe we should simply revoke diplomatic recognition of his country and render his illegitimacy complete.

Unfortunately we import a lot of oil from that country. And we can't let the Chinese gain a foothold on the oil market in the Western Hemisphere. So what to do with Chavez? I mean, he has got to go, no question. Regardless of what Jimmy Carter says, the guy is a thug. He has set up his own loyal militia to repel a US invasion should one occur. I still think my local police force could seize the country, but the point remains that he is veering ever closer to Marxist style populism and outright dictatorship. He's seized the farms, nationalized the oil industry and ruined the economy. All sounds pretty socialist to me.

What to do? Kill him? Support the internal opposition? Ignore him? We can't let him exclude us from that nation's oil market. Something must be done. In the meantime perhaps we rename our DEA agents 'Ambassadors' and get them diplomatic immunity. Who says we can't have 100 Ambassadors there?

From the BBC:

Chavez revokes US agent immunity

Caracas has withdrawn the diplomatic immunity of US anti-drugs officials working in Venezuela.

It follows a move by the US State Department to revoke the visas of six Venezuelan officials in Washington.

Both countries are locked in a row after President Hugo Chavez accused the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of spying on his government.

Washington denies the charge, accusing Caracas of failing to co-operate in the fight against drug-trafficking.

Venezuelan Vice-President Jose Vicente Rangel said his country would apply "strict reciprocity" in the allocation of visas to US officials.

"For every attack, there will be a reaction, for every strike, a strike back...and the revoking of visas will mean reciprocal action," he said.

"We are no longer going to accept civilian employees of the [DEA] being assigned to the US embassy, because that gives them the benefit of immunity," he said.

Correspondents say the dispute will add to the already tense diplomatic relations between Caracas and Washington.

Earlier this week, President Chavez, a fierce critic of the Bush administration, said he was suspending co-operation with the DEA.

"The DEA has used the pretext of fighting drug trafficking... to spy on Venezuela's government," he said last Sunday.

Venezuelan prosecutors have been investigating the activities of DEA agents working in the South American country.

Venezuela is an important transport route for cocaine from neighbouring Colombia, which produces 80% of the world's supply.

Hope Allah's Wearin' Kevlar

There's news from Persia. And it ain't good. There's this, and ... not a whole lot else. Why is there such a lack of blogging on the Iran issue? Oh, I know why. Cause the blogosphere has their panties in a knot about Air America or some other totally irrelvent thing.

Iran. I've had enough of those fuckers. Let's get the 3rd and 4th ID back in-theatre and throw it down. Put the 5th Fleet across the Straits of Hormuz and shut down Iranian imports and exports. Since they get something like 90% of their gasoline via that route, we should have em pissing themselves in a few weeks.

Seriously. I'm tired of this post-modern, touchy-feely, euro-diplomacy shit. Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him? You know what he'd do? He'd put the Army on the ground on the Iran-Iraq border and the Iran-Afghan border. He'd put the Navy in the Gulf. He'd put the Airforce in the air. And then, very softly, he'd ask those self-serving mullahfuckers if they'd like to reconsider their nuke program. Oh, and by the way we'd like it if they'd stop arming terrorists and inciting civil war in Iraq. In the interest of international peace, of course.

Fuck the Security Council. Leave UNSC to its own internal payoffs and unending corruption. The EU-3 had their shot. The IAEA is wringing its hands. Now stand aside and let the M1A1 give it a whirl.

My blog neighbor linked me! Thanks blog neighbor! South Carolina is a great place to live ain't it?

Galloway Outrage

This from George Galloway, that fuckwit MP in Britain that was on Saddam's payroll. From the BBC:

Galloway praises Iraq 'martyrs'
...
Mr Galloway claimed the insurgents were ordinary Iraqis defending their country against "foreign invaders".

"It can be said, truly said, that the Iraqi resistance is not just defending Iraq. They are defending all the Arabs and they are defending all the people of the world against American hegemony."

In one speech, the MP said: "These poor Iraqis - ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons - are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day, which has made the country ungovernable.

"We don't know who they are, we don't know their names, we never saw their faces, they don't put up photographs of their martyrs, we don't know the names of their leaders."

Mr Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party over his outspoken remarks about the Iraq war.

He told Syrian Television: "Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners - Jerusalem and Baghdad.

"The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will.

"The daughters are crying for help and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters."

Mr Galloway said Tony Blair's idea of a "war on terrorism" was absurd as terrorism was a tactic, not a strategy.

"It's not the Muslims who are sick. It's Bush and Blair and Berlusconi who are sick. It's not the Muslims who need to be cured. It's the imperialist countries that need to be cured."
...

He certainly knows how to grab headlines. If he is ever tried and found guilty of treason, at least he could plead insanity.

Can you believe the audacity of this ass? Not only are his facts wrong, his history is faulty. Ironic that he's a member of the Respect Party since he so totally lacks that quality.


You do not see any traitors!
MP George Galloway, the Iraqi Information Minister

My Former Countrymen are CRAZY

It is almost too bizarre to comprehend.

Canadians see Bush, bin Laden as national security threats
Chris Wattie
CanWest News Service
Monday, June 13, 2005
TORONTO -- Canadians believe U.S. President George W. Bush is almost as great a threat to our national security as Osama bin Laden, according to a government opinion poll obtained by the National Post.

The 1,500 people contacted for the poll, conducted last February for the Department of National Defence, listed "International Organized Crime" as the top danger, with 38 per cent ranking it as a great threat to security concern and another 50 per cent listing it as moderate.

Wait, Canada has a department for national defense? What two people did they manage to find to man THAT department? Since apparently Canadians in this poll don't think that "National Apathy" is the number one threat to their security, the next logical choice is International Organized Crime. Of course. Not terrorists or drugs or anything. It's the damn Russian Mafia that will undo the great socialist experiment that is the Dominion to the North.

But tied for second in the poll were "U.S. Foreign Policy" and "Terrorism," with 37 per cent rating it a great risk. Just behind those worries came "Climate Change and Global Warming."

Experts said the results reflected a continuing "schizophrenia" in the Canadian public's attitudes towards defence -- still worried about international terrorism even three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, but also concerned about the power and aggressive policies of the Americans.

See, what they think of as aggressive policies we think of as something called 'self-defence'. Naturally they wouldn't know anything about that.

Like the unbiased news service that put this out, I too find it just lunatic that anyone would be worried about terrorists "even" three years after 9/11. Even now there is a threat? Wow. Because, you know, didn't the threat just go away by itself a few years ago or something? Dude, pass me another taxpayer funded legal doobie.

The poll, by Ekos Research Associates Inc., surveyed Canadians' attitudes towards a wide range of defence, military and national security issues, part of an annual public opinion polling process by the Department of National Defence.

It was considered accurate within 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Most of those contacted for the poll had "great confidence" in the Canadian Forces' ability to respond to natural disasters in Canada, but only 25 per cent felt the same way about how our military would handle a terrorist attack on Canadian soil.

Seriously, I doubt that the three guys in the Canadian Armed Forces could handle even a natural disaster. Well, perhaps if they activated the one guy in the Reserves. Together they would finish off a twelver of Golden eh, then march off and take care of that natural disaster eh. Lord t'underin Jesus bye tha' bye! Singin Margo's got the Cargo by Stompin Tom eh. Oh yeah eh.

John Thompson, the director of the MacKenzie Institute think-tank on security issues, said Canadians have always had mixed feelings about the U.S.

"There's a huge split in the Canadian public mind, between people who are worried about terrorism and people who think that the U.S. are the real terrorists," he said.

Yeah, they've got mixed feelings about the US. It's a mix of jealousy and a permanent feeling of inferiority. Both totally justified.

"There are still a lot of people who are sticking to the old ideal of fuzzy internationalism or soft power . . . yet there are also a lot of people who are not relaxed yet after Sept. 11th."

See, the main point I have is that there should be NO ONE relaxed after 9/11, ever. Not in 4 years, not in 40 years. Ok, maybe 400 years. But I'll be dead and won't give a shit.

The poll suggested other security concerns preying at the public's mind include "Weapons of Mass Destruction," listed as a great danger by 30 per cent of those surveyed, and "Potential Weaponization of Space," which 26 per cent of those polled found a great concern.

Health threats, such as the SARS outbreak of 2003, nuclear threats, natural disasters and countries in turmoil, such as Sudan or Haiti, were the least worrisome threats according to the poll.

How about cultural assimilation? Did that ever occur to them as a potential threat?

Thompson said people are correct to be skeptical about the Canadian Forces' ability to respond to a terrorist attack on Canada. "We could barely handle a major domestic incident like the ice storm today, forget about a terrorist attack," he said.

I'm sorry, did he say they could barely handle the ice capades?

"There are major problems and that's becoming clear to the Canadian public."

But the poll found a great degree of public affection for their armed forces and overwhelming support for more funding and better equipment for the troops, even if it means higher taxes or less spending in other areas.

Just over three quarters of those surveyed said the Canadian Forces was underfunded, and 44 per cent believed that a decade of government cuts to the defence budget had hurt Canada's international reputation while 43 per cent thought the cuts have put the safety of soldiers at risk.

Not that their politicians will listen to them since most Canadians that think they need a strong military can't be bothered to get off their drunk, welfare-funded asses and vote the socialists out of power. Nope, they simply let those who DO vote keep returning the same jokers to Parliament and by doing so are ensuring their own ongoing slavery to tyranny of the minority, the welfare state and the Quebecqois. Not necessarily ranked in order of insidiousness.


Besides, with guys like this, who needs an army?

Come on former Countrymen, I'm ready for your rebuttals...

British Resolve, French Deceit

The gauls are up to their antics again. From the Agence France-Presse:

EU crisis deepens as France and Germany gang up on Britain

A crisis in the European Union sparked by French and Dutch voters' rejections of the EU's constitution worsened when France and Germany ganged up on Britain ahead of an important summit next week meant to reorganise the bloc's budget for 2007-2013.

Interesting that Germany would be france's bitch on this issue. Consider the fact that within the past hundred and fifty years, German troops have fought their way into Paris several times. And kicked french ass each time.

French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, meeting together in Paris, told a joint news conference they wanted Britain to give up a hard-won five-billion-euro (six-billion-dollar) annual rebate it gets from the EU budget -- something British Prime Minister Tony Blair has bluntly and repeatedly ruled out.

"Above all our British friends must recognise how things have changed and the need for greater equity in the financial charges that each country bears," Chirac said.

The audacity is striking, even by typically rude french standards. The notion that Britain should pay any more of it's precious sterling into the teetering boondoggle that is the EU is a bizarre one. What this really comes down to is that the french, who depend wholly on the Germans and the rest of the EU for economic survival in the form of gigantic subsidies to her farming and industrial sectors, has realized that if the EU were to disintegrate in any way, the french economy might not survive. So now with the prospect of further European integration dissolving like shit in a septic tank, the french are trying to figure out another way to stay sitting on their fat, lazy, unionized, socialist asses for a while longer and live off the labor of the industrious British. Consider it economic subjugation of the British worker to support the french way of life. What they couldn't accomplish by further EU integration, they intend to accomplish through outright economic theft. Damn frogs.

The two leaders, representing the Franco-German axis that has long driven the European project, also urged the process of ratifying the moribund constitution to continue, despite the two referendum defeats that theoretically kill it off and Blair's decision to suspend a plebiscite on the charter next year.

"We are both in agreement in reaffirming how much the European Union... needs above all to unite and to reflect," Chirac said.

Schroeder, at his side, said it was "premature" to consider the EU constitution a dead letter.

Huh? Last time I checked, in order for the damn thing to go into effect, ALL member states had to approve it. And, well, last time I read the news the thing was still rejected by the french and Dutch. So... how could be any less premature to declare it dead in the water? Clinging to the hope that EU integration will save their ailing economies and get them reelected is pathetic.

France and Germany's forceful and shared stance, and Britain's refusal to yield set the scene for a dramatic summit of EU heads of state and government in Brussels next Thursday and Friday.

The atmosphere was expected to be especially tense between Chirac and Blair, whose usually polite relationship has degenerated into acrimony at times in the past over EU matters.

Chirac said the EU rebate Britain won in 1984 after tough negotiations by then-prime minister Margaret Thatcher was "now old".

He said each EU state "must make an effort" so that the union's financial problems do not exacerbate the political ones revealed by the resistance to the EU constitution.

Read Britain must pay up to make sure the french dream of political domination of Europe doesn't go down the toilet. Bravo to the Brits for keeping the hope of pragmatism alive over there.

But British Prime Minister Tony Blair has refused to give way, calling instead for a "fundamental review" of EU spending -- implied to mean a revision of costly EU agricultural subsidies from which French farmers greatly benefit.

The French president, whose authority at home has been enormously weakened by his country's rejection of the EU charter, countered by saying he would not overturn a deal he and Schroeder struck in 2002 to keep the agricultural subsidy system intact until 2013.

"Everyone must pay his share... but I am not prepared to compromise" on the EU Common Agriculture Policy, he said.

Oh I see. So the British must abide by a deal worked out between france and Germany about how much the British should pay into the system to support the french farmers. Yeah that makes sense. In a Micheal Jackson/Neverland Ranch/European fantasy world way. I mean really, everyone must pay his share? Did Chirac really say that with a straight face? I think a fair deal in france is something like, ok, you give me all your stuff...and...well that's it. Just give me all your stuff and we'll call it fair. I think in the Anglo-Saxon world we call that "theft". It's like taking a girl out on a date, having her flirt with every other guy in the bar, her buying them all drinks on your tab, her taking them all home for a raucous romp and you ending up not getting any ass. How about a deal like this: Ok france, you pay for your shit and we'll pay for ours. If you wanna take home any guys then you gotta pay their tab, cause I sure as hell ain't, bitch. That seems a little more fair.

Schroeder did hold out the promise that France and Germany were ready to make a unspecified, "constructive compromise" at the summit.

It was the leaders' second get-together in the wake of French and Dutch rejection of the EU charter in the past two weeks.

A former European commissioner, British parliamentarian Neil Kinnock, accused Chirac of using the row over the British budget rebate as a diversion from his own problems over the EU constitution.

"Chirac playing these diversionary games simply adds to the discredit," said Kinnock, who is a member of Blair's Labour Party.

Commentators noted that Chirac and Schroeder will be going into the summit severely weakened.

Chirac faces a lame-duck presidency to the end of his mandate in 2007 because of the referendum debacle, while various electoral defeats in Germany have left Schroeder with little prospect of holding on to power in polls next year.

On the other hand, Blair last month won a third mandate and is governing one of the rare vibrant economies among the major EU members.

God I'm so right all the time. The Brits hold all the cards and the continental cowards have got to know it. The Blair vs. Chirac/Shroeder matchup is like a Schwarzenegger-as-the-Terminator vs. Michael Moore/Barbara Streisand title bout.

A veto from him would scuttle the summit and delay EU budget decision to early next year.

"Tony Blair may not have the intention of ruining the European summit. But he has the power to do so. That's his strength," the French newspaper Le Figaro said.

To be honest, up until now I wasn't sure there was a real set of testicles in the entire nation of france. Let alone attached ones. But Chirac is showing some major chutzpah by whipping out his dick and sticking it in Blair's eye like that. Ew. That disgusted even me.


Go ahead Gerhard, pull a finger...any finger.

I Hate To Say I Told You So....Oh Wait, No I Don't

The Scots have always been a pragmatic people. From Saturday's The Scotsman:

A wind of change has been unleashed across Europe

IT HAS, by any standards, been an earthquake week for Europe. Two rejections of the proposed European Union constitution - first by voters in France, then, even more resoundingly, by voters in the Netherlands - have unleashed a questioning of the EU that goes far wider than unease over the planned constitution. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who has for so long harboured ambitions for Britain to play a leading role in the EU, will have that ambition put to the supreme test at the Council for Europe meeting later this month.

Somehow that m