God Save the Republic

She makes me want to VOMIT with every fraudulent moment of her existence.

"Watch your future's end..."

Social Engineering Redux

I heard this on BBC World this morning and nearly shat myself: Put carbon tax on babies: academic says.

Does this smack of failed social engineering projects of the last century or what? It is very thinly veiled attempt to force human civilization into a box of robotic obedience to crackpot theories. It is a truly dystopian future that looms ahead if we are going to seriously put ecological well being ahead of human existence.

It is the latest in a string of theoretical nonsense that seeks to manage the relationaship between population and consumption of resources. It is also frequently the realm of science fiction.

"The seeds of the Little War were planted in a restless summer during the mid-1960s, with sit-ins and student demonstrations as youth tested its strength. By the early 1970s over 75 percent of the people living on Earth were under 21 years of age. The population continued to climb — and with it the youth percentage.
In the 1980s the figure was 79.7 percent.
In the 1990s, 82.4 percent.
In the year 2000 — critical mass."

It is Last Day!

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, greens, children, crackpot theories, social experiment, dystopian future, Logan's Run

Navy Confused About 'Intent' Of Chinese

From the Navy Times:

Navy confirms Chinese sub spotted near carrier
By Philip Creed
Staff writer

The Navy did spot a Chinese submarine near the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group last month in the East China Sea, the Navy said Monday afternoon, verifying parts of a Monday morning article in The Washington Times that said a Chinese submarine had come within "firing range" of the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk on Oct. 26.

"While conducting operations, a Chinese navy Song-class submarine was sighted near the strike group by a U.S. Navy aircraft," said Navy spokesman Lt. Sarah Self-Kyler, who would say only that the incident occurred in "late October" near Okinawa, Japan.

Both ships were operating in international waters at the time, Self-Kyler said, and "there was no communication" between the submarine and any U.S. Navy vessels after the sub was spotted. The Kitty Hawk group was conducting routine carrier training at the time of the incident, Self-Kyler said, adding that the strike group was not conducting anti-submarine warfare operations during the exercise.

Ding ding ding. Wait a second. Are you seriously going to tell me that we deploy trillions of dollars worth of military hardware in the form of a Carrier, two Cruisers, several Destroyers and Frigates and dozens and dozens of aircraft, not to mention thousands of US Sailors, even for training or other non-warfare missions, and WE DON'T BOTHER TAKING BASIC ASW PRECAUTIONS ??? Whoever has that policy as the standard operating procedure should be fired immediately. Does that sort of incompetence and laziness and overconfidence smack of 1941 to anyone but me?

When you read the new Bill Gertz article in today's Washington Times, the statement goes like this: "The carrier was not engaged in anti-submarine warfare exercises at the time and thus did not have active patrols for submarines. As a result, submarine defenses for the carrier and its accompanying warships will be reviewed." What the FUCK? We're saying that because they weren't actively patrolling for submarines that they don't take any other measures? They can't detect enemy subs within 5 miles unless they're actively patrolling for them? That without a concerted effort to look for enemy subs that they were sitting ducks? Shouldn't passive defense at the very least be standard at all times out of port? Well officer, I was reading the newspaper while I was driving, so I couldn't possibly have seen the other car...

The Washington Times report claimed that the submarine "shadowed" Kitty Hawk, surfacing within five miles of the carrier before it was finally spotted by an aircraft.

Self-Kyler would confirm only that the sub was "in close proximity" of the strike group and could not say how long the submarine remained on the surface after being spotted.

News of the submarine spotting comes as Pacific Fleet Commander Adm. Gary Roughead is visiting China to meet with civilian and military leaders. Roughead arrived Sunday for the weeklong visit, which includes a visit to the amphibious transport dock Juneau during a joint search-and-rescue exercise with the People's Liberation Army Navy, according to a Navy release.

According to an Associated Press report, Roughead "really would like to know what the intent is in some of the developments" he's seen in the navy of the People's Liberation Army. A Pacific Fleet spokesman would not comment Monday afternoon whether the sub incident would be among the subjects discussed by Roughead.

Kitty Hawk and a number of 7th Fleet ships are currently taking part in the AnnualEx 18G, the largest annual bilateral exercise between the Navy and Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force, according to the Navy.

The Kitty Hawk departed its home port of Yokosuka, Japan, on Oct. 17 for a fall deployment.

Hey Admiral Roughead! I think the intent of the Chinese is to gain enough intelligence and operational experience to eventually sink the 7th Fleet when the shit hits the fan! I'm not sure why you're confused about the 'intent' of this future enemy. The intent is to test and gauge and probe and assess. Our intent seems to be simply to let them! But hey, whatever. Keep on schmoozing with the warlords of the dictatorship. I'm sure they'll love visiting the USS Juneau and seeing how we conduct operations. Maybe you could just give them the keys to the Situation Room at the Pentagon? I mean why not. The Chinese already seem to have free roam of our top secret nuclear weapons labs at Los Alamos. Just escort them into the war room and let them see everything. Let them see the big board! I mean my God, the big board!



The Washington Times' intrepid reporter Bill Gertz has a new column about the military's response to his piece yesterday. Read it here. I think the funniest part in this column is where Gertz reports:

The submarine encounter also took U.S. intelligence agencies by surprise because of years of analyses that continue to portray a benign China, said a defense official.

"Our China analysts appeared to be stunned that China would shadow a U.S. carrier as far away as Okinawa," the defense official said."

Well. Doesn't THAT make our collective selves look stupid. They were stunned?! Anyone following public news reports over the past ten years or reading official statements of the PLA and the Communist dictatorship would have recognized that the Chinese intend to challenge our control of the East Asian sphere. I wonder if these are the same intelligence officials responsible for WMD and Bin Laden? God help us all.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, China, Bill Gertz, Military, War With China, USS Kitty Hawk, Dr Strangelove, Pearl Harbor

7th Fleet Sees Red (Or Rather, Doesn't See It At All)

Go read this over here and then come back.

Finished? Right, so, question. How did a Soviet built submarine, technology which we've spent untold billions or trillions of dollars and nearly 50 years targeting and overcoming, get inside the defensive perimeter of a Carrier Battle Group? How in God's name was a Chinese submarine allowed to surface within 5 miles of one of our most expensive national assets and was only discovered because an air patrol just happened to spot it on the surface?

Now, I'm not an expert on naval practices while on deployment in the Western Pacific. I don't know the 'protocol' whilst patrolling off the coast of our largest military adversary. But if I were a betting man, I would place my money on a newfangled technology called 'sonar'. This 'sonar' works like radar, only underwater. It allows a ship to 'see' an enemy before that enemy has the chance to sink a half a trillion dollar aircraft carrier and 5000 men. I would probably have this 'sonar' TURNED THE FUCK ON whenever I was deployed and on active patrol.

The only thing missing from this encounter was a giant red bullseye target painted on the USS Kitty Hawk. Where the fuck were the ASW screens? These destroyers and helicopters and cruisers are supposed to detect and destroy enemy submarines BEFORE they get anywhere near the Carrier. And actually, there is supposed to be an attack submarine with the group who's sole purpose is to engage enemy subs. I just checked and as far as I can tell there is no attack sub assigned to Strike Group 06.

I would also like to point out that the Kitty Hawk and her battle group are forward deployed and just recently participated in a major exercise called Valiant Shield. From Globalsecurity.org: "One of the main events of Kitty Hawk’s summer underway period will be Exercise Valiant Shield, which will see two other aircraft carrier strike groups as well as U.S. Air Force assets join up with Kitty Hawk to conduct exercises near the Northern Marianas Islands. The purpose of the exercise is to demonstrate the continuing ability of the U.S. military to project strength on the high seas." And then.... oops! She was sunk by a Soviet era piece of technology. Good example of being able to project strength on the high seas!

Isn't this situation the EXACT scenario that we constructed our ships for, trained our men for and drilled for? The only difference is the nationality of the people crewing the sub that beat us. I think we should stop our official policy of trying to be nice and friendly to the Chinese military by showing them our top secret command centers and instead focus on blowing them out of the fucking water when the shit hits the fan sometime in the future.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, China/a>, 7th Fleet, USS Kitty Hawk, Cold War, Military, War With China

Tennessee Election Fraud?

And you thought it couldn't happen....

From Drudge:

12 SMARTCARDS GO MISSING IN TENNESSEE; CONTROL ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES
Fri Nov 03 2006 10:09:31 ET

Political insiders have expressed alarm after 12 voter smartcards have gone missing from one Shelby County, TN early vote location!

The cards are used to activate electronic voting machines.

The location at the center of the controversy is Bishop Byrne High School on E. Shelby Drive in Memphis.

The polling place started out with 25 cards. By Wednesday, 11 were missing, says an eyewitness.

The location was given 5 more smartcards on Thursday.

And another card went missing!

Someone possessing a smartcard could use 'off the shelf equipment' [equipment that reprograms the card] and alter it to be used multiple times, and cast multiple votes.

One concerned insider explains: "Shelby County Board of Elections has been notified. They said is was 'not a big deal' because, they said, the cards are deactivated. But the reality is, you can buy the equipment at computer stores to reactivate them. It's on the Internet how to reactivate the cards!"

Meanwhile, The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is reviewing reports by the Shelby County Election Commission that two people voted twice during early voting in Memphis.

Dist. Atty. Gen. Bill Gibbons said he's referred the cases to the TBI for investigation along with other matters he declined to discuss.

Poll watchers are expected to turn out Tuesday to observe voting in Tennessee's heated U.S. Senate race between Chattanooga Republican Bob Corker and Memphis Democrat Harold Ford Jr.

Developing...

As I mentioned last week, wholesale stealing of elections based on audit-less electronic voting machines is GOING to happen. Re-read here.

The morons that run the polling stations don't have a sweet clue how this shit works. A monkey and a blind man could rip off an entire Senate race. Be warned! Democracy is threatened! There's trouble I tell ya! Big trouble right here in River City!

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Election Fraud, Voting, Election 2006, Electronic Voting, Politics

Don't Vote This Year

Here's why....

Inside The Intellectual Bubble

The misleading character of the media angers me continually. Their ignorance of their own bias is frustratingly inbred. But there is still one group of fools that generates in me even more disgust. Need I describe them? They are the intellectual elite of this nation. Perpetually enraptured by their own brilliance, gleefully cheering any difficulty America or Americans may face in the world. Somehow they seem to think that only they have the intellectual capacity to truly understand the nature of things. It is lucky for the Republic that intellectuals stay inside their ivory towers and glass bubbles and don't attempt to enter politics. History is full of examples of intellectuals attempting to run a state. Lenin, for instance.

So it was no surprise to me to read this article from the Boston Globe this morning. It WAS a surprise, however, to see that a Harvard professor wrote the column. I have heard this man speak before, but never with this degree of disgust for his peers. It is a troubling look inside the intellectual bubble.

At universities, little learned from 9/11
By Harvey Mansfield | September 13, 2006

FIVE YEARS have now passed since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and what have our universities been doing? I can tell you about Harvard, and the answer is not reassuring.

Harvard has just welcomed the former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami to give a little talk. Harvard thinks this is free speech, but in fact the university has allowed itself to be used as a platform for sweet-talk in the service of a regime that hates, and wants to bamboozle, America. Note, too, that Harvard professor Stephen Walt and a Chicago professor have just written an expose of the Israeli lobby's influence on American politics. They encourage the belief that Israel is the main problem we face .

Nor has Harvard relaxed its hostility to ROTC on the campus. The pretext is the military's policy discriminating against gays by requiring them to keep silent about being gay. Never mind what would happen to gays or defenders of gays if the Islamic fascists took over.

These are not isolated incidents but signs of the prevailing attitude at Harvard and other elite universities. There is lots of griping against the Bush administration but little activist dissent of the kind seen in protest against the Vietnam War. Cindy Sheehan's movement has not caught on.

All to the good, one might say. A university is not a political actor and should not be drawn away from its own business by too much concern for current events.

Yes, agreed. A university is an institution of learning, and as such takes a broad view of things. But this means it should learn from events if not try to control them. What has Harvard learned from Sept. 11? Very little.

Sept. 11 was a stunning blow to multiculturalism. The attacks showed that we have enemies who hate us because they hate both our principles and our practices. They despise the way we live not because we do not live up to our principles of freedom, democracy, and toleration, but because we do. They do not think we are multicultural; they believe we have one culture, and they mean to do away with it.

The feminists at Harvard seek to remove every vestige of patriarchy in America, but they have said almost nothing about the complete dismissal of women's rights by radical Islam. To do so would be to attack Islamic culture, and according to multiculturalism, every culture is equal and none is evil. They forsake women in societies that repudiate women's rights and direct their complaints to societies that believe in women's rights. Of course it's easier to complain to someone who listens to you and doesn't immediately proceed to slit your throat. No sign of any rethinking of feminism has appeared in the universities where it flourishes.

Civil liberties should be another topic of reconsideration. Civil libertarians on the left and the right assume that government is the object of their vigilance and minorities need special care. In time of peace that may be true, but in a war the government is your main friend, and the majority must be protected. The preaching of radical Islam is in fact "a clear and present danger," and we need to suppress it. This sort of speech is not just blowing off steam or keeping us honest or puncturing our complacency. Here is a new task to occupy the anxious minds of civil libertarians in universities: how to distinguish truly dangerous speech and how to defeat it?

The jihadists say they will triumph because they believe in death while we believe in life. That is not quite so. We do believe in life -- but not at any cost. We too value sacrifice and honor for a decent cause. But we let our soldiers speak for us. The professors, who should be our spokesmen, have learned nothing from our soldiers and have nothing to say on why they volunteer to risk their lives.

The difference between our country and the terrorists dwarfs that between liberals and conservatives within our country. But conservatives are more aware of this fact than are liberals, and our universities are dominated by befuddled liberals. Better that they be befuddled than determined to rebel, as during the late 1960s. Better still that they heed the requirements of their own doctrines in the new circumstances of terrorist war.

Harvey Mansfield is a professor of government at Harvard University and author of the book "Manliness."

I don't know that I would agree with Mansfield when he says that the professors should be our spokesmen. I think professors, and other intellectuals, should be our educators and keepers of knowledge, our human Great Library of collective intellect. Be that as it may, his point is a powerful one and something I think it would be hard for an intellectually honest professor or writer or student wrapped up in this bubble to argue against. Why don't our intellectuals support the elimination of religious extremism? Why don't they rail against Islamofascism they way they do against evengelical Christian groups? Where is the outrage against the beheadings and religous killings? It just makes me shake my head in absolute disgust and disbelief. I'm glad that there is, at least, a counter intellectual position such as what Mansfield has espoused. Hopefully there are others keeping their silence inside the bubble for fear of being cast out by their peers for holding a discordant opinion. Hopefully these thinkers too can summon the courage to take up the pen for their country, to take to the podium for their people, to lend their voice in support of civilization.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Politics, Intellectuals, Harvard, GWOT, Islamofascism

Strange Moment of the Day

I saw something strange this morning. Tell me if you also see it.

Which part is stranger, that Al Gore is listed by iTunes as a celebrity or that he was paired with Melissa Etheridge to come up with a favorite playlist? I mean, I suppose Al Gore is a celebrity. In the same way that, say, Walter Mondale is a celebrity. Or perhaps more accurately, in the same way that Michael Dukakis is a celebrity. Which is to say, the celebrity of disasterously failed former politicians. Be that as it may, Melissa Etheridge is definately not a celebrity.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Al Gore, iTunes, Melissa Etheridge

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

Mike Wallace Gives Ahmadinejad Time of Day

In a bit of delighted self-congratulatory self-promotion, CBS news is reporting that Mike Wallace has just wrapped up an interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and that this wonderful tidbit of reporting will air Thursday and Sunday.

I can't fathom why anyone would grant this idiot airtime to spew his nonsense and in effect become his mouthpiece. Mike Wallace is an American isn't he? This is akin to Dan Rather interviewing Saddam Hussein at the height of another crisis. CBS sure is batting a thousand.

Why do journalists see themselves as world-firsters so eager to educate us in America with the wisdom of the rest of the world? If I were granted an interview with Ahmadinejad, you can be damn sure I'd strangle the little bugger with the nearest wires. Wallace, I'm sure, enjoyed the tirades against the United States. I guess we'll find out on Thursday.

(CBS) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sat down with Mike Wallace in Tehran on Tuesday in a rare, exclusive interview with a Western reporter.

In the wide-ranging interview, the Iranian leader comments on President Bush's foreign policy, the lack of relations between Iran and the United States, Hezbollah, Lebanon and Iraq.

Speaking about President Bush's failure to answer his 18-page letter that criticized U.S. foreign policy, Ahmadinejad said, "Well, (with the letter) I wanted to open a window towards the light for the president so that he can see that one can look on the world through a different perspective. We are all free to choose. But please give him this message, sir: Those who refuse to accept an invitation will not have a good ending or fate. You see that his approval rating is dropping every day. Hatred vis-a-vis the president is increasing every day around the world. For a ruler, this is the worst message that he could receive. Rulers and heads of government at the end of their office must leave the office holding their heads high."

On what the "conducive conditions" would be for Iran to establish relations with the U.S., the president said, "Well, please look at the makeup of the American administration, the behavior of the American administration. See how they talk down to my nation. And this recent resolution passed about the nuclear issue, look at the wording. They have given us - presented us with a package which we are studying right now. We even gave them a date for our response. Ignoring that, they passed a resolution. They want to build an empire. And they don't want to live side-by-side in peace with other nations. The American government, sir, it is very clear to me they have to change their behavior and everything will be resolved. (George W. Bush) believes that his power emanates from his nuclear warhead arsenals. The time of the bomb is in the past, it's behind us. Today is the era of thoughts, dialogue and cultural exchanges."

Portions of the interview will appear on the CBS Evening News on Thursday, Aug. 10 at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT. The entire report will be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Does this make anyone else sick to their stomachs?

How can we fight for our freedom and the protection of our children when our own media eagerly spreads the nonsensical propaganda of the enemy? Why does CBS use language like 'Speaking about President Bush's failure to answer his 18-page letter...' implying that it was a tragic mistake, a 'failure' of foreign policy to have not written a nice letter back to his new penpal. Ahmadinejad is a thug who participated in the taking of American hostages and was placed into power by theocratic totalitarianists seeking to destroy the world order. He is unworthy to recieve a letter printed on White House paper. He's unworthy to recieve a bag of White House toilet paper. He's certainly not worth Mike Wallace's time and he should be shunned and isolated, not treated like some kind of legitimate and responsible head of state.

Next time we should send Colbert to do the interview.

Full story here. Linked to OTB's Traffic Jam here.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Iran, Ahmadinejad, CBS, Media

What Lieberman's Defeat Is NOT

I guess I'm alone in seeing Joe's defeat as a ho-hum event. I don't think it is watershed. I don't think it is a foreboding harbinger of the revolution coming in November. If anything, I see it as a product of the same grassroots effort that led to the phenom that is Howard "Aiiieeee!" Dean.

The New York Times, predictably, sees it differently. Since this article is an Editorial and not an 'opinion' or 'letter to the editor' I can only assume it represents the collective thinking of the newspaper.

Revenge of the Irate Moderates
Published: August 9, 2006

The defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman at the hands of a little-known Connecticut businessman is bound to send a message to politicians of both parties that voters are angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq. The primary upset was not, however, a rebellion against the bipartisanship and centrism that Mr. Lieberman said he represented in the Senate. Instead, Connecticut Democrats were reacting to the way those concepts have been perverted by the Bush White House.

Well first off, I suspect that the defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman at the hands of a little-known Connecticut businessman is bound to send a message to politicians of both parties NOT that voters are angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq, but that democratic primary voters in one of the bluest states in the nation are angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq. In my part of the country, voters are not angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq, they are angry and frustrated over the media apologist conspiracy, largely based in the bluey-blue northeast, to portray America as wrong in every way, every shape, every form. Angry and frustrated over the attempts to portray the sentiment in elite Fairfield Connecticut (the ultra-rich, intellectual, ultra-elite part of Connecticut deemed to be largely responsible for Lamont's victory) as representative of the entire nation's feelings. My part of the nation is arguably more angry that we haven't killed every last Muslim that we can find, nuked the shit out of Iran and turned North Korea into a wasteland. But of course, we all just redneck rubes down here that don't know any better. We don't have none of that ther edumacation. If we did, surely we'd all be Democrats.

Secondly the Times, isolated in its ivory tower bubble of elitism, views this defeat as a reaction to the 'perversion' by George Bush of time-honored moderate values. Well, no bias there. This argument would imply that Connecticut Democratic primary voters rejected moderation, centrism and bipartisanship not because of Joe Lieberman, but because of George Bush. The Times doesn't say that Lieberman DOESN'T embody those concepts, it says people are angry because George Bush perverted those concepts. So it seems if you think Bush is a right-wing extremist who has perverted your cherished centrist views, the solution is to reject your centrist views (embodied in Lieberman) and embrace left-wing extremism. It is a totally illogical argument put forth by someone writing from ideological impulse rather than journalistic rationalism.

Ned Lamont, a relative political novice, said he ran against Mr. Lieberman because he was offended by the senator's sunny descriptions of what was happening in Iraq and his denunciation of Democrats who criticized the administration's handling of the war. Many other people in Connecticut may have felt that sense of frustration, but no one else had the money and moxie to do what Mr. Lamont did. Mr. Lieberman was stunned to find himself on the defensive, and it was only in the last few weeks that the 18-year veteran mounted a desperate campaign to reclaim his party's support.

Wait a second. Ned Lamont is not a relative political novice, he's a relative political insect. Relatively speaking, in comparison with Lamont Lieberman is one of the political giants of our time. Mr. Lamont's rationale for running against Lieberman, that he was upset by how Lieberman saw progress in Iraq, is bewildering. Has Lamont been to Iraq? Lieberman has. If anyone is qualified to speak on the course of events there it would be Lieberman, not Lamont. So here the Times is implying that a viable position for a candidate is one that is based on inexperience, total lack of knowledge in a subject area and distaste for what they see and hear, regardless of facts. All one needs is money and 'moxie' and you too can run for office. Wow. Brilliant political analysis there boys. No wonder you have all the news that's fit to print.

Senator Lieberman says he will run as an independent in November, taking on Mr. Lamont and the Republican, Alan Schlesinger. Mr. Schlesinger is a very weak candidate, but Mr. Lieberman should consider the risk of splitting his party if the Republicans are able to convince Mr. Schlesinger to drop out of the race in favor of a stronger nominee.

The Times here demonstrates it's total lack of a grasp on reality. In their dreamy world the GOP will attempt to defeat Lamont with a stronger Republican candidate. The reality, of course, is that they don't have to do that and in any event a Republican cannot win in Connecticut even if they had Jesus Christ on the ticket. Lieberman as an independent will handily win the election. This will achieve several GOP goals. It will highlight the ongoing failure of the MoveOn.org/DailyKos radicals in the eyes of the mainstream Democratic party and throw the party into a disarray of hand-wringing. It will reduce the Democratic representation in the Senate by 1. It will elevate Lieberman to the status of McCain-ite independent able to attract a wide swath of America (potentially as a GOP running mate) and provide the next President with a credible bi-partisan resource with vast experience. These things all occurring t a simple stroke. It is an absolute windfall for the GOP. It's amazing that anyone in the party allowed Lamont to run!

Mr. Lieberman's supporters have tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to punish the senator for working with Republicans and to force the Democratic Party into a disastrous turn toward extremism. It's hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists, and it's hard to imagine Mr. Lamont, who worked happily with the Republicans in Greenwich politics, leading that kind of revolution.

Huh? Which Connecticut is the Times talking about? Alright, I admit, compared to Berkeley, Hartford is comparably un-radical. However, suggesting that MoveOn and DailyKos-esque bloggers are not radical is plainly bizarre. They themselves advocate overthrowing the Democratic Leadership Council's centrist positions and moving to the left. Doesn't the Times read their websites? Do they know the kinds of things that are said by backers of Lamont? The fact is that they are not only radicals advocating a shift far to the left, they are self-described, self-avowed leftists. Lieberman's supporters don't have to try to depict Lamont's backers as radical, they depict themselves that way. Lieberman doesn't have to depict these groups as turning the party disastrously to the left, it is political reality that this has happened. It is the hottest topic being debated in the Democratic political spectrum as of late. The turn left is a reality embodied in the activist efforts by these groups. Nobody has to pretend the drift left exists, it is there in plain sight and is advocated by these groups. The bizarro world that the Times operates in simply doesn't exist.

The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president's choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration's contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.

First of all, 'umoderate' is not a word as I'm sure the deeply intellectual and highly educated editorial board is aware. Secondly, the rebellion against Lieberman was an uprising by those who want the US out of Iraq, George Bush out of office, the Republican party out of power, the destruction of organized religion, free health care for everyone, income redistribution, ecological theocracy, imposed multinational world-ism, and the forced modification of society so that it's perfectly okay to do anything that feels good, irrespective of things like responsibility and tradition. These positions are not centrist. They are not moderate. They are left-wing and they are extremist. This is the liberal fundamentalist position and it is not what most of America thinks or feels as evidenced by several decades of elections at all levels.

The war did not begin at the President's choosing as the Times opines, it began 5 years ago on a sunny September morning. It has only degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess if you choose to read only those news reports that encourage such a belief.

The war and George Bush have not turned the world against the United States. The world has always been against the United States. The war simply revealed the divide and exposed the illusory utopian world view as being false.

I agree the Administration has contempt for some international agreements. And they, along with the rest of America, SHOULD have contempt for international agreements that seek to dilute the supreme authority of the Constitution and the absolute sovereignty of this nation. To have wholesale support for international agreements such as the 'World Court' is by definition anti-American and un-constitutional as it accepts an un-representative authority higher than the US Constitution.

The Times implies that the Administration should be subservient to 'Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the Courts' which totally ignores the principles enshrined in the founding documents of this nation. The three separate branches have three built-in, reactive centrifugal ambitions to supersede each other. That is how the system was designed. They each act in their own interest and in how they view the people's interest and are held in check by the various legal mechanisms that prevent any one of the branches from gaining an upper hand. To suggest that the Administration is eroding domestic law because it is acting Constitutionally is another weirdly illogical argument that was clearly not well thought out.

Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person's right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.

What is the Bush agenda? Immigration reform, strong national security, globalization, free trade, low taxes, pro-growth economic policies, tax reform, social security reform, prescription drug benefits, education reform... These things seem like something I would be proud to be 'captive' to. I am proud that MY representatives in Congress are 'captive' to this agenda. I think most people in the country would argue in favor of most of these 'captivating' agenda issues. I fail to see or understand how a person's right to a day in court, habeas corpus, or Constitutional law has been subverted by this 'captivating' agenda. So far the process has worked as designed. When the Supreme Court has felt that the Administration or the Congress was acting beyond its authority, it has exercised its own authority to check and balance the other two branches. I'm unaware of any new law or judicial precedent that has been set in the past few decades that restricts my liberty or dilutes my rights. As far as I know, I still have the right to a day in court. Perhaps the Times cares to illuminate us all with historical facts, the new laws decreed by the dictatorship of George Bush, that suggest otherwise.

Not fighting the war on terror or its aggregate battles because we don't know in advance how to win them is a strange notion. Good thing we didn't surrender to Japan on December 8, 1941 because we weren't sure how to beat them. I think it demonstrates the Times' complete lack of knowledge of military affairs that they would advocate staying out of wars you don't know in advance how to win. War is defined by a series of unknowns and unplanned events. It is the nature of war to be vague, fogged over with uncertainty. War is not a video game with a pre-ordained ending. If you had asked Roosevelt in 1941 what the plan was, he probably would have cried. Our plan going in is the same plan anyone has at the onset of conflict. The plan is win by defeating the enemy. That's the plan. Whether or not we can execute is always up for debate. But insinuating that having no pre-ordained plan is evidence of George Bush's extremism is a weak argument to make.

I'm likewise unaware of when or where it was decided by our courts that the President is acting extra-legally as alleged by the New York Times. They say plainly that he is acting illegally and only chooses to obey the law when it suits him. What are the legal decisions that endorse this view? What exactly is the Times alleging? Is there proof that illegal activities are taking place in the White House? As far as I know, there are none. There are no judicial decisions that demonstrate George Bush is disobeying the law when it suits him. Another false accusation by the Times. Perhaps they'd like to write a phoney Supreme Court Decision to support their claim? They don't seem to have any qualms about allowing their journalists to fabricate stories whenever it suits their agenda. Surely they have the appropriate lawyers on hand to invent a court ruling and then distribute it as proof of the law-dodging criminal activity the President is engaged in.

When Mr. Lieberman told The Washington Post, "I haven't changed. Events around me have changed," he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crisis and started subverting the nation's basic traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take a lead in fighting back.

Well, first of all Joe's constituents do not feel the way the Times alleges. I'm sure they MEANT to say that voters in the Democratic primary felt that way. And of course those 200,000 folks don't represent the 1.4 million registered voters in Connecticut. Perhaps the Times meant to say that all the constituents in Connecticut that MATTER are Democrats. And that they ALL voted in the primary for Ned Lamont. Well, if that's what they meant then they are still wrong. Last time I checked the results, there were still 48% of those voters that felt Lieberman was representing them and their interests just fine. In fact, most of those voters have felt that way for 18 years. Sounds to me like Lieberman didn't need to change much at all. He just needed to sell his message better. And in any event, if only 52% of the Democrats voting in the primary felt unrepresented by Lieberman, it would seem far from certain that the entire body of registered voters in Connecticut, let alone the nation, harbor the views proclaimed by the Times as being the universal attitude of the people.

I think my favorite part of this article is where the Times proclaims that the 'true center' of the political spectrum is able to be defined by their editorial board. The cosmic joke that is the Times credibility, their plunging circulation, and their continuing intoxication with misleading statements and outright fabrications should be enough to jolt someone at that paper back into reality. The sad part is that it hasn't to date.

The real story of Lamont's win is that there are elements within and without the Democratic Party that are angry that the party has been TOO centrist, TOO moderate and TOO accommodating. They are vocally demanding a more aggressive party, an angrier party, more debate, less compromise and greater differentiation. All of that is fine. It is part of the natural process of politics. You surely desire that your position offers some unique quality that you hold to be superior than that of your opponent. Differentiation in the political spectrum is perfectly fine and often quite necessary in order for the system to operate properly.

But everyone, including the New York Times, must recognize that differentiating a party that is just left of center from a party that is just right of center requires the former to move further from the latter, not closer. Logic dictates that if you want the Democratic Party to be more different from the Republican Party, then the DNC must move left. It can't move right else it becomes the Republican Party in all but name.

That is the lesson of the Lamont win. It is a symptom, not a result as the intellectuals at the Times claim. They are surprisingly ignorant of this primary logic. I would have thought that their intense intellectual study and preparation at the nation's finest institutions would allow them to execute a simple logical formula.

Part of the party wants it to move left. How far left is a matter of relativity and subjectivity. But the lesson remains. What the party intends to do about it is the true story behind the event.

Coverage at TimesWatch, Outside the Beltway, and Newsbusters.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Politics,Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman, George Bush, Media, New York Times, Democrats

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

Free the Illegals !

Does THIS bother anyone besides me? If true, it is simply another example of the complete abandonment of Constitutional duty by the Federal government.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Immigration, Constitution

National Socialism Redux

Ahmadinejad reveals himself to be even more dangerous then we thought. Not only is he bent on regional and global geopolitical revisionism, not only is his goal to stir up as much trouble as he can in the world, he is also seeking to restore discredited practices of religous and social engineering last promulgated by the Nazi regime under Adolf Hitler. Next thing you know he'll be euthanizing the sick and handicapped, rounding up gays into camps and marching into Poland (or in this case, Iraq or Afghanistan).

Iran eyes badges for Jews
Law would require non-Muslim insignia
Chris Wattie
National Post
Friday, May 19, 2006

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

"There's no reason to believe they won't pass this," said Rabbi Hier. "It will certainly pass unless there's some sort of international outcry over this."

Bernie Farber, the chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said he was "stunned" by the measure. "We thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again," he said. "It's state-sponsored religious discrimination."

Ali Behroozian, an Iranian exile living in Toronto, said the law could come into force as early as next year.

It would make religious minorities immediately identifiable and allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims.

Mr. Behroozian said it will make life even more difficult for Iran's small pockets of Jewish, Christian and other religious minorities -- the country is overwhelmingly Shi'ite Muslim. "They have all been persecuted for a while, but these new dress rules are going to make things worse for them," he said.

The new law was drafted two years ago, but was stuck in the Iranian parliament until recently when it was revived at the behest of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa refused to comment on the measures. "This is nothing to do with anything here," said a press secretary who identified himself as Mr. Gharmani.

"We are not here to answer such questions."

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has written to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, protesting the Iranian law and calling on the international community to bring pressure on Iran to drop the measure.

"The world should not ignore this," said Rabbi Hier. "The world ignored Hitler for many years -- he was dismissed as a demagogue, they said he'd never come to power -- and we were all wrong."

Mr. Farber said Canada and other nations should take action to isolate Mr. Ahmadinejad in light of the new law, which he called "chilling," and his previous string of anti-Semitic statements.

"There are some very frightening parallels here," he said. "It's time to start considering how we're going to deal with this person."

START?! Where have they been hiding for the past few years? If Ahmadinejad is Hitler, then this is 1936. The man has been in power for several years already. Europe is on the cusp of offering up Nuclear technology in a modern Munich Pact. All we're missing is Lord Halifax for the love of God. I'm glad others now believe that we should 'start' to think about how to deal with him.

Mr. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly described the Holocaust as a myth and earlier this year announced Iran would host a conference to re-examine the history of the Nazis' "Final Solution."

He has caused international outrage by publicly calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, but Tehran believed by Western nations to be developing its own nuclear military capability, in defiance of international protocols and peace treaties.

The United States, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build a weapon. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity.

I'm glad the Jewish bodies are taking notice. Where is the Catholic Church on this? Where is the Pope? Where are the leaders of the world when it comes to taking this guy to task? Have we all become modern Neville Chamberlain's too afraid to rock the boat in order to combat self-apparent evil? Where is the holier-than-thou United Nations on this? Why hasn't Kofi Annan denounced the pseudo-fascist rumblings eminating from Tehran? Well, because the UN is too busy denouncing the United States, it seems. Ironic that a thoroughly corrupt institution like the UN has the audacity to attack America and give Iran a free pass on religous persecution.

The world had better wake up and deal with Ahmadinejad and Iran. If they don't, in the end it will be America the bears the burden of ridding the world of this latest brand of hatred.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Iran, Ahmadinejad, United Nations, Religion, Nazi, Hitler, Fascism,

I Have All Your Phone Numbers in a Database

I shall call it '411'. I can use this '411' to find anyone's name and address in any state of the union at any time day or night. It also contains the address of every American household and business. No one can stop me!

Seriously though, how did you think the security services of the United States were monitoring phone calls to terrorists? I mean, how did you think it was working?

OF COURSE the system records data about vocal communications. This would include all sorts of metadata about the calls and include actual recordings of the calls themselves. This metadata is analyzed by computers in the same way Google analyzes the metadata about what's on your computer in order to provide Google Desktop functionality. Cause, as I'm sure you already know, Google maintains a vast database of not only what is on Google Desktop users' computers, but also what you like to search for on the Net (late at night when the mood strikes).

So I propose a new headline: Google Monitoring Internet Search Usage. Nobody seems to care much about a private company having your information or recording and archiving where and what you surf for on the web.

Or here's another: Social Security Administration Stores American's Social Security Numbers in Vast Database

I like this one: IRS Knows How Much Money You Make and Stores it In a Vast Database

Or perhaps: Every Credit Bureau in the World Has Every Conceivable Piece of Private Data About You Stored in a Vast Database That They Then Sell To Other Companies Who Try To Sell You Crap You Don't Need.

I guess I'm a little confused as to why anyone could be shocked, SHOCKED! that the NSA analyzes our phone calls. Isn't that the sort of thing we employ them to do? Have employed them to do since Truman created the agency?

Carnivore anyone? How about Echelon? How is trapping and recording and archiving internet traffic or fax traffic or postal traffic any different than recording oral traffic? We've been openly scanning IP packets since the Clinton Administration looking for terrorist communications but nobody seems to mind.

Moreover, nobody cared when the New York Times ran a story about this last year. The sanctimonious Senators on Capitol Hill bemoaning the erosion of civil liberties are hypocrites. They've all known all along that this sort of stuff happens and it is ridiculously disingenuous to pretend they're concerned all of a sudden.

So says I, foolish, foolish people.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, NSA, Bush, Media, Politics, Wiretapping, Echelon, Carnivore,

Well, Duh.

I give you Peggy Noonan, Mistress of the Obvious. Her latest column contains ideas that were clear to me (and many other people) many moons ago. The Wall Street Journal should pay ME to write her column. I'd do it for free. At least then they'd have opinion that wasn't stale and self-evident.

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

May Day 2006

So it's May Day again, or as I like to call it, the Global Day of Demonstrated Ignorance. The focus this year is not on labor unions or the proletariat, but instead on a straw man argument used as a convenient excuse for not attending school or work. The ignorant have taken to the streets demanding that Republicans in Congress not send their immigrant parents, friends, neighbors back to the lands they came from.

If Congress were really proposing such action, as an immigrant I would certainly protest along with everyone else. But of course no one anywhere in government is suggesting uprooting legal immigrants and throwing them out.  I'm pro-immigrant, pro-immigration. However, that presupposes that the immigrants follow the laws in order to get here. If they don't follow the laws, that makes them law-breakers. And the number one synonym for lawbreaker is criminal. So yes, an illegal immigrant is by definition a criminal and should be treated the same way as any other criminal.

That being said, protest all you want. I don't really care. It impacts me not at all.

But why in the hell are the protesters carrying Mexican flags? That is one of the most racist things I think I've seen in recent memory. Who are they to suppose that Latinos (and specifically MEXICANS) are the only immigrants in this nation? While the nation has always been dependent on immigrants, they seem to think that the United States would stop without MEXICAN immigrants.

I think the Irish, Italians, Scots, Welsh, English, Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Polish, Scandanavian, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Japanese, Filipino, Portuguese, West African, Arabic, (etc etc etc) immigrants that have come here before them might object to that notion. And yes, Canadian immigrants should also be similarly indignant at such a prospect. And yes, I am.

Chavez Oil Grab

No one seems to care that Hugo Chavez is a quietly gathering menace. The American press is more obsessed with Tom DeLay and Katie Couric than the Venezuelan dictator. This is the same press that assails the Bush Administration's lack of attention to various international crises. I suppose it doesn't matter that Chavez seized control of a French oil company's oil fields, but his threatening noises and motions combined with the financial wherewithall to finance anti-US activity on top of this latest issue is a seriously destabilizing force in the region. We need to be paying more attention to him.

From the UK's Telegraph:

Chavez grabs oil field to fund anti-US campaign
By Jeremy McDermott
(Filed: 04/04/2006)
Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez yesterday seized control of a French-run oil field, strengthening his control of the country's vast oil wealth, the lifeblood of his "Bolivarian Revolution".

Total SA confirmed from its Paris headquarters that the state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA, "took control of our operations" during the weekend after it refused to turn the site over to a state-run joint venture.

Mr Chavez has decided to redefine the terms under which foreign companies can operate in Venezuela, which has the largest oil reserves outside of the Middle East.

The new terms state that the Venezuelan government must have a 60 per cent share in any venture. Sixteen companies have bowed to the demands by the president, among them BP and Shell, but Exxon Mobile, the world's largest oil company, sold its interests instead.

Total and ENI, of Italy, have refused to sign accords, hence the seizure of Total's concession. The Venezuelan government has said that both companies owe taxes and face being shut down.

Mr Chavez is using his oil windfall to promote a social reform programme, arms purchases and to engage in anti-US diplomacy, selling oil at below market rates to detach Latin American nations from Washington's orbit.

And then there's this.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Hugo Chavez, Oil, Venezuela