May 23, 2005
Sunnis Step Off Political Sidelines
This is
the final nail in the coffin for Iraq's murdering terrorist'. Any shred of legitimacy they might have enjoyed from within Iraq is gone. The only support left in country is from the die hard Baathist's desperately trying to regain power and their numbers are miniscule.
BAGHDAD, May 21 -- More than 1,000 Sunni Arab clerics, political leaders and tribal heads ended their two-year boycott of politics in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq on Saturday, uniting in a Sunni bloc that they said would help draft the country's new constitution and compete in elections.
Formation of the group comes during escalating violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims that has raised the threat of sectarian war. The bloc represents moderate and hard-line members of the Association of Muslim Scholars, the Iraqi Islamic Party and other main groups of the disgruntled Sunni minority toppled from dominance when U.S.-led troops routed Hussein in April 2003.
Sunnis have remained on the sidelines of the Iraqi government since then. Most Sunnis boycotted national elections in January that put the long-suppressed Shiite majority in charge. Meanwhile, a Sunni-led insurgency appears to have become increasingly unpopular among ordinary Iraqis as the death toll from bombings and other attacks climbs.
Make no mistake, this is a big deal. The move effectively diminishes the chance for an all out civil war breaking out between Sunnis and Shiites to practically nil. All major parties are now participants in the process leaving the radical elements essentially isolated and powerless.
Posted by Traderrob
Posted by: Traderrob at
06:26 AM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Notice it robs the insurgents AND the Liberals of any remaining shred of legitimacy.
Posted by: Carlos at May 23, 2005 08:53 AM (UWO6N)
2
Looks like the democrats side is losing
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 23, 2005 09:10 AM (xkIHW)
3
Carlos, you never know. The Libs might lead the next insurgency and you'll be wearing the orange jumpsuit this time...
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 23, 2005 10:43 AM (E2ydb)
4
DONT READ THIS!
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=640402
Posted by: lovely girl at May 23, 2005 10:50 AM (6eXCj)
5
The Saudis are deserting the "insurgents" too. The Grand Mufti has urged Saudi men (boys, really) to stay home and not spill precious Muslim blood in Iraq. See:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/05/being-falstaff.html
What a viper's nest...Zarqawi is going to have to look elsewhere after he runs through all the mentally retarded/Down's Syndrome people he's been sending out on his "missions."
Posted by: Dymphna at May 23, 2005 12:59 PM (O7bGD)
6
I don't know. Remember, Sinn Fein is the political arm of the IRA. Couldn't the violent Sunni minority decide that it is in their best interest to co-opt any "Sunni" party?
Posted by: Pepys at May 23, 2005 01:14 PM (cUt2Z)
7
Ill believe it all when i see Sunni Iraqis either hunting down the terrorists in Iraq or when i see them actually becoming a civilized, productive part of the new Iraq government and the prove themselves worthy....ill hope for the best but prepare for the worst
Posted by: THANOS35 at May 23, 2005 09:10 PM (vDoO2)
8
I hope the Iraqus can work it out and see the light of freedom and democratic rule. God knows they deserve it after Saddam.
Posted by: opine6 at May 23, 2005 09:53 PM (YyWmH)
9
Both Osama and Saddam were armed, supplied and trained by US, so they should all be mad at you even if you did eventually turn against and rid of them. So only the Iran-situation is actually Muslims' fault. You're to blame for these other more destructive mightymonkeys and their followers messing up Middle East.
(hmm... I seem to have subconciously divided the people of the world into three groups, you(=US), them(=what ever you are fighting) and us(=EU+it's former colonies outside Middle East and North America))
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 02:23 AM (lGolT)
10
In my opinion, modern democracy is just legal tyranny. It's not at all like the ancient democracy in Greece, where all free men in town went to a meeting to talk and vote about an important decision. Modern democracy is just picking few hundred people, who will just do what the 20 people have been told to make them do by the one person in charge. The guy in charge of the party says how to vote, and if you don't vote like the rest of your party most of the time, you can be pretty sure you won't be there for the next 4/6 years.
Modern 'democracy'
(your system, we have a powersplit system because 4 parties are pretty much equally powerful and the presidents job is just to ratify things Eduskunta decides) is just nationalsocial ism. One man is Führer/dictator for 4/6/8/12 years and then you pick a new guy to run the country and be your 'god'.
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 02:45 AM (lGolT)
11
"So only the Iran-situation is actually Muslims' fault."
Okay, so we helped them in Afghanistan to rid themselves of the commies and they then turn on us like a pack of dogs and it's our fault. It's not they're fault that they're tyrannical and have been since Mohammed learned to read. What would you have done? Allow Russia to go in and enslave a whole population while you hide in your safe little world and say it's none of your business? Oh wait.....
Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2005 07:27 AM (YudAC)
12
I would've allowed Russians to take over. Afganistan only exists as an artificial bumper country created from pieces of China and Soviet Union to lessen friction and border feuges between the two. That country doesn't deserve to exist or be independent.
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 02:06 PM (lGolT)
13
A Finn writes: "Both Osama and Saddam were armed, supplied and trained by US ..."
False. The US did not knowingly arm or supply Osama Bin Laden. When OBL was in Afghanistan, he was not of a high enough profile for the US to notice him. Iraq received only a trivial amount of equipment and funding from the US - the bulk of it agricultural supports that may have been diverted through the BCCI scandal. Iraq received its military armaments from the Soviet Union and France.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 24, 2005 02:40 PM (xauGB)
14
Lol noob! It was Cold War! Non-neutral countries
(France, Poland and other weaklings, who couldn't defend themselves against the Soviet/Nazi invaders) were scared shitless and only did what you 'suggested' them to do, so any assistance to these unfortunate persons they provided was assistance from the US. The Soviets were of course helping Muslims to spread 'the glorious message of sosialism' across the world, so you just had to do more than them and actually arm them so the sosialists wouldn't get overpowerful and ignore you, leaving you with less than half the oil per year you used in a regular year back then.
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 03:00 PM (lGolT)
15
"The US did not knowingly arm or supply Osama Bin Laden."-Robin
Bullshit Robin. Osama was our boy.
"Iraq received only a trivial amount of equipment and funding from the US"-Robin
Bullshit Robin. Saddam was our boy.
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 03:55 PM (/+dAV)
16
You remain a liar greg.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 24, 2005 09:06 PM (xauGB)
17
Sure, greg. Saddam was riding around in American-made T-55, T-62, PT76, T72 and BTR, BRDM, and BMP armored vehicles plus Panhard armored cars. And he was flying around in American-made MiG21, MiG23, MiG27, MiG29, Sukhoi 25 and Mirage fighters and Antonov transport aircraft. Which were armed with American made AA-10 and AA-11 missiles. While below, there were American made SCUD rockets, RPG's, Strela anti-aircraft missiles and those cute little American-made Sagger anti-tank missiles.
His soldiers were armed with those famous Colt manufactured Kalashnikovs and Makarovs. Not to mention Ruger built RPK machine guns.
What a goof.
Posted by: SPQR at May 24, 2005 10:00 PM (xauGB)
Posted by: SPQR at May 24, 2005 10:46 PM (xauGB)
19
What's the point of seeing the
sales chart, when you were giving them away for services?
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 04:29 AM (cWMi4)
20
Oh my! What's this?
Is this a picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand? Couldn''t be, or could it?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
He was our boy alright.
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 08:27 AM (/+dAV)
21
That's Rumsfeld alright, even I identify him, and I haven't had to see his face on TV more than 3 or 4 times. Perhaps it's just Rumsfelds one-man-conspiracy and has nothing to do with the rest of US government....
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 09:48 AM (lGolT)
22
A photo of Rumsfeld shaking someone's hand versus data showing that there was an insignificant amount of arms supplied to Iraq. We see that the liar Greg's standard of evidence is whatever he finds in his colon.
Posted by: SPQR at May 25, 2005 01:17 PM (xauGB)
23
Comooooooon, they gave the big guns to them. How could they have gotten money to buy em? (darn, maybe I was wrong and they were giving money instead of weapons...)
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 01:57 PM (lGolT)
24
greg yet again uses an empty and vacuos argument to 'prove his point'. Never mind historical context, let us think in absolutes. How dare we ally ourselves with Uncle Joe vs. Hitler? I mean the man is responisble for the death of millions. That FDR, what a pussbucket eh?
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 25, 2005 02:02 PM (jPCiN)
25
FDR = Frank D. Roosevelt = Uncle Joe? Was this the guy who allowed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 02:18 PM (lGolT)
26
Uh, no, A Finn, and to think you were bragging about your view of history recently ...
FDR was more than 3 months dead when Hiroshima was bombed with the atomic bomb.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 25, 2005 02:49 PM (xauGB)
27
=) I remember history, not the people behind it, except those that keep being mentioned every time. FDR was the crippled guy, right? The one shown in the movie "Pearl Harbor" getting up from his wheelchair to stand up and prove a point?
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 03:39 PM (lGolT)
28
Not a good sign if you are getting your history from Hollywood
FDR was the one who repeatedly and expressly lied to the American public about his preparations for US entry into World War II, and many other things like his failing health. FDR was the one who had US citizens rounded up and interned based on their race.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 25, 2005 05:14 PM (xauGB)
29
Bet FDR was a fan of Hitlers work before the Blitzkrieg- and active Holocaust-parts of his rule. Who was the crippled guy in "Pearl Harbor" supposed to be? (not getting my history from Hollywood, would be much more pro-US if I were)
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 01:58 AM (cWMi4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 22, 2005
Chavez: nuclear ambitions?
First he may have been looking into
chemical weapons, now he's smooching the mullahs and looking for, as Clarence Boddicker might phrase it, "
state of the art bang bang".
H/t to the Little Green Footballs.
Posted by: seedubya at
11:38 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.
1
When the hell are we gonna shoot this son of a bitch!
Posted by: Macker at May 23, 2005 12:08 AM (R4i3L)
2
Yeah right, Spaniards are just making this up so they can reconquer some of their old colonies. Why the heck do they think that "
they might have WMDs, we are just doing the world a favor"-excuse works after Iraq?
What bothers me more, is that none of the countries asking us for nuke technology get attention. We got thousands of old Soviet warheads (Yes, we only have them because we are supposed to be
disarming them, but it takes time, at least to the end of time/US world dictatorship) and everyone seems to think we would never sell them to countries asking for them. So unfair, why should we be any more trustworthy than Iran...
Posted by: A Finn at May 23, 2005 03:58 AM (cWMi4)
3
maybe we should park a nice 40 megaton warhead in youre garage, huh AFinn???..glow in the dark is mighty hip these days with you yung-ems
Posted by: THANOS35 at May 23, 2005 09:13 PM (vDoO2)
4
I think I heard the turrets swinging Southward from our Nuke sites. Bring it on, Hugo.
Posted by: opine6 at May 23, 2005 09:56 PM (YyWmH)
5
Thanos: Go right ahead, I was born a few months after Tsernobyl, I'm probably immune to radiation.
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 12:29 AM (lGolT)
6
When are the latinos going to understand that their only chance of creating a balanced and efficient society is to team all Middle- and South-American countries up into one country... Che Guevara had that idea in mind, you and the Brits stopped it back then, maybe now they can do it.
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 12:53 AM (lGolT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tiger in Your Tank, Stool Pigeon Under Your Hood
Dave at
Garfield Ridge, the man who puts the "Air" in "Air Power",
announces that Oregon, ("The Bozo State"), wants to put a GPS chip in every car to track your mileage, so you can pay a mileage tax. He links to
Partisan Pundit, with much, much more, e.g.: "The state of Oregon is finding ways to anally penetrate its motorists for more cash..."
If there was ever a measure capable of causing a rebellion all across the political spectrum, this is it.
Patterico reported a while back on a similar plan under deliberation here in California. The LA Times article he linked to (now offline) also said that the Federal Gummint is considering implementing a nationwide program to do the same thing, and that research is ongoing at the DOT.
(It's already the law in New Zealand, according to a friend of mine who owns a farm there. He has to write down his mileage and pay an extra tax because he owns a gas-guzzling, forest-leveling V-6 Toyota truck. No chips for them, just a mileage log.)
This is stupid on at least two enormous levels, and probably some smaller ones I haven't considered yet. But to start, see the extended entry:
more...
Posted by: seedubya at
05:13 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 503 words, total size 3 kb.
1
It certainly is an unnecessary intrusion into an individual's privacy. An easy way to maintain the privacy while instituting the tax would simply have an individual record the mileage between registration/annual inspections (depending on the state, period of taxation), and simply pay tax based on the mileage used.
However, as you note, the purpose of the new tax would be to tax those individuals who have already chosen to seek out more efficient cars for their driving. There shouldn't be a need to offset the taxes lost because the state benefits in other intangible ways. Oh wait, intangibles aren't revenues that can add to a state's bloated budgeting.
We already see a distortion in taxes because of federal and state tax incentives for high efficiency cars. This move would put the brakes on new cars that meet efficiency goals for those programs.
In other words, a new mess.
Posted by: lawhawk at May 22, 2005 05:55 PM (gySx5)
2
loserweek descrates American flag take picture of flag in trash can says Amerika is dead
http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/05/newsweek-america-is-dead.html
Posted by: Zebrab5 at May 22, 2005 06:03 PM (DoxEP)
3
Lahawk--one of the reasons the mileage log works in NZ but not in the USA is that you can't tax somoene for driving in another state. If I leave California and head over into Nevada for a thousand miles of tooling around, I shouldn't have to pay California for that. I'm not using their roads.
Hence, goes the specious argument, the need for the GPS to determine where people are racking up the miles.
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 22, 2005 06:04 PM (JLuap)
4
Please put a GPS chip in my car so you can charge me a mileage tax. You know how easy it is to scramble a GPS signal?
Posted by: Chris Short at May 22, 2005 08:44 PM (nVdWB)
5
I was thinking free health care would be the trigger for the American Revolution, part II, but yes, this makes more sense. Without mass personal transportation our economy would die and I think that's just what the leftards want. Only think is, we needn't really worry, since the leftards have been wrong about everything so far, and they screw up everything they do. They are like Bond Villains, bent on world domination and employing every dirty trick in the book, until Bond, James Bond, 007, licensed to kill, kicks their butt and shags the babe, and has a shaken Martini while he's at it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 23, 2005 12:09 AM (0yYS2)
6
And besides screwing the hybrid owners who are not paying "their fair share" of the gas tax by getting better milege, it hurts the poor working schlubs that have to live 1-2 hours commute time away from their work because the CA real estate market is completely insane.
Posted by: Darleen at May 23, 2005 12:33 AM (FgfaV)
7
By allowing the government to track our every movement we are losing our right to live a life free of over zealous government intrusion.
Couple this to a National ID to be used in a cashless economy and the government not only knows where we are every second of the day, but everyting we purchase too.
Too much big brother.
Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 09:42 AM (/+dAV)
8
Darlene! You don't understand! You're not supposed to live two hours from your job. You fail to understand that you are wrong, wrong, wrong for wanting a HOUSE, with a YARD, that your KIDS might actually want to play in without being accosted by drug dealers and vagrants. The Leftoids have decreed that you will live in a 700 square foot cracker box next to a train station, in a "transit village". Don't you just love California?
Posted by: Scott in CA at May 23, 2005 09:59 AM (weiWF)
9
All that's will be left is to start the Oregon chapter of the Junior Anit Sex League. Anyone up for a new GPS video phone/television with new IP phone 911 technology bolted to your floor at no extra charge?? Bonus implantable cell phone with the same cool features Free after rebate if you act now.
Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2005 10:01 AM (D3+20)
10
Damn greg, stop it. That's twice I've had to agree with you.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 23, 2005 10:17 AM (0yYS2)
11
Actually, I am in Oregon. I guess that makes me a bozo, but at least I'm not
3 months behind blogging this.
I think it's a great idea in concept, but the application leaves something to be desired. The converstaion I had in the comments on my blog did give me reason to be less supportive of this than I was initially.
With regards to privacy issues with the GPS, I see the point, and wish there was a way around it. If there was, I'd be behind thisd 100%. Until then, it should remain just a theory.
With regards to the effect on the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles, you can't cry "Big Brother" about the mileage tracking and then come across as advocating the use of taxes to encourage people to buy fuel efficient cars. The fact is, you with the current gas tax, people who drive more efficient cars are receiving the same amount of service (the roads) as those with less efficient cars, but not paying as much. From my standpoint, that seems more intrusive than charging people for exactly what they get, no more, no less. Let market forces dictate how efficient the car you buy is, not tax rates.
Posted by: Brian B at May 23, 2005 10:24 AM (CouWh)
12
Forget the BS arguement as to the touchy-feely of the GPS issue! This is not different than a way for the government to track its citizen's and make sure they are being good comrades! I wish the big one would hit and just get that segment of the nation off our backs. If they are so mentally retarded as to not being able to weigh the the value of spending state money on the illegal immigrant population so that they get whats due to them from the state "because they have rights!", and state infrastructure for the legal population; I dont feel a bit sorry for them. As for the entertainment Cali causes us Texans, well I leave it at that. I would love to see (and pay money to get front line seets to watch) the first cop/city employee to pull over a 350 duely on a farm road and say "I am going to check your milage to see if you have driven too far".
Posted by: Salamander at May 23, 2005 10:44 AM (D4mP3)
13
Shiiiiiit. Good thing I walk/bike everywhere. Then again, if you do some research on how many video cams are on 24/7 in NYC, you'll see you can't go out without being monitored. Pretty soon this country will have as many bikes as China and only Hallibacon buddies will have cars to drive.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 23, 2005 10:51 AM (E2ydb)
14
Oyster,
I can understand your concerns, and honestly, that's the only reason I'm not 100% behind the idea.
But I also have a problem with people who will in one breath argue against htis idea because it's Big Brother being too intrusive, and then turn around and argue against it because it "doesn't provide enough incentive to buy fuel efficient cars". That's arguing against it because it's too intrusive but not intrusive enough. Pick one reason or the other, but if anyone tries to pick both, they're being intellectually inconsistent.
Let's set aside for a moment any discussion of the use of the GPS chips and privacy issues, and think for just a moment about roads and how to fund their construction and maintenance. While I prefer small government, there are some essential services that must be provided -- at local and state levels as well as federally. How should we do that? Don't tell me that gasoline taxes are the best answer. Let's take Salamander's Dually-driving farmer. You may be shocked to learn we have plenty of those here in Oregon. So how about you try this: Go up to him and tell him that because you drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle, you pay the government less for the same amount of driving distance on those public roads than he does. Think that'll make him happy?
The other problem here in Oregon is that we have one of the highest average MPG's per capita of any state in the Union, and it's rising. That means that the state is forecasting DECREASES in the amount of gas tax revenues expected in the next decade.
So if the Gas tax doesn't work, and this mileage tax doesn't (for whatever reason), I'm willing to entertain suggestions as to alternatives.
Posted by: Brian B at May 23, 2005 12:51 PM (CouWh)
15
Every state needs to follows Texas example and let the Government
meet as little as possible. Force them to have so much work built up
that when sessions opens, all they have time for is the necessary items, and no time for "ahh that is a great idea" times. I just wish
we could cut the Texas sessions from 1 every 2 years to 1 every 4.
Posted by: Butch at May 23, 2005 12:55 PM (Gqhi9)
16
I suggest checkpoints every 20 miles or so. Ding everyone for 20 miles even if they are only going 5. Then you could also ask about what business they are attending too. Where they have been and where they are going. Also fine people for avoiding said checkpoints. Just think of the revenue. Too bad it will be all used up hiring relatives of politicians to man the checkpoints. Prison guards will line up by the dozen.
Sarcasm off:
Seriously how is the gas tax flawed?? Fuel efficient cars normally weigh less. Wear on the roads is a function of weight as well as miles traveled. It would be interesting to see how trucking companies are resonding to said idea as they pay most of the taxes as they stand now. 44,000 lbs vs 2000lbs. Not that I think they should pay more than they do now but is this some kind of hidden break to them at the expense of oridanry drivers.
Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2005 02:00 PM (D3+20)
17
It might also be more interesting if I learned to type.
Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2005 02:03 PM (D3+20)
18
Seriously how is the gas tax flawed??
Gas Tax revenues are going down in Oregon as MPG ratings on the average car in the state go up. They're predicting that within a short period of time, the state will spend more on roads than it takes in in gas taxes. I am aware that this may be incorrect, but assuming for a moment that this prediction comes true, that will mean a new source of revenue will be necessary. So when that time comes, how should they raise those rtevenues? Higher gas taxes? A sales tax? Higher property taxes? higher Income taxes? It's gonna have to come from somewhere. I'm no fan of tax-and-spend, but some things are necessities. Sarcasm is all clever and amusing, but I still haven't heard anyone have a better idea.
Wear on the roads is a function of weight as well as miles traveled.
I'd be interested to see just what the ration is -- for every X pounds lighter that a vehicle is, the number of addittional miles it can travel before it causes the same amount of wear on the roads.
Posted by: Brian B at May 23, 2005 03:05 PM (CouWh)
19
Brian, I can't speak for Oregon to well, but as a Californian facing the same prospect---maybe the government should shrink.
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 23, 2005 03:55 PM (OKZme)
20
"Gee, if this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I am the dictator." -- G W Bush
Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 04:20 PM (/+dAV)
21
If I leave California and head over into Nevada for a thousand miles of tooling around, I shouldn't have to pay California for that. I'm not using their roads.
Hence, goes the specious argument, the need for the GPS to determine where people are racking up the miles.
I've also seen talk here in CA about charging extra taxes for driving in extra congested areas. No references; sorry.
But if the GPS unit is smart enough to do things like know you're in CA or know if you're driving in extra congested areas, it's also smart enough to be able to track things like speed limits on the major interstates and automatically issue speeding tickets. This could be a larger revenue source for the state than a mileage tax and once the GPS units are mandated the infrastructure is in place to do it.
Posted by: Anachronda at May 23, 2005 04:40 PM (IrbU4)
22
See-Dubya,
That's a good point, and obviously trimmer government is always desireable. But no matter how tight the belt, there has to be SOME income in order to fund roads. I'm just waiting for someone who opposes this particular idea to propose a method of raising the funds that's not equally or more arbitrary.
Posted by: Brian B at May 23, 2005 05:03 PM (CouWh)
23
There
are a few idiots in the Willamette valley who would attempt to pass something like this, but note that Oregon is one of the few states left without a sales tax. A number of years ago a popular mayor of Salem, OR attempted to pass and ordinance that would have taxed people for their roof area, dubbed by opponents a "rain tax" because the excuse was that the runoff from the roof created a proportionate burden on water treatment.
A rain tax? In Oregon? The tax was roundly defeated, and that politician never was able to run for another office in the state.
I have my doubts that they'll actually pass this tax. For more likely it's some sort of legislative ploy to dramatize the need for tax revenue in a state that regularly defeats levies. After all, we're talking here about a state that invented the bumber sticker: "Don't Californicate Oregon."
Posted by: Demosophist at May 24, 2005 05:18 AM (d0CtA)
24
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. “
– James Madison
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 08:44 AM (/+dAV)
25
Demosophist's comments make more sense and reveal a better understanding of my home state than anyone else I've read on this topic. I'd still like to hear better suggestions for how we should pay for roads here.
Posted by: Brian B at May 24, 2005 12:14 PM (CouWh)
Posted by: W.C. Varones at June 05, 2005 04:12 PM (1Yf68)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Which Numbers Matter? The NCTC Report Revisited, Recoded and Reanalyzed
By Demosophist
At Rusty's suggestion I'm moving this reanalysis of the Terrorism Chronology back to the start, for another run through the gauntlet. What I'd like to make clear is that I disagree that there's any implication in the numbers that we're losing, or losing ground, in the fight against Totalitarianism 3.x. In fact, we're confounding them at every turn, which is one reason they're becoming more vicious. In addition, they're raising the number of attacks in certain places, such as Kashmir, at the expense of "quality." Anyway, here's the original post, from last week:
Marc Danziger (by way of reader T.M. Lutas) recently emailed an Excel file containing the narratives from the report released by the National Counterterrorism Center entitled A Chronology of Significant International Terrorism for 2004, describing the 651 terrorist attacks it identified. (Although there has been a debate with Larry Johnson over the significance of these numbers I've no argument with the idea that we ought to be concerned. After all, I'm concerned or I wouldn't be posting this re-analysis. However, I object to the notion that these numbers are some sort of signal that we're not winning the war.) At any rate, I've been mulling over these data since Marc dropped them to me about two weeks ago, doing a lot of what data geeks do with this sort of delicacy, and thought I'd post a little of what I've found.
First of all, Marc's post on Winds of Change describes his preliminary findings, according to which it's clear that two countries, India and Iraq, account for over 3/4ths of the terrorist attacks that took place in 2004. (If all attacks listed in the report are included these two countries account for 76.2%). After looking more carefully at the narratives in the glossy report the first thing that one finds is that there are about 70 events on the list of terrorist attacks that may not belong. That's because the target of those attacks was clearly military, rather than civilian. These amount to about 11% of the total number of attacks listed, and more than 80% of these (57 of 70) occurred in Kashmir.
Now, it's true that the folks who did these dirty deeds probably were not very concerned about "collateral damage" to civilians, so I don't have reservations about including them, provided some civilians were either wounded or killed, but in 36 of the 70 cases where the objective was clearly military there were no civilian casualties at all. I'm not sure why these events even appear in a terrorist attack database, but their inclusion tends to put more emphasis on terrorist activity in the troubled Indian state than might otherwise be the case. This is not so much because the events were included for Kashmir, but more because similar events were not generally included elsewhere. But whatever the justification, as one deletes some of these questionable "terrorist" attacks from consideration the percentage of attacks in Iraq rises from roughly 31% to 34% while those in India/Kashmir fall from about 45% down to 41%. So, while the proportion of "terrorist" attacks rises for Iraq and falls for India after you do a bit of circumspective culling, those two nations still account for approximately 3/4ths of all terrorist attacks in the world. That fact doesn't change. And in sheer frequency of attacks, India/Kashmir is still more active than Iraq, or anywhere else. But that's not the whole story, by a long shot.
more...
Posted by: Demosophist at
01:22 PM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
Post contains 3381 words, total size 43 kb.
1
Is someone only a terrorist if they only attack civilians?
Posted by: actus at May 17, 2005 07:22 PM (f18+F)
2
Is someone only a terrorist if they only attack civilians?
No Al Qaeda attacks both, and they're certainly terrorists. However, terrorists aren't always engaged in terrorism. The definition of a terrorist event or attack is an attack on non-combatants or civilians. The gray area is probably how you'd class an attempted assassination of a President or head of state, who is both the Commander-in-Chief and a civil authority. But targeting police, firemen, judges, etc. is generally considered a terrorist act. Most people also consider the attack on the Pentagon a terrorist act, primarily, I think, because it used a civilian transport as the weapon.
There's also the matter of perfidy, and that can get fairly dicey. What do you call someone who raises a white flag of surrender in order to throw a grenade at those who accept the surrender? According to the Geneva Accords that's a war crime, but I'm not sure it'd be classed as terrorism. Probably not.
Posted by: Demosophist at May 17, 2005 10:33 PM (d0CtA)
3
"The definition of a terrorist event or attack is an attack on non-combatants or civilians."
So in iraq our soldiers are not being attacked by terrorists? ok.
Posted by: actus at May 18, 2005 09:54 AM (Ygl+x)
4
This exchange points up the fact that there is no universally agreed definition of terrorism. Some definitions (including the one the US Department of State uses, last I knew) explicitly absolve the actions of sovereign states while others assert that insurgents are, by definition, not terrorists (that's how Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Syria, etc., justify attacks on Israeli civilians).
I'd argue for a definition that terrorism is violence threatened or conducted against non-combatants (Geneva Conventions defines this term, as well as principles of proportionality that allow for the reality that some collateral damage will often occur even in the best-planned attack against a legitimate target) for the purpose of influencing political decisions. States don't get a pass, nor do insurgents--if the attack is primarily against non-combatants, or conducted in a manner that ignores the responsibility of combatants to not harm noncombatants, it's terrorism.
Posted by: Jem at May 18, 2005 09:56 AM (vT9Oz)
5
actus:
So in iraq our soldiers are not being attacked by terrorists? ok.
No, if you read what I said it differentiates between terrorists and terrorist acts. Obviously a terrorist can commit acts that aren't terrorism. They drink tea, for instance. Are they not terrorists because they drink tea? Did you read what I said? Our soldiers are very definitely being attacked by terrorists, even though the attack itself on the military may not be a terrorist act. Can you suss that out, or do you need a Venn diagram or something?
Jem:
I'd agree with that definition, but there probably is a distinction between a state that commits acts of terror against its own citizens, such a N. Korea or Myanmar (or against Winston Smith in
1984), and one that uses acts of terror against the citizens of other states during a war. One is clearly a means of social control employed by a group that's already in power and attempting to consolidate or expand that power, while the other is a combat strategy designed to demoralize and defeat an "external" enemy. It's also true that totalitarian "insurgencies" practice terror against their own partisans, so in that sense they resemble a terror state.
Posted by: Demosophist at May 18, 2005 02:07 PM (d0CtA)
6
I do agree with the definition also. Those Iraqis attacking
our troups inside Iraq, would not necessarily be considered terrorist. But when they start targeting civilian contractors
and other Iraqis, they are. A person has the right to defend
his country against an invading military force. Even if he is
not in the military. (Red Dawn, yahoo). But this should stop once the (invaded) civilian authority has surrender.
Posted by: Butch at May 18, 2005 04:36 PM (Gqhi9)
7
Butch:
A person has the right to defend
his country against an invading military force. Even if he is
not in the military. (Red Dawn, yahoo). But this should stop once the (invaded) civilian authority has surrender.
I think you're trying too hard for a universal standard. One doesn't have an obligation to acquiesce simply because the national authority has surrendered, though it does make resistance far more costly. Were the inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto obligated to surrender, because the Polish authorities had? The Baathists and the Iraqi jihadists aren't evil because they resist. They're evil because their ideology is evil, and because their acts are demonstrably evil, and because they aren't seeking liberation from oppression, but the license to oppress.
Posted by: Demosophist at May 18, 2005 05:49 PM (d0CtA)
8
I guess what my point is, that after a certain point, resistance
will eventually become just criminal. There was a Japanesee guy on Guam who evaded capture until last 50's. (Some on other Islands even
later than this one.) I can see him resisting in the 40's and maybe
early 50's. But by late 50, if he still attack US personnel then
he would be just a criminal. Once the gig is up, you need to
quit. Now I do think you are not mistaken about the majority of
"resistance" fighters in Iraq. I agree most are resisting just to
oppress the fellow countrymen.
Posted by: Butch at May 20, 2005 03:33 PM (Gqhi9)
9
Nuke 'em. Saves you time and scares the crap out of every other similar country/organization. Also gives other countries a reason to block you out of the world, therefore creating a brand new propaganda bubble, in which you would live happily until your country goes bust and sells pieces of itself to Canada and original colony ownerlands.
Just tell the Iraqis to screw themselves and switch to hydro and ethanol power
Posted by: A Finn at May 22, 2005 01:56 PM (lGolT)
10
Are we talking terrorist attacks or "terrorist" attacks here? It's important in that the Reuters News Agency has not been able to find one example of a single terrorist attack in recents years. So one might say that Bush has nearly suceeded in ridding the world of terrorism. "Terrorism" however, is perhaps a different story.
Has the MSM done an environmental impact study on the use of the scare quotes? The extra """"s that are now being used may not be much individually, but in a yearly aggregate total may exceed a ton of toxic ink poisoning our land fills. I shudder at the thought that baby Harp seals could be choking on these unncessessary billions of """"s that now cludder our planet.
Posted by: Charles at May 22, 2005 04:45 PM (wQbc6)
11
It doesn't matter how you define someone, if they are killing innocent people, or our troops, then they must be killed. I don't care what someone's motives are either, violence must be met with catastrophic violence, so that all know what they will get if they mess with us. If Klinton had the balls to deal with Al Qaeda ten years ago, 9/11 never would have happened. Appeasement is for cowards.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 22, 2005 05:25 PM (0yYS2)
12
I felt somewhat pleased to see the events of 9/11. It was nice to see the selfrighteous worldpolice get some punishment on its own continent. Temporarily raised bin Laden to the status of great person. But now I'm wishing it never happened, just because of the goddamn
media fuss and "
war on terrorism".
Posted by: A Finn at May 23, 2005 02:31 AM (cWMi4)
13
A Finn
That comment makes me want to punch you in the head. I hope I never meet you.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 09:29 AM (jPCiN)
14
Defense Guy beats his children.
Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 10:38 AM (/+dAV)
15
greg agrees with A Finn that 9/11 was pleasing. He is also a filthy liar and probably never even attended college, let alone made it out of high school.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 10:44 AM (jPCiN)
16
... and he has not yet stopped beating his wife.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 10:45 AM (jPCiN)
17
Defense Guy,
I have a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology, dumb shit.
My dissertation was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA.
I run a major research laboratory.
I hold two patents for a molecular technique that I invented.
You're just a corporate bitch, so shut the fuck up.
Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 12:14 PM (/+dAV)
18
greg
You are a filthy liar. No one with those sorts of credentials would buy into the lies that you do everyday. Perhaps you should ask for the money you spent on your education back.
You don't know shit about me, nor will you, ever.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 12:18 PM (jPCiN)
19
...and you should really stop beating your wife.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 12:18 PM (jPCiN)
20
Defense Guy,
You're a loser. ItÂ’s evident that youÂ’re under 40 years of age. The Army Reserves excepts people up to the age of 40. If youÂ’re so Gung Ho about this war why donÂ’t you join up?
Answer: Because youÂ’re a ChickenHawk and you beat your wife and kids.
Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 12:27 PM (/+dAV)
21
I have a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology, dumb shit.
My dissertation was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA.
I run a major research laboratory.
I hold two patents for a molecular technique that I invented.
You're just a corporate bitch, so shut the fuck up.
Sounds vaguely like "I have a degree! In Science!" (Updated version.) I didn't know Superman Comics granted Ph.D.s in their classified section.
An actual, real, bonafide scientist would know how utterly pathetic it is to claim to be something he's not willing to prove he is. Let's have the citation. It's the only thing that'll stop the laughter.
By the way, would you send your children to live in a Ba'athist Arab state that harbors and funds terrorists? Or a Theocratic Persian state that does the same? Would you go yourself?
Let me guess. I'm probably becoming psychic because of all the spinach I'm eating lately. Er... some longwinded counter-accusation couched to avoid an actual answer. How'd I do?
Posted by: Demosophist at May 23, 2005 12:45 PM (d0CtA)
22
greg
Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy. It's clear that you have built an artificial reality for yourself, so I am not surprised that I would fit into it in the way you describe. Am I a ditry jew in your world, wife beater?
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 12:45 PM (jPCiN)
23
Internet resumes, the last refuge of the pimple-faced racist adolescents greg so epitomizes.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 23, 2005 02:03 PM (xauGB)
24
Robin, Defense Guy and Demo,
Prepare 5 milliliters of 3M potassium chloride and inject it intravenously. IÂ’m serious as a heart attack.
Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 02:12 PM (/+dAV)
25
thanks greg, but I'll pass. Perhaps your wife will take you up on it in order to escape your madness.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 23, 2005 03:13 PM (jPCiN)
26
Sure, greg. You claim to have a Ph.D. which matches the fact that your language skills and worldview match a high school dropout.
Here is Greg's choice of headgear to protect himself from the aliens who desire his bodily essences.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 23, 2005 03:16 PM (xauGB)
27
Robin, Defense Guy, Demo,
It occurs to me that you may not know how to make a 5 milliliter solution of 3M KCl. The molecular weight of KCl is 74.56 grams. So, weigh out 1.12 grams of KCl and bring up in a volume of 5 millilters.
Then shoot it!
All of your problems will be over.
Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 03:27 PM (/+dAV)
28
Robin desires my bodily essences.
But she can't have any.
Stick with your diesel powered vibrator Robin.
Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 03:29 PM (/+dAV)
29
Robin is a womans name? Never knew, doesn't feel like one, guess Batman and Robin were even more gaaaaaaaaaaaaaay than the assumption was before.
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 04:33 AM (cWMi4)
30
A Finn, the other and higher probability explanation is that greg is a flaming moron.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 25, 2005 01:12 PM (xauGB)
31
It is a name for a small bird though... Guess it's one of those names that can be used for both sexes with equal confusion. Or then greg is a flaming moron, either way is fine by me. You decide, I don't want to judge funny people.
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 02:23 PM (lGolT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More Hypocrisy From the Left.....Go Figure
Another glowing example of the blatant hypocrisy of the left concerning filibusters. We have pointed out the
complete reversal of conviction from the likes of Schumer, Levin, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein etc. over the past weeks. It appears we have
another inductee into the disingenuous Democrat hall of political shame.
WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, who publicly crusaded against Senate filibusters 12 years ago, now says he opposes banning filibusters against judicial nominees - the so-called "nuclear option'' fueling a bruising Capitol Hill showdown.
``I would vote against changing the filibuster rule right now,'' Frank (D-Newton) told the Herald in a telephone interview Thursday. Frank explained he still supports an ``across-the-board'' ban against all filibusters, but he opposes the Republican ``nuclear option'' because it only outlaws filibusters against judicial nominees.
In 1993, Frank led a public fight to end Senate filibusters, asserting in a Washington Post op-ed piece: ``I believe legislative bodies should scrupulously abide by two principles: complete openness and majority rule. The filibuster is a godsend to potential gridlockers.''
PUHLEEEAZE Barney.... sounds like Kerry, he's against it except when he's for it. Is it possible for these crapweasels to be consistent on anything.
Posted by Traderrob
Posted by: Traderrob at
11:18 AM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I've been saying since the election that the democrats strategy IS hypocrisy.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 22, 2005 12:12 PM (xkIHW)
2
Politics is hipocracy, and those who truly try to forward a cause usually end up creating a helluva big mess, like Hitler.
Posted by: A Finn at May 22, 2005 01:58 PM (lGolT)
3
Finn, you know enough about politics to be dangerous. Politics is the oldest game in the world; it's about appeal, appeasement, prestige, and power. Every person would like to be in charge on some level, but politicians just want it more. Some of them are genuinely committed to a cause, but most are opportunists who will do or say whatever it takes to get the job done. It's usually the idealists that cause the most trouble, and the opportunists who try to avoid rocking the boat.
The one rule of politics is that you play to win, and losers don't like the rules when they lose, but they do like them when they win, which is why the democrybabies are such assholes, they are losers and don't want to play by the rules.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 22, 2005 05:21 PM (0yYS2)
4
Well said Improbulus.
And Trader Rob, great use of the word "crapweasel". You just don't see it used enough.
Posted by: Buckley F. Williams at May 22, 2005 08:12 PM (O2fD/)
5
Good call on "crapweasel". Thanks for the mad props yo. I don't really talk like that. Damn hippies. But I digress...
I should have added that while opportunists don't rock the boat more than necessary, and idealists generally upset the apple cart, and I mix metophors like a tornado in a trailer park, this doesn't always birth a desirable outcome. Especially a tornado in a trailer park. Nobody likes those except stand-up comics, who would generally be flipping burgers for a living were it not for the opportunity to mock the misery of others in order to make the rest of us feel better about our miserable lives. But back to politics...
Bubba Clintoon was as big an opportunity whore as ever lived, only outdone by his old lady. Hitlery is definitely the biggest opportunity whore of all time, she makes Jackson and Sharpton looke like streetcorner hustlers. Oh, wait...
Anyway, back to my point: Idealists tend to cause trouble, but if they were elected, (twice even), is it the place of the voter to second guess their every decision? No. America is a representative republic, not a democracy. Just because we elect someone to office doesn't mean we get to abuse them for our pleasure. The president is the most powerful person in the world. Think about that. The most powerful person in the world. And no matter who is in office, half the country wants to see them dead because gas is over whatever price the media tells us is acceptable.
The American political scene has gotten worse, not better, but much worse, through greater public involvement in politics. Imagine if health care were run in such a manner. Do you want someone cutting into your chest cavity if they aren't allowed to work without checking with the peanut gallery every five minutes? (Imagine Hillarycare for a moment. Your doctor graduated low in his/her class, but they round out the diversity requirement nicely, so they get a job and a more qualified Evil White Male Oppressor gets a letter of rejection. Welcome to Hell.)
America is the greatest nation in the history of the world, and some people just can't deal with that. Being an American puts a lot of pressure on a person, and some people just aren't strong enough to make it here, so they cry and complain about this and that, and generally act like little punks, while the rest of us pick up the slack. That's okay, because for a while longer at least, America is still the greatest hope for opportunity in the world. We no longer get the tired and weak, strictly speaking, we get the smart, quick, and ambitious, because in America, they can get an education, a job, a house, a car, and something that no other country on earth can offer. Liberty.
Let's not screw this up, everybody get on board, because America is worth saving. And as for the liberals out there; stop being such a bunch of little bitches.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 23, 2005 12:32 AM (0yYS2)
6
Perhaps you should broaden the boat northwards, so it would be harder to rock over. Canada isn't really a ship anyway, it's just a big rowboat from the British war brig that got a bit too far out to sea, and no-one bothered getting it back.
Posted by: A Finn at May 23, 2005 02:47 AM (cWMi4)
7
"PUHLEEEAZE Barney.... sounds like Kerry, he's against it except when he's for it."
most of the people in the filibuster discussion have distinguished between abolishing all filibusters and just this special one.
Posted by: actus at May 23, 2005 07:34 AM (QPrcU)
8
Actus: Your joking right?
Posted by: traderrob at May 23, 2005 07:55 AM (3al54)
9
no, the discussion usually gets to what happens after the GOP pulls the nuclear option. The discussion gets to whether all filibusters, legislative or appointments, are over. This is a distinction that people who have been paying attention make.
Posted by: actus at May 23, 2005 09:58 AM (Ygl+x)
10
The only thing Barney the purple homosaur really cares about is caressing the buttocks of hot guys.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 23, 2005 10:19 AM (0yYS2)
11
Phallus Minimus,
They say homophobes are usually just closet gays...it's ok. Your secret is safe with us. MUHAHAHAHAH!!
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 23, 2005 10:57 AM (E2ydb)
12
Because IM comments on Barney's fondness for fondling buttocks , he's a homophobe. Hmmm, , you constantly bash conservative thought, guess that's means you are a closet rightee. Great, welcome to the club.
Posted by: traderrob at May 23, 2005 12:30 PM (3al54)
13
IM,
If you conservatives would stop trying to enslave everyone with your "moral" beliefs, maybe we Liberals would stop bitching. But "NO" the rights want to ensure everyone believes as they
do so they try to pass laws to enforce that belief. That is why we
need liberal judges to keep an even playing field.
Posted by: Butch at May 23, 2005 03:56 PM (Gqhi9)
14
But wait, if I'm a closet "rightee"...and have been labeled a bitching, moonbat, tin-foil hat wearing lib...what does that say about you, TR? Does that mean you're going to fondle my buttocks with honey till my ass cheeks glisten like glazed ham in the early summer sun?
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 23, 2005 04:54 PM (E2ydb)
15
In other words, Butch, you don't like Democracy.
We already guessed.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 24, 2005 10:09 AM (xauGB)
16
Well Ms Roberts, I believe in democracy to a point. I believe in
the right of the Majority to make policies as long as those policies
are need and they harm the minority in the lease offensive way. Just
because a group has a majority does not mean it should pass everything
it wants to, and the minority be dam. That is why we have checks and balances in the Constitution.
The real question though is why does the Republican Conservatives
(aka the Moral Majority) wants to force their belief system on
everyone else in the country. The Liberals are about choice. You
can choose or not choose to have an abortion, marry someone of your
same sex. They are not forcing anyone to go against what they believe.
Now the same can not be said about the Conservatives. The are refusing
couples to wed, the want to outlaw abortions. Where is the democracy in that. They want the rest of the world to act and think like they do. So which system is truly about choice?
Posted by: Butch at May 24, 2005 12:16 PM (Gqhi9)
17
That's pretty incoherent Butch. All democracy is the majority "forcing their belief system on everyone else". That's what it means.
Liberals are not about choice. If they were, they would not have to resort to the court system to force
their policies on the country. The country would democratically
choose those policies.
But evidently you can't figure that out. Our Constitution does have "checks and balances". One of them is that the President has the power to appoint people, not the Senate. The Senate does not have a Constitutional power to choose nominations. The Senate's role is "advise and consent".
The filibuster means that a minority gets to "force" its belief system on the country.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 24, 2005 02:46 PM (xauGB)
18
Robin, you are wrong. Democracy is not forcing a belief system on anyone. Democracy is allowing every citizen a voice in the government. Once again I say just because the Majority can pass a law does not necessary mean they should pass a law.
How can you say the Liberals is not choice. I believe one of the main issues of the Liberals is called “PRO CHOICE”. As for the people making these polices, don’t be so naive. We all really know we don’t live in a democracy but an Dollarocracy. (Yes I am taking some literary licenses here.) It is the all mighty dollar that makes the laws here.
I know all about our Constitution, and I know that the President can appoint, but it is the Senates right and duty to approve those appointments. Can you figure that out. It is not the SenateÂ’s duty to advise, but to approve the appoints made by the President. Filibuster does not give the right of the minority to pass any laws, just the right to prevent them.
I would go on, but it is quitting time. Cya tomorrow.
Posted by: Butch at May 24, 2005 05:06 PM (Gqhi9)
19
Butch, so you have completely redefined "democracy". How cute. What other words were you put in charge of redefining?
Posted by: SPQR at May 24, 2005 07:31 PM (orpsc)
20
"America is the greatest nation in the history of the world,..." Improbulus
Hell no. America isn't even a nation, it's 3 continents. US is not the greatest nation either, Rome, Imperial China, Mongolian Empire, British Empire and Soviet Union were way greater, and Canada and EU are way better places in a milliongazillionsentillion ways, the most important ones of them being:
+ no wars
+ efficient social security
+ not bankcrupt like yours
+ way better people (excluding England, they're pretty much the same as you)
+ much less crime problems (excluding Romania, but it isn't even a EU-member yet)
+ races have way less grudge towards each other (excluding Cyprus)
+ all power is not consentrated to one jackass leprechaun
+ copyright not yet an important thing (excluding Finland, thanks a lot, Teosto...)
Oh well, then why is US better:
- wars
- much easier to make a living in dishonest noncriminal ways, like stock market or law sues
- the possibility to just disappear in the mass and live completely anonymous and forgotten
- hating Arabs is commonly approved, so you can be a rasist if you want to
- guns, lots of heavy artillery and bombs for sale with pretty much no need to prove you're worthy as long as you're not an Arab
- 2-party system, no need to be politically active since they're pretty much the same
- lots of cartoons on TV (very important)
- fast internet connections are cheaper (well, at least cheaper than in Finland)
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 04:57 AM (cWMi4)
21
"Ainoa lääke demokratiaa vastaan on armeija", the only cure for democracy is an army, said a wise man, or then it was Hitler.
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 05:03 AM (cWMi4)
22
SPQR,
What would you know about Democracy with your imperalistic ways. But just to spell it out for you, Merriam-Webster defines
Democracy as a government by the people. I believe my definition,
"Democracy is allowing every citizen a voice in the government" is pretty dam close. Now if you want to talk about the definition of my application of democracy, thats a different story. When I say that
all though the Majority can pass a law does not make it right to pass a law, all we have to do is look at Germany. The majority of Germans
wanted Jews gone, and they were gone. Right or Wrong? But if you are
talking about my new word of Dollarocracy, is this not the true way that most laws get passed, here and else where. If it is not, then why was a law made requiring everyone to wear a seat belt, but no law requiring helmets for motor cyclist passed. (Insurance company lobby, y, and Motorcycle lobby, you think. ) If you truly do not believe that
money is what makes laws, then I have a great bridge, statue and prime real estate I want to sell to you.
Posted by: Butch at May 25, 2005 09:30 AM (Gqhi9)
23
Finn,
I will agree that the British, Roman, and Chinese Empires
were better then the US. The Soviet Union is nothing, it is not as old as the US nor did it last as long. Since its founding, US has done
nothing but grow, the Soviet Union lost territory. The Mongols are nothing more then a side note in history. As for the EU and Canada,
you are totally wrong and I will tell you why.
Wars - yes this is one of the reasons that the US is great. If not
for US, England, France and Russia would be speaking German. And this did not happen once, but twice. Also we saved S. Korea from starvation
that is going on in N. Korea now. I am not saying we did this out of
some moral obligation, but the fact is, we did save several countries
bacon more then once. Then after the war, what did we do. Did we impose very harsh terms on those we conquered. Terms so harsh that
they would eventually lead to a second war? I don't think so. Did the English, French, German, or Russia do this. Why I believe they did
demand war retributions from their conquered foes. And if it had not
been for those wars that the US helped fight, what would Europes economy be like now.
Efficient social security - maybe if the US was not giving hand outs to have the nations in the world, we probably could get a more
efficient social security.
Bankrupcy - see above answer.
Way better people - annnt wrong. The reason that the US people are
the greatest in the world is because we are the world. What do you have in Finland, Finnish. We have Fins, Swedes, Germans, Italians,
English, Vietmanese, Chinese, Dutch, (India) Indian, Egyptians, Russians, and so on. Almost every nation in this world is like
iron, good, but one element only. We are steel. It is this mixure of
culture that makes us great. So when you say the Fins are great, well
that means the US also. If you say Chinese are great, once again that is us.
Racism - well I admit we do need to work on that some. Especially when we have people like gay rooster. But I believe that one of the
reason we are so effected by it is because we have to live with it
daily. It is easy to claim not to be a racist if the only people you
interact with are other Fins. Or maybe all Fins and 1 or 2 Swedes.
Omnipotent Leprechaun - once again you are wrong. The Office of the
President does have a lot of power, it is not absolute. Especially if
you have a different Congress from the President. But even when they
are the same, like now, we still have the Judical branch to help keep
them from running wild. But I do agree that MR Bush is a jackass. I respect his office, I just don't respect Bush.
Copyright - (dont know what you are getting at here, no comment.)
Now some of the other reasons that you left out about why US is great.
aid - When ever there is a natural disaster anywhere, you can be sure the US will send some aid, usually a lot more than any other country. Not even counting disasters, we still send out billions in
aid to most every nation in the world. The US also takes on the lion share of most UN operations. How much aid did Finland send down for
the Tsunami relief?
Humanitarian - yes, we are lot more human than say China.
Freedoms - we are by far one of the freest countries in the world.
I have a co-worker who came from China during the time when Ross P was running as an independent. He was stunned that we actually made fun of our canidates on national tv. In China, you can only make
fun of the canidates once. Even if you were here Finn, you could of
may that assine statement about 9/11, because this is a Free society.
We allow each individual rise and fall on their own. We do not
keep women as slaves like the Taliban, and they had the right to vote
for about 100 years, where Kwuait, they just got it there.
So now I know the US is not the greatest country in History,
but it is one of the top five. Oh, where do you think Finland would rate on Great countries? Pretty far down I would imagine.
Posted by: Butch at May 25, 2005 10:18 AM (Gqhi9)
24
Dollarocracy indeed. Maybe eurocracy or dinerocracy else where. Maybe the last
'C':s should be
'Z':s. That's exactly the way the world is run in non-dictatorship countries.
I wish money had no important role and everything would go smoothly by trading products, like back in 195?-198?. Everything was great in Finland, every year the Soviets and we peacefully negotiated what ships, submarines, heavy machinery, 'information' and paper and wood products we would trade for their oil, wood, ores, food, electricity and new technology. Then factories spent the year making them, the Soviets spent their year producing their part of the deal, and everything always turned out great at the end of the year. Unemployment was 0%, people were happy despite worries about the world situation, and the economy was growing, because all resources were cheaper than to other countries, struggling in Cold War. Then came Gorbatshov, showed how bad things were and got kicked out by Jeltsin. There goes financial stability. We had to start trading more with the western, money-driven countries, so the business was only good with Sweden, most of the others, especially NATO-members, were doing crappy when US was doing crappy or in a war.
I hate money. It's completely useless as anything other than a power tool in politics. If money was still made of gold and silver it would be of some value, but these stupid coins and paperpieces are pointless. Eventhough they are supposed to match the countries wealth reserves, you can't trade your money for gold at the countrys central bank. (tried it once with a 500 markan seteli (100$ back then) for fun, offered to trade it for silver...)
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 10:20 AM (lGolT)
25
Aid: The best thing you can do to help someone is to tell them to help themselves. Only reason why our country could handle two front wars and grow in economy and population, while other countries were struggling to beat one mans armies (Napoleon, Hitler, Genghis and other Khans, Ivan the bloody, fought 'em all, didn't lose even once), was that there never was someone else to help us and we had to learn to deal with shit by ourselves. A country dependant on foreign aid can never be a strong nation. Besides, if you would've stayed out of Zaire with your hiv-positive-monkey poliopills later stolen and copied by Soviets, there would be no AIDS-epidemy in Africa and former Soviet Union countries.
There were somewhat 100 Finns lost in the big wave, so we sent loads of aid there and since there were over 3000 Swedes lost there, we sent more help to help them. Not just an US operation, your media is too clearly pulling your way. We sent 3 times more per capita.(assuming that means something like 'if counted {money + worth of aid}/total population')
Humanitarian and freedom: At the same level in Canada and EU, your freedom isn't anything special like it used to be back in 1800s or something, that's why I didn't put those in any list. Screw China, that's probably the most people-oppressing rich country in the world.
And Finland is always the best country in the world, the country of best health care, social care, most stable in economic situation, has the smallest child death percentage, best education and least crime. Also, we don't have media brainwash, terrorist attacks, religious fanatism, government driven religionism (in God you damn right trust), immigrant problems, pollution, huge amounts of gay people, races neatly divided in certain types of living areas, a heavily split society, energy problems, moronic leaders, number 1 rank in obiesity, people having surgery to match what they think others want them to look, ridiculous geeks spending their lives worshipping TV-shows or stupid games, pinkeye, genetically engineered food, or a mixbred mess composed of the lazy, poor, crazy, criminal, greedy bastards and slaves from other countries.
Too bad there won't be a Finland soon, EU is going towards one country darn fast and without a sudden disappearance of US (nukes and chemicals), Russia (easy even with just ground forces) and China (trade vacuum and money retraction) to remove all threats, there's nothing to stop it...
Most Finns came back between 1945 and 1975, but sure, guess there could be Finns in US as well. Not Finns, but probably Italian-Spanish-German-Indian-Nigerian-Korean-Finnish people or something.
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 11:09 AM (lGolT)
26
Also, I would not have minded a German Empire stretching across the world, since I'm of the pure Arian race Hitler so much fancied, and I would've been one of the kings on Earth. Also, Deutsch ist eine sehr, sehr besser Sprache wie Englisch, und ich hasse niemand so viel wie ich hasse die meisten Englisch-sprachige Menschen.
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 11:17 AM (lGolT)
27
Yup, anger management for me. Perhaps I should pick an opinion on things and blindly stick with it instead of modifying my responses and comments to annoy and enfuriate.
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 11:19 AM (lGolT)
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 11:35 AM (lGolT)
29
Oh well I guess "hiljaisuus on myöntymisen merkki", silence is the sign of consent.
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 01:49 AM (cWMi4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Posted by: Traderrob at
11:12 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 0 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 22, 2005 12:09 PM (JLuap)
2
Alright who wrote the blog in Lemon juice. I don't have any
way to heat up my monitor for the words to come out.
Posted by: Butch at May 24, 2005 12:26 PM (Gqhi9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Okrent's parting volley
And keeping with the theme of New York blog-vixens:
Karol of Alarming News alerts us to Daniel Okrent's
last ombudsman column for the New York Times. Okrent takes the opportunity to get a lot off his chest, including a slam at Paul Krugman (quoted at Karol's) and this gem:
"5. Reader Steven L. Carter of Bala Cynwyd, Pa., asks, If "Tucker Carlson is identified as a conservative" in The Times, then why is "Bill Moyers just, well, plain old Bill Moyers"? Good question."
You tell 'em, Steve. "Bala Cynwyd" is proud of you.
Okrent's job goes to a guy named Barney who just retired from the Wall Street Journal's news desk recently. That shouldn't necessarily get anyone's hopes up that he's somehow ideologically conservative; after all, the WSJ editorial page's liberal columnist Al Hunt was recruited from the news side of their operation. Anyway, ideology shouldn't really matter for this job, although I hope he will be receptive to conservative criticism of the Times' relentless cheerleading for libertinism, socialism, and cosmopolitan internationalism.
Don't know what to say about Okrent's legacy. I don't see where he forced any major reform at the paper, but there's not too much any single person could have done. One of the things he regrets, according to his final column, is admitting that "of course" the Times is a liberal paper. Well, I thought that was a welcome burst of candor, though Okrent rues handing ideological critics of the Times that particular club.
But you're supposed to tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. If people criticize the paper, at least it will be for being honest and liberal instead of being liberal and lying about it.
Posted by: seedubya at
04:08 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Criticize the New York Times? Why? They're always right.
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at May 22, 2005 08:53 AM (mrpxK)
2
Didn't you know that anyone to the left of Mao, Stalin, or Castro is considered "moderate?" Hence, just "Bill Moyers" Anyone to the right of Che or Pol Pot is considered a "conservative," "religious fundamentalist," or "right wing nut job."
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 22, 2005 09:35 AM (xkIHW)
3
Daniel Okrent, again, failed to do his homework. For some reason, he just assumed the conservative letter writer was correct and gave the stranger a voice in the Times. But the letter writer was not correct. Bill Moyers is identified as a liberal approximately as often as Tucker Carlson is identified as a conservative. Bob Somersby did the research in
today's Daily Howler -- go read.
And then ask yourself why the Times is so eager to shame-facedly pretend it is liberal.
Posted by: Jamie McCarthy at May 24, 2005 01:42 PM (uTi2J)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Blondes have more fun?
Blogger and DJ
Dawn Eden has parlayed a series of defeats--including getting canned from her job as a copy editor at the NY Post for her pro-life views--into some victories including, apparently, a columnist job at the NY Daily News. Her first "Our Gal in cyberspace" column is
here.
Plus, she apparently has a new beau she met through her blog. Career advancement, friends, romance--is there anything blogs can't do? (Whoa, I'm sounding like Hugh Hewitt.)
Posted by: seedubya at
03:14 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.
May 21, 2005
Oil for Food Rundown
The Oil-for-Blood mess is pretty complicated, and Saddam thrived on the ambiguities. Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard does the world a service by serving up a very readable
primer on the situation: how it got started, how it worked, and why it matters.
This isn't a partisan article. Which is good because Oil-of-Uday shouldn't be a partisan issue.
I will point this out just to exercise the moonbats who flutter by here now and then: if you honestly think there is some unsavory link persisting between Dick Cheney and Halliburton, how can you fail to be outraged at the much grander, and more brazen, corruption between Saddam and the UN--criminal activity that snatched relief from starving Iraqis, that supported terrorist groups, that bribed world leaders, and that subverted and made a mockery of the very international institutions you hold so dear?
Posted by: seedubya at
11:39 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.
Louisiana Church Sex Cult Arrests
(Ponchatoula, Louisiana) The FBI, the
Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's Office, the
Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office, and the
Ponchatoula Police Department are investigating
allegations of cult-like deviant practices, including sex with children and animals, by members of the Hosanna Church in Ponchatoula. Thus far, the following eight people have been arrested and charged.
Austin Bernard III, 36, was charged with allegedly forcing a girl under the age of 13 to perform a sex act and admitted to knowing about alleged sexual acts involving children, dogs and cats that occurred at Hosanna Church.
Nicole Bernard, 36, was charged with aggravated rape of a juvenile under the age of 13
Paul Fontenot, 21, was charged with aggravated rape of a juvenile under the age of 13.
Deputy Christopher Labat, 24, was charged on one count of aggravated rape, one count of crime against nature, and one count of malfeasance in office. Being a law officer, Labat was not put with the general prisoner population. He is, however, on suicide watch.
Louis Lamonica, 45, was charged with two counts of aggravated rape and one count of crime against nature after he confessed that he had sex with children and animals. The entire sex cult case broke wide open when Lamonica walked into the Sheriff's office and confessed. He is the former pastor of the Hosanna Church.
Robbin D. Lamonica, 45, was charged with one count of aggravated rape after a male victim told deputies that he had been having sex with Robbin Lamonica from the time he was 4 years of age until he was 13.
Lois Ann Mowbray, 54, was charged with obstruction of justice, failure to report a felony, and accessory after the fact to aggravated rape.
Allen R. Pierson, 46, was charged with one count of aggravated rape for allegedly engaging in sexual intercourse with a girl who was 9 or 10-years-old at the time. The victim is now 13.
The investigation continues and authorities believe there may be dozens of victims ranging in age from
infancy to adolescence. Computers were seized and the crime lab expects to find pictures of sex acts involving children and animals.
Notably, the laws of Louisiana consider sex with young children a capital crime punishable by death. If the evidence is sufficient, Scott Perrilloux, the 21st Judicial District Attorney, may seek the death penalty. Execution shouldn't be inconceivable. The enormity of the alleged crimes is bewildering.
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
06:59 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Hmm... guess these people never read Corninthians. They get what they deserve.
Posted by: Editor at May 21, 2005 09:19 PM (WUwLB)
2
Yeah, religion is so great, it's only we evil atheists that are ever supposed to do stuff like that. The sooner religion is abolished, the sooner humanity can continue evolving.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 21, 2005 09:26 PM (0yYS2)
3
Let's remember the McMartin case and keep our powder dry until the evidence comes in.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 21, 2005 10:32 PM (8e5bN)
4
What the big deal? It's merely an alternative lifestyle.
/moral relativist
Posted by: Carlos at May 21, 2005 10:56 PM (8e/V4)
5
Sick. What's their religion called?
Posted by: Oyster at May 22, 2005 12:07 AM (YudAC)
6
Of course. Because this sex cult is just like EVERY OTHER religion that there is. Didn't Jesus encourage sex with children, after all?
Posted by: Kazmin at May 22, 2005 10:22 AM (hp7es)
7
Well, even the Holy Spirit, the energybeing in charge of Gods work on Earth, is a pedofile. Mary was 16 when she had Jesus. (well fine, it could have been the over 60-year-old Joseph and they just said it was a virgin birth to avoid trouble) So get out of that sick thing you call religion and stop trusting in God.
Posted by: A Finn at May 23, 2005 04:09 AM (cWMi4)
8
Now we know why the squirrel went to a Mississippi church revival
instead of one in Louisiana.
Posted by: Butch at May 23, 2005 09:00 AM (Gqhi9)
9
I never thought I'd ever agree with Maximus, but damn: Religion is the reason! Once people stop talking to imaginary buddies in the sky and stop believing 2000 year old gossip and lies, we'll all be better off.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 23, 2005 11:01 AM (E2ydb)
10
It is not religion that is bad, but "Organized" religion. If Finn
wants to pray to Akka, or Osama to Allah, that is fine and dandy. Even if they do it while walking down the street, no biggie. It is
when power hungry people get to gether and try to control the masses
by telling them things will be better in the next life, so shut up
and do what I tell you and the next life will be heaven. Keep the
worshippers stupid, uneducated, and poor, and you can control them
better. (How do you do this, tell them birth control is evil, and
they should pop out as many babies as possible.) They way I see it,
the only one who is getting me into heaven, is myself and the Big Guy
upstairs (and F--K no I don't mean Bush). So since it is between
me and God, why should I listen to any one else.
Posted by: Butch at May 23, 2005 12:14 PM (Gqhi9)
11
It is definitely sad to see things like this happen, but it is definitely a sign that Jesus is coming back soon. I drove by the church last night for the first time. It looked like a regular church, except it had a Parish Homeland Security van & 3 police cars outside with caution tape all around. It was really sad to hear about a place that people go to for security & comfort doing these GOD AWEFUL things to children & animals. TO ALL OF YOU WHO HATE GOD & RELIGION: This does not represent all religions, & yeah I agree religion sucks, but God doesn't. It's not about religion its about having a close relationship with God that is your own relationship. Not being controlled by what everyone else thinks you should be or do, but by listening to God's voice & just using common sence. Responding to what Kazmin remarked, God would never tell anyone to have sex with children. He specifically said that adultery & fornication is a sin. It is a sin to have sex with someone you are not married to, & you can't marry a child. I am just asking all who read this not to allow this incident to make you run the other way, but to know that God is love & love is not this.
Posted by: Rachel at May 23, 2005 01:18 PM (vxFAx)
12
I think most of the posters here are missing the point and some very relative information. This was a not a Godly church. Members have admitted in their affidavits that they were worshipping satan. So, please, let us not lump good Christians, Jews, or Muslims in the same pile with satan worshipping pedophiles...that's very much like filling a bowl of apples, oranges, and bananas with huge smelly piles of crap!
Posted by: t at May 23, 2005 03:17 PM (frFd7)
13
Mr T.,
"Godly" churches have committed some of the same acts as this
one, (Catholic sex abuse scandal.) It is not the religion that
I dislike, but the Church. Like I said, having your own relationship
with God(s, Goddess, whatever) is okay, it should be between you
and him. The Church is made up of people and there for capable of errors.
Posted by: Butch at May 23, 2005 03:50 PM (Gqhi9)
14
Not true! God told me that sex with goats is gre-e-e-e-e-a-a-a-a-t!
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 23, 2005 04:58 PM (E2ydb)
15
Butch: There is no way I'm going to start worshipping a lesser god like Akka, the god of homemaking. If I were to return to the ancient ways, the natural choice would be to worship Ukko Perkele, the übergod. But evangelish Lutheran atheism is better, so I'll stick with that.
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 12:33 AM (lGolT)
16
Oh yeah, I'm officially still a friggin' Muslim for two or three days... The Finnish society of Muslims sent me the Quran and a praying carpet =), came in the post yesterday. Can anyone think of a good use for 'em?
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 12:44 AM (lGolT)
17
Finn, come on, I heard disciples of Akka make some mean cakes? Yum.
Posted by: Butch at May 24, 2005 08:09 AM (Gqhi9)
18
Uh... this "religion" seems anything but "organized." After all, wasn't it a great philosopher who warned of the chaos that would ensue from this sort of behavior?
Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria! - Dr. Venkman
For everyone wetting their pants over organized religion, I'd have to say that the disorganized sort poses the greater threat.
Posted by: Dan at May 24, 2005 04:23 PM (Zo04m)
19
The hiss of the serpeant, still strong after 2,000 years...
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 24, 2005 08:28 PM (oCXDK)
20
Hsssss... Bite me. This has nothing to do with me. Ukko Perkele crushed Yahweh with his mighty thunder axe a thousand years ago. I'm running Catholic Christianity now. The Crusades were my work. I was 10 of the Popes. Ukko Perkele has taken over the Orthodox and Protestant churches.
Posted by: The great serpeant at May 25, 2005 05:09 AM (cWMi4)
21
I thought that Louisiana Church was Catholic... you know, with all the child molesting. It was your damn business.
Posted by: Ukko Perkele at May 25, 2005 05:15 AM (cWMi4)
22
Ukko, vie roskat ulos!
Posted by: Akka at May 25, 2005 05:16 AM (cWMi4)
23
No viskaa vaan sinne Nyy Jorkkiin, ei niistä siellä kukaan piittaa.
Posted by: Ukko Perkele at May 25, 2005 05:17 AM (cWMi4)
24
Geraldo Rivera, thank you. Your satanic panic shows that you now so vigorously recant have now borne fruit.
It doesn't matter what religion these criminals follow, or if they are non-non believers. Violence, cruelty, murder and rape are not partial to gender, age or person.
Posted by: none at May 25, 2005 08:09 PM (HoSBk)
25
"As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”
—THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1796
Posted by: Billy Bobert at May 26, 2005 05:46 PM (/LWRw)
26
Well, if there is a hell, these sickos have seats reserved for them there.
Posted by: Someone at June 24, 2005 06:50 PM (267mb)
27
I knew Paul Fontenot in high school and he was a nice guy...
Posted by: Christopher Labat at July 01, 2005 01:35 PM (Kpep8)
28
I knew Paul Fontenot in high school and he was a nice guy...
Posted by: Christopher Labat at July 01, 2005 01:35 PM (Kpep8)
29
Religion is the not the problem...it's the people who choose to take it to extremes. the same is true on the opposite end of the spectrum
Posted by: Sic at July 01, 2005 03:25 PM (LBRJd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Post for Demosophist (and other D.C. area peeps)
My e-mail is mypetjawa-at-gmail-dot-com. I don't really read my yahoo account anymore since I get about a bajillion pieces of e-mail there every day. And I don't have access to my university e-mail right now since it's a pop server. Further, until last night I didn't really have internet access since my wifi card decided to melt my computer down the very first night I got to the hotel so I've only read The Jawa Report like twice in the past week.
Grumbling indeed......
Posted by: Rusty at
10:26 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Rusty:
I didn't send emails to the yahoo account. I don't even think I know the address there. And I've never received an email
from your gmail account, so had no way of knowing that address either. (Maybe you told me once, but I was probably drunk or high.)
Anyway, I backchanneled it with a couple of sweet subversives, so I know where the get-together will be held. No problem. It's been a very rough week, so sorry if I appeared to take it out on you.
Personally, I think Satan's trying to screw us up and phuque with our heads because he knows we're getting close to booting him and his sick boyfriend, Saddam and his sado-masocistic boy-toy, Abu Musab Zarqawi. But I haven't completely ruled out the possibility that space aliens are mixed up in this somehow. They're evil little gray bastards, with smelly penial glands.
Posted by: Demosophist at May 21, 2005 11:36 AM (d0CtA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 20, 2005
Oddblogging--Loquat bleg
So I picked about a gallon of loquats from a tree at church this evening. I don't know what to do with them. They're tasty on their own--kind of like apricots but citrusy--but we can't just eat a gallon of them. I can't just juice them because they have a large pit in the middle. Any recipes, ideas, etc. on what to do with loquats? ( I'm gonna juice a couple and mix it with some gin and crushed ice, and I'll let you know how that turns out.)
UPDATE--Gin and loquat--better without the loquat.
Posted by: seedubya at
10:52 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I dare you to try this:
Green Loquat Chutney
8 Green loquats
2 oz Mint leaves
2 sm Green chillies
1/2 ts White cumin seeds
Sea salt; to taste
Water; as needed
Wash and dry the loquats; then halve them and remove the seeds.
Place on a "sil" together with the mint, chillies, cumin and salt, and using the "batta" grind them coarsely (alternatively use the motar and pestle or an electric grinder).
Add enough water to obtain the desired consistency; then refrigerate for at least 30 minutes.
Serve as needed.
--------
God bless the Internet.
Posted by: ccwbass at May 21, 2005 02:12 AM (g/wM6)
2
Loquat jelly. Don't ask me how to make it, probably same way as Crab-apple jelly.
Guessing would involve slow simmered Loquats till falling of the stone, then strained through muslin. Keep residue fruit pulp in muslin and tie up so have little muslin bag full of cooked Loquat residue. Put strained liquid back in pot, put muslin package in pot (wanting pectin from fruit residue, but don't want the actual pulp to get in the strained liguid).
Simmer more and add whatever the weight of the fruit was in sugar (or thereabouts, maybe a bit less - accounting for stones weight). Keep it stirring and simmering until when you lift the wooden spoon out it coats the spoon sort of thickly and forms a skin.
Then jar it.
When you eat this recipe you will be able to think of the No War Republican who gave it to you. So let's hope it works, eh.
Posted by: Republican at May 21, 2005 06:42 AM (s25qR)
3
Take any Fruit Crisp recipe and substitute
Loquats for the fruit in question.
Prep time - 10 minutes
Cook time - 30 minutes
If you have any type of general purpose cookbook lying around, there'll be a recipe in there for a Blueberry or "summer fruit" crisp.
If they're not particularly sugary, sprinkle the loquats with a tablespoon of sugar before topping with the Crisp mixture.
------------------------------
As an alternate, you could get a jug of red table wine, some other fruit like cherries, and just make a batch of Loquat Sangria ... less stress, less work ... you casn smoke some good cigars and hang out on the deck until the flavors mix.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at May 21, 2005 09:05 AM (CcYIA)
4
Thanks to all of you--keep 'em coming! The crisp ought to be good, and we're finally getting some cool chutney weather.
Republican, I'm not going to stuff tied-up strained muslims full of fruit, even yummy loquats. That would be torture. And I'm not touching their package, you Lynddie England wannabe--
OH! Muslin. Never mind. Do I need to add sugar to that?
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 21, 2005 01:01 PM (sF5cK)
5
Just eat them plain. They grow like weeds where I am at.
Posted by: Andre at May 21, 2005 06:49 PM (mfvPa)
6
BS--the crisp turned out great! We found another recipe that said to add raisins, which we did, though dried cranberries might have worked too...
Plenty more of these suckers, so I think we'll try CCW's chutney soon.
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 22, 2005 04:23 PM (JLuap)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Pepsi and the Devil's Nougat
Ace is tired of the Pepsi challenge already. PepsiCo's ranting, anti-American CEO just didn't light his fuse the way it did for Hugh Hewitt or Powerline. And you know what? That's fine.
Ace had a brilliant entry a while back about the concept of keeping "Conservative-Kosher" and how he's kinda half-hearted about it. Part of the reason he drifted right into South-Park conservatism is the incredible number of stupid boycotts leftists frickin' HAVE TO DO OR YOU'RE AN IMPERIALIST PIG. Below the break, his example, plus a long rant of my own:
more...
Posted by: seedubya at
07:43 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 655 words, total size 4 kb.
1
"Part of the reason he drifted right into South-Park conservatism is the incredible number of stupid boycotts leftists frickin' HAVE TO DO OR YOU'RE AN IMPERIALIST PIG."
Has it ever occured to you, that part of the reason the "boycotts leftists frickin" (as you put) have drifted towards "OR YOU'RE AN IMPERIALIST PIG" (as you put) might be because of the incredible number of stupid patriots rightists fricken' "HAVE TO DO OR YOU'RE AN TERRORIST PIG" ?
Yes, "AN TERRORIST" pig. (Dear Leader W has really opened the door into bad grammar hell).
Posted by: Republican at May 21, 2005 06:59 AM (s25qR)
2
Leftists were whining about Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Nike, etc. LONG before anyone even thought of Freedom Fries.
Posted by: Kazmin at May 21, 2005 11:03 AM (hp7es)
3
Both sides have tried boycotts, but rarely with the venom of the Nestle boycott. I got some of their instant coffee for the (very liberal) church I went to five years ago and one of the church ladies gave me a tongue-lashing. And the table grapes boycott is ages old.
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 21, 2005 12:55 PM (sF5cK)
Posted by: Shy Guy at May 22, 2005 01:09 PM (n8X37)
5
I think there should be a tight nexus between the offending behavior and the product you are boycotting. Hence, don't boycott Idaho potatoes because Idaho voters passed some kind of anti-Gay rights measure. What is the connection? I also don't like the idea of boycotting products/organizations based on personal opinions of people associated with the corporation/organization. Hence don't boycott Dominos pizza just because the owner is pro-life. If Dominos was directing pizza delivery drivers to park their cars so as to obstruct the entrances to clinics, then you might have something.
Boycotting Pepsi sounds really stupid in both of these ways.
Besides, who voluntarily drinks Pepsi over Coca Cola?
Posted by: slickdpdx at May 22, 2005 04:12 PM (MjGRu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Female Afghan 'Veejay' Murdered
(Kabul, Afghanistan) After the fall of the Taliban, Shaima Rezayee, 24, immediately discarded her burkha and became a video journalist for Kabul's answer to MTV. In this capacity, she hosted an hour-long music and chat show airing videos of Western singers which outraged conservative Muslims. Two months ago, Rezayee was fired due to pressure from Islamic mullahs. This week, she was
murdered in her home by an unknown assailant. The killing is believed to be linked to her time as a veejay.
Obviously, living in a democracy doesn't automatically guarantee freedom of expression.
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
05:31 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You know what's even more sick? Her family is suspected in aiding and possibly even executing the murder.
Posted by: Editor at May 20, 2005 05:55 PM (adpJH)
2
Martha Quinn will avenge her death. May a stink not unlike a newborn's formula based feces diaper infest the killers tent.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 20, 2005 05:58 PM (4/Io9)
3
Women.Children.Old folks.How sad that human life is so cheap
to these monsters. Just business as usual for Muslims.No wait,
it must be George Bushs fault! No wait...........nevermind
M.W.
Posted by: MIGHTY WHITEY at May 20, 2005 06:48 PM (/RwqY)
4
Someone should get this story to Adam Curry.
Posted by: Eric J at May 20, 2005 07:38 PM (5PRM2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Call me ADMIRAL Rusty Shackleford
This week I:
Atended a speech delivered by the President. Very cool since I had no idea he was going to be the key note speaker.
Met two U.S. Senators, including John McCain. The other Senator was decent enough to chat with my students for awhile.
Hung out with my Congressman for about 30 minutes too long while he blathered on and on with every liberal DNC talking point while claiming to be a 'conservative' Democrat.
Sat in on a Senate committee meeting in which Trent Lott looked incredibly bored.
Watched as John Lewis reminded a group of high school students that he was with Dr. King at the March on Washington for the bajillionth time in his life.
Was in the room as Justice Kennedy read the decision from the bench that states could not ban the import of wine---Thomas and Breyer passed notes the whole time.
Had to sit through the Junior Senator from California blathering on and on about 'extremist Republican judges' from the gallery.
Was overheard on the Hill commenting, upon passing Norm Coleman in the halls, that his wife was hot.
Had two half-smokes, three all beef kosher hot dogs, and four Mt. Dews off street carts.
Told a lobbyist representing the rent-to-own furnishings industry that his business was immoral and predatory. I take it Congressional aids aren't so forward as he stormed off in a huff.
Saw the Nationals beat the Brewers. Several yuppified liberals moved because we were beeing a tad bit too obnoxious. Don't you just love liberals-- always fighting for the 'common man' but can't stand to be near any of them.
Witnessed the head of the Israeli Air Force lay a wreathe at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
Cried as I found my grandfather's name at the new WWII memorial.
Cried again at the Holocaust Museum.
And again reading the Second Innaguaral enshrined on the walls of the Lincoln memorial.
Noticed that the Human Rights Campaign building is right across the street from the YMCA. How prosaic.
Missed my family desperately.
This town is so shallow. This town is so deep. The history I love, the politics and the people I hate.
I'll see some of you tomorrow about 8 p.m. E-mail me for directions.
Posted by: Rusty at
05:16 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Editor at May 20, 2005 05:47 PM (adpJH)
2
Thomas and Breyer passing notes -- hmmm -- maybe they were playing "Hangman."
On a serious note, based on the chronicle of your visit, get out of Washington. You're becoming a basket case.
Posted by: Interested-Participant at May 20, 2005 05:47 PM (ywZa8)
3
Your site is inspiring. A conservative intelectual can be a rare find. Please keep up the good work.
Posted by: Kevin stumpf at May 20, 2005 07:58 PM (3ROBe)
4
On a serious note, based on the chronicle of your visit, get out of Washington. You're becoming a basket case.
In other words, you're fitting right in.
Nice post. Very PJ O'Rourke-esque.
Posted by: Brian B at May 20, 2005 10:06 PM (Rfqkp)
5
Rusty:
Whadya mean "email me for directions?" I've emailed four times.
Way to make a guy feel rejected. Have I got B.O.? (Like... you'd know, right?)
Mutter, mutter, mutter, etc.
Posted by: Demosophist at May 20, 2005 10:12 PM (d0CtA)
6
Sounds like one hell of a week.
The two best parts where when you told the lobbyist his industry is immoral, and when you found grandpa's name on the memorial.
Posted by: Carlos at May 21, 2005 11:41 AM (UWO6N)
7
Admiral Rusty Shackelford- your list of activities is... well... noble but lacking.
Go see Star Wars III now. Wherever you are- whatever you are doing. Stop it and go see this movie. It changes everything.
Try and watch any of the original 3 after this, and not your heart just ripped out everytime they show Vader. Try just watching the fucking preview for episode II and not bawling when they show Anakin and Padme together.
Go.
Now.
Posted by: Admiral Rusty Shackelford at May 21, 2005 02:20 PM (9sBXA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Expediency vs Accuracy and the Truth
It's called"transferrence"(TF) and the MSM is in full TF mode. Crappergate has resulted in the deaths of two dozen people. There are clearly
two parties that bear reponsibility for creating the circumstances that led up to this tragedy but are being ignored in favor of their favorite whipping boy, GW.
It has become the prevalent modus operandi for the left to transfer blame from truely guilty to those of their choosing and the MSM for the most part have been complicit in these efforts. It's been going on for years and it's integral to the rationalization and justification of their agenda. The most long standing example of this is their take on crime and criminals. "We can't blame the poor black teen for gunning down 3 people in the street. We must blame the truely guilty, the evil white capitalist who has forced this child into a life of poverty, frustration and violence. We must not hold him accountable, but, rather society and ultimately ourselves for creating an environment by which we produced such a an individual."
Fast forward to Crappergate. It's not the fault of Newsweek for shoddy reporting, nor of the Muslim clerics who daily whip their followers into a frenzied bloodlust ready to rampage at the slightest provocation. No, it's the Bush administrations fault for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq thereby enflaming the passions of the Muslim world against us. It's our callous attitude and intolerance toward the religion of peace and our efforts to elevate our interests above those who would choose to kill us that are truely responsible for the these deaths. It's the fault of the Bush administration, society and ultimately ourselves.
What a steaming cowpie. The radical Muslim world has had it out for us before George Bush had the faintest glint in his eye to run for President. It started when we chose to support Israel in the Middle East and has been festering increasingly ever since. The Muslim terrorist's have been bombing our facilities and killing our people across the globe for decades and it has to do with who we are and what we stand for. The only thing that will change their attitude toward us is to change the very core of ourselves as a people.
Maybe that's what the MSM really feels is neccessary. That we as a people discard our current set of morals, values and beliefs in favor of a more "worldly"concoction, one of their choosing. That we subjugate our interests to the interests of the world. That we quit making them mad. After all it's our fault, if we would just quit irritating them, they would leave us alone maybe even learn to love us.
Personally, I'll continue to place the blame where it belongs. This approach may not ultimately result in a worldwide rendition of Kumbaya but, that's OK, I can't sing anyway.
Posted by Traderrob
Posted by: Traderrob at
09:08 AM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 3 kb.
1
“Red Cross supports original Newsweek Report of vandalized Qurans”
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,356663,00.html
(IN GERMAN)
TRANSLATION:
“The US magazine "Newsweek" had to retract a story about the desecration of the Koran in the military prison Guantanamo under massive pressure from the US government. The journalists have now received support for their report from the International Red Cross.
Geneva - A representative of the Internation Red Cross said today that it has informed the US authorities that members of the American military had abused the Koran. Such cases had occurred in the years 2002 and 2003, have since, however, been stopped, said the IRC representative Simon Schorno.
The "Newsweek" report of the desecration of the Koran by US soldiers had led to anti American protests in the Arab world. In Afghanistan 15 persons were killed during these protests. At first "Newsweek" apologized for the article, but then retracted it under massive pressure from the US government.”
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 09:29 AM (/+dAV)
2
Red Cross told U.S. of Koran incidents
http://mparent7777.blog-city.com/read/1291580.htm
“The International Committee of the Red Cross documented what it called credible information about U.S. personnel disrespecting or mishandling Korans at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and pointed it out to the Pentagon in confidential reports during 2002 and early 2003, an ICRC spokesman said Wednesday.
Representatives of the ICRC, who have played a key role in investigating abuse allegations at the facility in Cuba and other U.S. military prisons, never witnessed such incidents firsthand during on-site visits, said Simon Schorno, an ICRC spokesman in Washington.
But ICRC delegates, who have been granted access to the secretive camp since January 2002, gathered and corroborated enough similar, independent reports from detainees to raise the issue multiple times with Guantanamo commanders and with Pentagon officials, Schorno said in an interview Wednesday.”
Does anyone really believe that the Koran has not been methodically desecrated by the military?
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 09:36 AM (/+dAV)
3
"The report, dating back to last July, demonstrates how the old ICRC — respected, scrupulously neutral, and concerned with applying the traditional laws of war — is finally dead. It has instead become another typical "humanitarian" NGO, a cross between Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. It has a clear policy agenda to transform the traditional laws of war into something akin to the rules of domestic law enforcement, and is intensely anti-American and anti-Israel to boot."
Oh yea,you bet, the IRC is completely unbiased with no agenda whatsoever/. I'd believe Newsweek way before the IRC. Why not quote al-Jazeera while your at it.
Posted by: traderrob at May 20, 2005 09:40 AM (3al54)
4
Read it and weep.
This desecration shit has been going on for a while. Don't pretend otherwise.
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 09:54 AM (/+dAV)
5
Has the miltary denied the Newsweek report and/or desecration? The "retraction" I saw simply said the anonymous senior gov't source wasn't sure which offical report he read about it(Quran, toilet act) in.
People are upset about the story but I don't think anyone has offically denied that it happened. I could be wrong, please provide a link.
Posted by: puzzled at May 20, 2005 10:55 AM (moq9v)
6
An Iraqi Holding a Desecrated Copy of the Koran
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050516/323/fixbz.html
Newsweek, you caved in to the White House just a bit too fast.
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 11:17 AM (/+dAV)
7
In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?hp&ex=1116648000&en=6cca0512a38427c3&ei=5094&partner=homepage
“At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Spec_ialist Claus as saying.
Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.”
Don't it just make ya proudernSHIT to be an American?
See, here's the deal. The world knows the US Government is doing this Nazi shit. The world knows that the US people know the US Government is doing this Nazi shit. And, the world opinion of the people of the US will be based entirely on what the people of the US do to get the government of the US to obey the laws of the land and of the numerous international treaties that the US Government has signed regarding humane treatment of prisoners.
The world is watching.
What are you doing?
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 11:42 AM (/+dAV)
8
Does anyone really give a damn even if it did happen? Except for American hating greg? Good Lord, it's ok to stick a crucifix in urine and call it "art," it's ok to smear the Virgin Mary in elephant dung and call it "art." I think we ought to flush the koran down the toilet and call it "art."
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 20, 2005 11:54 AM (xkIHW)
9
Red Cross Says It Told U.S. in 2002 About Alleged Mishandling of Koran
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/19/AR2005051901879.html
“The International Committee of the Red Cross said yesterday that it repeatedly expressed concern to the U.S. government in 2002 and early 2003 about a series of credible detainee allegations that military guards at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba had mishandled and shown disrespect to the Koran.”
YouÂ’re getting pummeled!
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 12:05 PM (/+dAV)
10
Greg, you are really a piece of work. No one disputes that at certain times our soldiers have acted wrongly. This ain't bean bag, it's war for crying out loud and these things occur in war. They did in WWII, they did in Viet Nam and Korea and they do in the war on terror. The big difference is the America hating self loathing attitudes of the MSM and people such as yourself who trumpet these failures as the rule rather than the exception. Your goals are transparent, to discredit the present administration and it's efforts to the greatest extent pssible.
No one knows if "Crappergate" occured or not, we do know that the base source for the story was flawed therefor discrediting the credibility of the story itself. Unlike you, however, I tend to give our boys the benefit of the doubt untill it's proven otherwise.
I take it you have never served in a time of war because you and your ilk have a tendency percieve combat as some sort of rugby match rather then the "kill the enemy and destroy his will to fight" operation it is in reality. We have 160,000 troops of which maybe a few dozen have committed wrongs. There is not an army in the world that could produce more admirable results. You don't hear of the hundreds, probably thousands of selfless acts performed by our guys. You would rather wring your hands and disparage your country and it's military over isolated incidents because it fit's conveniently into your preconcieved notions.
I don't say this very often, but you sir ought to be ashamed of yourself. If you have a problem with the war and the administration, fine, rant what you feel is wrong with both to anyone who will listen. But to try and prove your point with specious arguments and hurtful distortions is depicable. It proves but one thing, you love your agenda more then your country, and in my mind that is unforgivable.
Posted by: traderrob at May 20, 2005 12:22 PM (3al54)
11
Traderrob,
I love my country more than you do. My country has been taken away from me. Nothing illustrates this more than the fact that in the 1940's idividuals paid 19% of the income tax and the corporations paid 81%. Today those percentages have nearly reversed. This country is now for the multinational corporations, by the multinational corporations. A "multinational" corporation isn't really an American entity at all. You and your ilk have betrayed the American people.
I'm pro-troop. Our troops were connived into a war by a mountain of lies spewed by both major political parties and the corporate media. We need to get the troops home asap. It's not the troops fault that Korans were desecrated, they were instructed to do so. Bush foolishly made this into a Crusade. In so doing he gave the green light to these sorts of incidents.
You posted on this topic. You claim that Newsweek lied. And yet these same accusations have been shown to have merit by numerous prior reports, some of which I have provided you.
Shame on you for not owning up to the truth.
You filthy blood lusters aren't even remotely "American". This is Israel's war. Let them fight it for themselves.
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 01:34 PM (/+dAV)
12
U.S.: Religious Humiliation of Muslim Detainees Widespread
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/d7d227aedfa4892cef6e86680f0caecd.htm
“Human Rights Watch said that the dispute over the retracted allegations in Newsweek that U.S. interrogators had desecrated a Koran at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has overshadowed the fact that religious humiliation of detainees at Guantánamo and elsewhere has been widespread.
"In detention centers around the world, the United States has been humiliating Muslim prisoners by offending their religious beliefs," said Reed Brody, special counsel for Human Rights Watch.
On December 2, 2002, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld authorized a list of techniques for interrogation of prisoners at Guantánamo, which included "removal of all comfort items (including religious items)," "forced grooming (shaving of facial hair, etc.)," and "removal of clothing." Each of these practices is considered offensive to many Muslims. These techniques were later applied in Afghanistan and Iraq as well.
The purpose of these techniques, Human Rights Watch said, is to inflict humiliation on detainees, which is strictly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.”
By going against the Geneva Convention we place our troops in greater danger.
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 02:04 PM (/+dAV)
13
"History," Hegel said, "is a slaughterhouse." And war is how the slaughter is carried out.
If we believe that the present war in Iraq is just and necessary, why do we shrink from looking at the damage it wreaks? Why does the government that ordered the war and hails it as an instrument of good then ask us to respect those who died in the cause by not describing and depicting how they died? And why, in response, have newspapers gone along with Washington and grown timid about showing photos of the killing and maiming? What kind of honor does this bestow on those who are sent to fight in the nation's name?
The Iraq war inspires these questions.
An Iraqi comforts a wounded fellow civilian who was shot in the arm and chest by U.S. troops after not heeding warning shots.
photo: David Leeson/The Dallas Morning News
The government has blocked the press from soldiers' funerals at Arlington National Cemetery. The government has prevented the press from taking pictures of the caskets that arrive day after day at the Dover Air Force Base military mortuary in Delaware, the world's largest funeral home. And the government, by inferring that citizens who question its justifications for this war are disloyal Americans, has intimidated a compliant press from making full use of pictures of the dead and wounded. Also worth noting: President Bush's latest rationale for the war is that he is trying to "spread democracy" through the world. He says these new democracies must have a "free press." Yet he says all this while continuing to restrict and limit the American press. There's a huge disconnect here.
More than 1,600 American soldiers have died in this war that began a little over two years ago. Wounded Americans number about 12,000. No formal count is kept of the Iraqi civilian dead and wounded, but it is far greater than the military toll. But can you recall the last time your hometown newspaper ran a picture spread of these human beings lying crumpled at the scene of the slaughter? And when was the last time you saw a picture of a single fallen American soldier at such a scene?
Yes, some photos of such bloodshed have been published at times over the span of this war. But they have become sparser and sparser, while the casualty rate has stayed the same or, frequently, shot higher. At the moment, five GIs die every two days.
Some readers may object to my use of the word slaughter. I do respect other points of view. But I served in the military, and as a reporter I covered several wars—in India, Vietnam, and Cambodia. I came away persuaded that whether one considers a particular war necessary or misguided, the military goal in armed combat is always to kill and thus render helpless those on the other side. That being the case, what is a government's basis for depriving the public of candid press coverage of what war is all about? How else can voters make informed decisions about a war their government has led them into? The true reason why a government—in this case, the Bush administration—tries to censor and sanitize coverage is to prevent a public outcry against the war, an outcry that might bring down the administration.
The photographs that accompany this piece are not gratuitously violent. They are merely real. All but one were taken by David Leeson, a highly regarded photographer at The Dallas Morning News. He and his Morning News colleague Cheryl Diaz Meyer were awarded the 2004 Pulitzer Prize in breaking-news photography "for their eloquent photographs depicting both the violence and poignancy of the war with Iraq."
Zahraa Ali, four years old, lies in the burn unit of a Baghdad hospital. Her family was hit by an aerial bombing attack while driving. Her parents, 24-year-old brother, and nine-year-old sister died. Zahraa eventually died. Only her three-month-old sister survived.
photo: David Leeson/The Dallas Morning News
I realize there are other sides to the story. One is the government's side. President Bush says that none of the government's actions can be characterized as censorship or intimidation of the press. He says he is merely honoring the fallen by protecting the privacy of their families in their time of grief. A New York Times columnist—his name is not needed; the issue is what's important—offered another slant a week ago. He called for less coverage of the war's violence because the press was "frantically competing to get gruesome pictures and details for broadcasts and front pages" at a time when there is "really nothing new to say." He seemed to think the use of these "gruesome pictures" was on the rise—though others in the media-watching industry, such as Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post, have been recording a decline. The Times columnist said the press was, wittingly or not, assisting the "media strategy" of the suicide bombers and their leaders.
A columnist, of course, is permitted to offer up pretty much any opinion he or she chooses, but still it's very odd to see a journalist—since we historically have always pressed for transparency—recommending that information be left out of stories. He insisted he was "not advocating official censorship" but simply asking the media for "a little restraint." Also, he cited the press controls used by former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani as a model for achieving "restraint." Giuliani, the column said, had told his police department "to stop giving out details of daily crime in time for reporters' deadlines," in order to keep "the day's most grisly crime" off the 11 o'clock television news.
An Iraqi civilian, struck in the head by shrapnel from an aerial bombing, collapses, and an army medic rushes over to help.
photo: David Leeson/The Dallas Morning News
I don't hold much esteem for the usual crime-and-catastrophe formula on most late-news shows, but I have even less for contentions that withholding information from the public is good for them. Because we are a country of diverse culture groupings, there will always be differences of view, about war photographs and stories, over matters of taste and "shock" issues. But, while the reporter or photographer must consider these impact and shock issues his primary mission has to be one of getting the story right. And getting it right means not omitting anything important out of timidity or squeamishness. When I would return from a war scene, I always felt I had to write the story first for myself and then for the reader. The goal was to come as close as possible to make the reader smell, feel, see, and touch what I had witnessed that day. "Pay attention," was my mental message to the reader. "People are dying. This is important."
A generation later, the photographer David Leeson, whom I talked with on the phone, has similar passions.
He said: "I understand the criticisms about blood and gore. I don't seek that. When I approach a body on the ground after a battle, I'm determined to give dignity to that person's life and photograph him with respect. But sometimes, as with my pictures of child victims, the greatest dignity and respect you can give them is to show the horror they have suffered, the absolutely gruesome horror." Leeson went on: "War is madness. Often when I was in it, I would think of my work as dedicated to stopping it. But I know that's unrealistic. When I considered the readers who would see my photos, I felt I was saying to them: 'If I hurt inside, I want you to hurt too. If something brings me to tears, I want to bring you to tears too.' "
I don't see any place for "restraint" in this picture.
Posted by: I Speak the Truth at May 20, 2005 02:15 PM (I/TCM)
14
Let's call it Crapperquiddick.
Posted by: nobody important at May 20, 2005 02:34 PM (SHPL6)
15
For the most part, those in Gitmo, were not uniformed combatants and as such do not enjoy Geneva Convention status. I suspect you know that greg, but never let a fact get in the way of a good anti-American rant.
We could hang them all tomorrow and still be under the letter of the law.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 20, 2005 02:41 PM (jPCiN)
16
Iran Said to Be Smuggling Nuclear Matter
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052000842.html?referrer=emailarticle
“ Iran is circumventing international export bans on sensitive dual-use materials by smuggling graphite and a graphite compound that can be used to make conventional and nuclear weapons, an Iranian dissident and a senior diplomat said Friday.
Graphite has many peaceful uses, including steel manufacture, but also can be used as a casing for molten weapons-grade uranium to fit it to nuclear warheads or to shield the cones of conventional missiles from heat.”
HERE WE GO AGAIN! DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN HERE?
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 02:53 PM (/+dAV)
17
"For the most part, those in Gitmo, were not uniformed combatants and as such do not enjoy Geneva Convention status."-Defense Guy
Well I guess the Bulgarian helicopter pilot who was murdered got what he deserved.
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 02:55 PM (/+dAV)
18
Defense Guy,
Same question...
Have you offered up your kids to fight this war?
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 02:56 PM (/+dAV)
19
It's a volunteer army greg. Do you know what that word means? It's a big one.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 20, 2005 03:03 PM (jPCiN)
20
DG
My question still holds. Will you answer?
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:07 PM (/+dAV)
21
If I have any kids, it is none of your business greg. The attempt to distract attention from the facts I offered is noted.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 20, 2005 03:10 PM (jPCiN)
22
DG
I thought as much. Your silence speaks volumes.
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:11 PM (/+dAV)
23
As does yours. You can't compete in a rational presentation of facts, so you do what you always do. Obfuscate and attempt to change the subject.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 20, 2005 03:15 PM (jPCiN)
24
DG
I replied to your post in full. What do you want?
How come you won't send your kids off to fight this war?
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:19 PM (/+dAV)
25
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 20, 2005 03:24 PM (jPCiN)
Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:34 PM (/+dAV)
27
answer the question greg. Why won't you answer?
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 20, 2005 03:37 PM (jPCiN)
28
Check this out. Good old British soldiers in Iraq.
http;//putfile.com/media.php?n=way_to_armadillo
Posted by: k at May 20, 2005 03:41 PM (PM/BC)
29
Actually, DG, greg beats his wife just in case she might be jewish.
Meanwhile, greg, you still are evidently too stupid to recall that the protections of the Geneva Convention don't apply to illegal combatants. And that is what your allies are, illegal combatants.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 20, 2005 04:24 PM (xauGB)
30
So greg, how long did you serve in the military? What? You never served you say! Imagine that, another chickenshit liberal asking others about their service, when you yourself are too cowardly to serve.
As for me, I'm a Desert Storm vet with over ten years service, medically disabled. I served my country, what have you done? I think the best service you could do your country would be to eat a bullet.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 20, 2005 05:49 PM (0yYS2)
31
The following quote represents the viewpoint of the handful of Muslim people that I know personally. I agree wholeheartedly with this viewpoint, but I could not have articulated it nearly as well. I found this at michigan-conservative.squarespace.com.
"As a Muslim, I am able to purchase copies of the Quran in any bookstore in any American city, and study its contents in countless American universities. American museums spend millions to exhibit and celebrate Muslim arts and heritage. On the other hand, my Christian and other non-Muslim brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia--where I come from--are not even allowed to own a copy of their holy books. Indeed, the Saudi government desecrates and burns Bibles that its security forces confiscate at immigration points into the kingdom or during raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately.
The Saudi Embassy and other Saudi organizations in Washington have distributed hundreds of thousands of Qurans and many more Muslim books, some that have libeled Christians, Jews and others as pigs and monkeys. In Saudi school curricula, Jews and Christians are considered deviants and eternal enemies. By contrast, Muslim communities in the West are the first to admit that Western countries--especially the U.S.--provide Muslims the strongest freedoms and protections that allow Islam to thrive in the West. Meanwhile Christianity and Judaism, both indigenous to the Middle East, are maligned through systematic hostility by Middle Eastern governments and their religious apparatuses.
The lesson here is simple: If Muslims wish other religions to respect their beliefs and their Holy book, they should lead by example."
Mr. al-Ahmed is director of the Saudi Institute in Washington.
Posted by: MAG at May 20, 2005 11:45 PM (q68q+)
32
"As for me, I'm a Desert Storm vet with over ten years service, medically disabled."-Gluteus Maximus
It's quite apparent that your medical disability is a mental problem. Psycho!
Posted by: greg at May 21, 2005 08:59 AM (/+dAV)
33
For the first time, greg comments within his only area of expertise - mental illness.
Seen any joos crawling out of the walls lately, greg?
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 21, 2005 11:03 AM (xauGB)
34
If this "desecration" did in fact occur, it was two years ago. Why then did Newsweek decide to report on it now? It was an issue already brought up when it occurred even before the Abu Graib abuses cropped up. Greg, do you not question
why the Newsweek staff thought it would be a good idea to revisit a two year old issue? Probably not. But, you know what? I do want to know why. The lame reason they gave (other news outlets already reported on it) just doesn't cut the mustard.
You know, if Newsweek wanted to they could be just about the first on the block to do a "real" story on the Van Gogh murder which resulted from Hirsi Ali's movie "Submission". No one else seems to have been very interested. We didn't see rioting in any Muslim countries over that. It was a much bigger, harder and overt slap in the face to Muslims than any mishandling of a Quran. But no, it doesn't put "Americans" in a bad light so it's not newsworthy. Even Van Gogh's colleagues who shout at the top of their lungs about freedom of expression have nothing to say. Why does Newsweek think allegations of a minor issue two years old is more important?
No one, no one, has come forward with a first hand account of such stories involving the Quran except the prisoners. Not the IRC not the exprisoners' lawyers, no one. The only source of information on this is the prisoners. Doesn't this bother you in the least, Greg? And before you answer that question and give your explanation why, remember who reported the Abu Graib abuses. It wasn't the prisoners, lawyers or any other human rights group. It was a conscientious American.
Posted by: Oyster at May 21, 2005 11:31 AM (YudAC)
35
loserweek descrates American flag take picture of flag in trash can says america is dead
http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/05/newsweek-america-is-dead.html
Posted by: Zebrab5 at May 22, 2005 05:57 PM (DoxEP)
36
"TillmanÂ’s parents
lash out at Army
Handling of RangerÂ’s death
called a ‘sign of disrespect’"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7946201/
“Former NFL player Pat Tillman's family is lashing out against the Army, saying that the military's investigations into Tillman's friendly-fire death in Afghanistan last year were a sham and that Army efforts to cover up the truth have made it harder for them to deal with their loss.
More than a year after their son was shot several times by his fellow Army Rangers on a craggy hillside near the Pakistani border, Tillman's mother and father said in interviews that they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country. They say the Army's "lies" about what happened have made them suspicious, and that they are certain they will never get the full story.”
The Pat Tillman story was a lie.
The Jessica Lynch story was a lie.
The Todd Beamer story was a lie.
If you heard it from the government, itÂ’s likely a lie.
Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 09:24 AM (/+dAV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dude: That Was Awesome.
Oh
yeah. I've been waiting too long for it to come out, and it's a masterpiece. Seriously. Worth every penny. Conflict, tragedy, humor...The villains are venal and nasty. I especially liked the confrontation with that gray shaggy beast. The direction is good; it's long, but pretty much every part is necessary. (A little cheesy at the end, kinda hammers home the point too hard, but I'll forgive that.) And while it's not subtle, it's not trying to be, you know? There's a lot to think about here--the loss of liberty, human nature, the corrupting illusion of perfection--this one's pretty deep, folks.
What? The Sith? F--- that noise. I'm talkin' about the new Bill Whittle essay: Sanctuary, Part One and Part Two.
A new Whittler should be an event in the rightish Immedia like the arrival of Beaujolais Nouveau in November--a tasty good reason for a party. It's long, though, so if you are reading this from work, do yourself a favor: print it out, and take it home, and Sunday night instead of watching some crap on TV, pour yourself a double bourbon, settle back into a comfy chair, and enjoy it.
Posted by: seedubya at
05:04 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I love Whittle. If only I could be that eloquent. Did you ever see that pic he put up with
egg on his face after he had decided Osama HAD to be dead and then the video of him came out last October just a couple weeks later? Hahaha.
Posted by: Oyster at May 20, 2005 05:43 AM (YudAC)
2
I've been reading all over the place that Lucas is really taking a stab at Bush with the lines in the movie: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy" to which Obi responds, "Only siths deal in absolutes!" (Correct me if my quote is slightly off) There's also the part about liberty dying to the "sound of applause"...anyone heard the same? I haven't seen the movie yet, and will try and catch it this weekend. I've heard it's the best of the early episodes...
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 20, 2005 10:40 AM (ZR8xw)
3
Oyster...I don't feel attacked, so no worries. Even if I did, I never take any insult seriously in here, and I hope nobody else ever does. It is crazy though, how many references to politics I've been coming across all over the place. This one just now:
Hayden Christiansen on his feelings for President Bush: "
wouldn't mind giving George Bush a good shaking with my light-saber." (Rush & Molloy)
Trust me, when I watch this movie I'll only be thinking about the movie. That, and when I met Ewan and Natalie at a crazy party Ewan threw in NYC last summer. They are both super nice people...he was throwing a bash to mark the end of a round the world motorcycle trip he and his buddies did for charity. I guess he's quite the adventure buff... Anyway, a friend of mine was managing the event, so I got to skip the door list (which was brutal) and party my ass off.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 20, 2005 11:05 AM (ZR8xw)
4
By the way, anyone who doesn't believe in evolution should see this:
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/smokeape.html
hahahahaha...
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 20, 2005 11:24 AM (ZR8xw)
5
OBT:
Don't plot against Star Wars, leave politics out!
If you turn against us, we'll have to destroy you!
R2D2, you rocked!
Posted by: IM at May 20, 2005 01:01 PM (a9tRx)
6
Hahah, hilarious link
Thanks, mate!
Posted by: IM at May 20, 2005 01:08 PM (a9tRx)
7
If you turn against us, we'll have to destroy you!
sorry about that..
I'm still feeling very emotional after the movie, I fear I might have lost have lost my temper and gone a bit too far.
Everything is under control now.
Posted by: IM at May 20, 2005 01:33 PM (a9tRx)
8
Man, that big-boys site is loaded with funny clips...
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 20, 2005 02:19 PM (ZR8xw)
9
Saw Episode 3... So Palpatine looks way too much like Cheney when he gnashes his teeth. The senate in that movie seems to resemble the US senate pretty well too...hehe.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 23, 2005 11:06 AM (E2ydb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Fisking Robert A. Pape
By Demosophist
There's something about ths piece from the New York Times Op/Ed page that just got me riled up, and I had to tackle it. I don't really have a problem with the basic thesis that terrorism, and even suicide terrorism, is a rational strategy. But I really do not like what Professor Pape does with that, at all.
Blowing Up an Assumption
By ROBERT A. PAPE
Published May 18, 2005
Chicago
MANY Americans are mystified by the recent rise in the number and the audacity of suicide attacks in Iraq.
I'm not. I'm mystified by the absence of reporting about the success of our strategies in Iraq, and the rather obvious fact that we're winning. So is there a reason why I need to read the rest of this? I'll read it though, because I have a hunch there are illusions waiting to be dispelled. Call me psychic.
more...
Posted by: Demosophist at
02:30 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 3259 words, total size 21 kb.
1
...and the rather obvious fact that we're winning
winning? You're just trolling now.
Posted by: puzzled at May 20, 2005 04:01 AM (moq9v)
2
You 'won' after you invaded Baghdad. Now you're just having trouble disposing of suicidal guerillas.
Posted by: A Finn at May 20, 2005 04:45 AM (cWMi4)
3
Nice fisk. I'm not sure that you really disagree with Pape as much as you think you do, though. You'd both agree that terrorists are being manipulated for political gain and that they're not just nuts, but being (in some way) strategic.
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 20, 2005 05:10 AM (sF5cK)
Posted by: suspicious package at June 09, 2005 06:48 PM (qMxTg)
5
There is great value to Pape's analysis to those of us here trying to save our own lives and the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians.
Posted by: a soldier at June 26, 2005 03:16 AM (0hzhL)
6
There is great value in Pape's analysis to those of us here trying to save our own lives and the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians.
Posted by: a soldier at June 26, 2005 03:17 AM (0hzhL)
7
The NYTimes Magazine ran an article October 28, 2001 All Suicide Bombers Are Not Alike: A journey to Gaza, Cairo and Hamburg in search of what really made Sept. 11 possible, By Joseph Lelveld (sorry, no URL), that I read when it was published. It dawned on me then, and you have reinforced to me now that, suicide bombers are not real human beings. They have surrendered their will, their humanity and their very lives to their handlers.
Pape has fallen into the trap, laid by Arafat many years ago, of pretending that the Bombs are self-willed human beings. They are not. They are mere instruments. Trying to analyize them by social science methods is wasted motion.
The Israelis will tell you that no child of a high ranking Palestinian operative has ever suicided. The real bombers never blow up themselves or their families.
Further, his occupation theory is garbage on its face. There never was a Tamil state on Sri Lanka. Saudi Arabia never was occupied in any sense of the word. And in Iraq, the bombs are foreign and the targets are Iraqi.
Posted by: Roebrt Schwartz at June 30, 2005 12:54 AM (7LYst)
8
I think we can be even more precise than just noting that totalitarianism is to blame for much of the suicide attacks.
It seems to me that there is an ideology, a cultlike nihilism, found in many totalitarian movements that is common to these attacks. Couple that with some hint of a legitimate claim to disenfranchisement, no matter how displaced the target from the cause, and we get suicide bombers.
My take on this phenomena is
here. I am directly concerned with Pape's conclusion being 180 degrees wrongheaded (even based on his own data).
Posted by: Paul Deignan at June 30, 2005 10:38 PM (CnGGk)
9
Mr. Schwartz:
Pape has fallen into the trap, laid by Arafat many years ago, of pretending that the Bombs are self-willed human beings. They are not. They are mere instruments. Trying to analyze them by social science methods is wasted motion.
I'm really glad there's this sort of engagement, and I agree in the sense that suicide bombing doesn't come under the rubric of either normal consciousness or even pathology. But there has been some genuinely excellent work that borrows from sociology and public choice economics that explains suicide bombing pretty well. It may not be an entirely rational response in the sense that we think of it, but it definitely does involve "preferences" of the sort that weigh the value of one action against the value of another.
The scariest thing about it is that it's both economic (in a non-standard sense)
and human. Where people like Chomsky, and to a lesser degree Pape, go wrong is that they assume that because the behavior is human that it's necessarily rational in the classic sense of weighing purely
economic preferences. Simply put, it isn't. It dips into a reservoir of craziness that's all too typically human, and one that just about every person I know is susceptible to under certain conditions.
But the good news is that the behavior is comprehensible. Suicide bombers are not only dedicated, but they also have fears and considerations which can be played upon. It's a tough nut to crack, but it's not impossible to make the suicide attack look like a very unattractive choice to the attacker. But to do so you have to expose the belief system which has "legitimated" the suicide attack strategy. You have to expose it as a false belief in the most fundamental human sense: in that conversation that the attacker has with himself about the morality of his act.
It is in that place that the "dysfunctional group" has intervened, and turned a human being into a non-human. His motives are the groups motives, and if he realized that even for one instant he'd simply stop. There'd be no way such a person would go through with the act, because the person who ultimately stands in the way... is himself.
Is anyone paying attention? Does anyone know how important this insight could be? How do you switch off a doomsday device? If you knew the danger, how much would you pay to see it done?
Posted by: Demosophist at July 05, 2005 09:51 PM (820MO)
10
As a result of the bombings in Madrid, the spanish people voted for a new government, who's election promise was to remove troops from Iraq? Prior to the bombings, the encumbent government was tipped to win quite easily.
If this is the case, surely the terrorist would see this as a massive success.
Doesn't it therefore stand to reason the Prof Pape's theory is correct. That by moving the combat troops out of the countries, but keeping troops close by, might go to resolving some of the problems.
Your view of taking out all the organisers and recruiters seems highly unlikely to happen!
Posted by: jayday at July 13, 2005 07:53 PM (heTAn)
11
Your view of taking out all the organisers and recruiters seems highly unlikely to happen!
Less likely than winning over all possible suicide bombers? You're underestimating the social benefits of shame. When promotion of suicide bombing is seen as a shameful act, on par with the seduction of young males into homosexual liasions that are against their nature, it will stop. Simple as that.
What the Madrid bombings exposed was the corrupting nature of wishful thinking, or what a friend of mine calls a "lust for peace." Simply put, the Jihadists think we're fools, and in the case of the Spanish they were obviously right. But make no mistake, it doesn't stop there. The reason there was a followup bombing was that they intend for Spain to be re-integrated into the
Ummah as Andalusa. Just what sort of magic wand do you propose to use to dissuade such a desire? [Hint: Unless you're prepared to simply kill them, as they are you, forget it.]
Posted by: Demosophist at July 13, 2005 10:25 PM (IbWE6)
12
perhaps we should use a combination of your ideas and Pape's, remove the combat troops as well as target the people who are recruiting the next suicide bombers.
It would appear that political correctness has a lot to do with not only what happened in London but what is happening in a lot of "christian" countries, where we are too concerned about offending people from other cultures and thus allowing them (in Australia's case) to sell books promoting suicide bombings and making treasonist comments about their adopted countries, without so much of a whisper from the government.
Posted by: jayday at July 18, 2005 10:40 PM (heTAn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 19, 2005
no posting today for Suzanne
I just got home from school, and now I'm leaving to go see Star Wars. Or maybe I should say, stand in line to go see Star Wars.
I mean, I love you kids and all, but we do have our priorities... ;-)
Posted by: Suzanne at
05:43 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
209kb generated in CPU 0.1212, elapsed 0.2948 seconds.
136 queries taking 0.262 seconds, 524 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.