And now, a brief commentary from Captain Obvious...

CNN.com - Iran official threatens to hide nuke program - Apr 25, 2006

"If you take the first step wrong, the wrong trend will continue. We welcome any logical proposal to resolve the issue. They just need to say why should we suspend," Larijani said.

BECAUSE WE CANNOT TRUST YOU FUNDAMENTALIST MANIACS FROM NOT TAKING YOUR TECHNOLOGY AND GIVING IT TO TERRORISTS WHERE THEY CAN NOT ONLY JUST THREATEN THE UNITED STATES, BUT THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD! That's why.

Duh!

Anyone who honestly thinks that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for the sole purpose of running power plants needs to get a large dose of common sense. These are the same people (their president, anyway) that threatened to wipe Israel off the map. These are the same people who have had a SECRET program since not long after the Islamic revolution ("Suspicions about Iran's intentions have grown since it was discovered in 2002 that Tehran had for two decades secretly operated large-scale nuclear activities that could be used in weapons making.") and then claim to have "openly launched its nuclear program."

The leadership of Iran are more full of shit than our politicians. They're so full of shit, if we were to use that shit to fertilize crops, we could solve world hunger five times over. I'm not a generally hawkish individual, but I would support bombing the living bejeezus out of these nutjobs IF ONLY to ensure the rest of the world remains safe (or at least safer) from the prospect of jihadists running around with suitcase nukes. After Iraq, I realize this may put me way in the minority, but so be it. I'm not saying we should go bomb them now...but I'm not adverse to it if it becomes necessary.

And we're quickly approaching that point now.

Iran is led by liars with a thinly-veiled ambition. We cannot allow them even the slightest chance to develop nuclear weapons. If, on the other hand, they actually DID understand and empathise with the concept of MAD (mutually-assured destruction) and behaved like a responsible country, then I think if they can build it, they should have a defensive nuclear arsenal, just like all the "big boys." It would be hypocritic otherwise. But, the sad fact is, Iran cannot be trusted. Hell, even Russia--Iran's friend and one of the two Security Council members threatening to veto sanctions on Iran--allowed the launch of an Israeli spy satellite from Russian soil! Iran just has to live with the consequences of behaving like an irresponsible regime.

Period.

PS: I would pay big money to see President Bush yell out my "answer" above (the one in caps) on national TV. Big, big money. Damn the diplomatic answers. Call it like it is, I say.

Perhaps that's why I should never run for public office...

Sex on the run?

The State | 04/25/2006 | 2 coaches fired in bus sex incident

What really blows my mind is that nobody broke the law...unless any one of these kids was under the age of 14. But the odds of a freshman being younger than 14 is pretty low, as most school systems don't allow kids into kindergarten until they're 5 (do the math & you'll come to the same conclusion).

I really do think the school over-reacted. But when do we, as Americans, ever NOT over-react to anything sexual? Freud would have a freaking field day with the lot of us.

Stool parrot?

Ananova - Parrot held in prison

This is so wierd...

All this means nothing without action

Many middle-income Americans lack insurance - Health Care - MSNBC.com

Getting them all loosened up

WP: Battling "penny pints" binges - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

Maybe it just goes to show how much of an old fart I've become (I'm only 33), but I have to wholeheartedly agree with the faculty in this article. Think about it: practically free beer for all the college women, THEN they let the perfectly (maybe) sober guys in at 11? Hmm. Seems fishy to me. I won't be surprised when this bar makes it into the news in the next year or so. And I don't mean in a good way.

"China May Save Us All", or, "What Would Losing Mean?"

Normally, when I get a politically-slanted forward from my father, I up and delete it. Something told me to read this, though. It is quite enlightening and makes perfect sense.

The man being quoted is Major General Vernon Chong, Retired, USAF. Google him to learn more. Apparently, the essay below isn't General Chong's original work--he found this essay and forwarded it on to other people, attaching his name to the email (as most people usually do). But the message is sound enough.

MG Vernon Chong, USAFR, forwarded:

This WAR is for REAL!

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine
(which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2 Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4 What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also "Christian"), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see
http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant..' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Now, why did I pick the title for this entry to be "China May Save Us All?" Think about these points:

1. Which country/countries in the world are well known for their religious intolerance?
2. Which country/countries in the world have been experiencing double-digit economic growth?
3. Which country/countries are a billion people strong and counting?

There's only one country that fits all three of these points: China. China has it in their interest to stop Muslim radicals, lest these radicals try to pull on China what they've been pulling on Spain, France and the United States (and thensome). They're experiencing prosperity! Why would they throw that all away?

China doesn't give a shit about being politically correct. They'll do racial profiling to track down militants. They'll round them up, and they'll rub pork fat all over them before they shoot them all in the head.

The downside to all this, of course, is that China is NOT a free society. Far from it. But it may be that which puts the kibosh to the radical Muslim fringe. It's always been acknowledged that you'll generally trade freedom for security. And China's pretty secure.

Problem is...I'm not yet sure which is worse: repression under Muslim rule, or repression under neo-Communist rule. Yecch.

No good solution

CJAD 800 : News

There's a crazy man running Iran. There's a crazy man running the United States. It feels like the Cold War all over again...but Iran doesn't (yet) have nukes.

Five-sevenths of the U.N. Security Council are willing (if not wanting) to levy sanctions against Iran if President Ahmejad...amjedab... President A doesn't start cooperating with the international community. The dissenters in the U.N. are China (for obvious reasons--they've locked in purchases of oil from Iran) and Russia (long-time ally). But all seven members of the Security Council are in agreement that Iran must not have nukes.

Okay...so no sanctions. Like that would help. Gas here in northern Maine has gone up ten cents...IN ONE DAY! The day before it was 6 cents, and the day before that another 3. Sanctions will bring the day of the $5 gallon of gas. Mark my words. That, and there's no way we could put sanctions on Iran anyway, not without Russia and China.

Invade? Yeah, there's a real genius idea. $7 per gallon of gas PLUS thousands (if not millions) of lives. And an even better reputation for the US in the Middle East. Not a good idea.

Let the baby have its nuclear bottle? Even stupider idea, considering all the bellicose ramblings of Iran's president. Wouldn't surprise me to see him giggle with glee when a nuclear bomb goes off--delivered by al-Qaeda Express--in New York City. Built, by the way, by Iran. There would be no stand-off like there was between the United States and the Soviet Union...both sides of the Cold War understood the consequences of mutually-assured destruction. The news can attest to the fact that a sizable number of Muslims (Iran is a Muslim country, in case you didn't know) could care less about the value of human life. If killing a person (or millions of people) is done in the name of Allah, then the person will be heralded as a true saint in heaven. This doesn't include ALL Muslims, or even most Muslims...but even just a couple hundred given a nuke by their old friend Ahmadinejad is enough to fuck the whole world over.

I hate to say it, but if it comes down to the wire, invasion may be the US's only option...if we can't get sanctions through (if that were to ever help).

What other options are there? Russia and China are against sanctions...everybody (except maybe the French and the US) are against invasion...what's the third option? Why doesn't China and/or Russia offer option #3?

Actually, Russia DID offer an option that Iran rejected--enriching uranium on Russian soil, under Russian observation. Now, riddle me this: if Iran isn't going to trust it's long-time ally to help them with their supposedly peaceful nuclear program, what should that tell the rest of us?

President Bush is up against a wall. His Iraq boondoggle has ruined his credibility; so a potentially necessary invasion of Iran would be a hard sell at best.

But, in the end, that may be what we'll have to do.

Now that's a mouthful of poi!

Humuhumu set to recapture throne as Hawaii's state fish - The Honolulu Advertiser - Hawaii's Newspaper

Humuhumunu...humunumu...hunumumu...triggerfish. :-P

Full-service pubs

English pub sets up in-house tattoo parlour - Yahoo! News

Get a tattoo, a physical, a baptism and a pint! Why can't WalMart be this "full-service?"

It's the fall that's gonna kill you

Execution raises ethical concerns - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com

If inmates were not fully sedated, they could experience an agonizing death, defense lawyers said. That could result in cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they said.

Seems to me that these people aren't looking at this issue from the right angle when it comes to "cruel" and/or "unusual." Why is it that the United States walks lock-step with such countries as China and *most* Muslim countries when it comes to the death penalty? And we have the gall to criticize China on human rights violations? "More than 2,000 people were known to have been executed around the world last year, the vast majority of them in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States, Amnesty International said Thursday."

I made the argument before that executing criminals serves no purpose except to MAYBE give the families of the victims closure. I think that having the impartial state do the dirty deed is rather pointless. How can a person really feel avenged if someone else pulls the trigger? Why not have the families push the button (or pull the lever, or what have you)? If it were me, I'd feel more satisfaction from the process doing it that way.

But then...maybe after a few families kill a few murderers, they'll start growing consciences and suddenly we Americans lose our taste for state-sanctioned revenge? We wouldn't want that, would we?

But seriously. I think that the death penalty would have more impact...REAL impact...if it were the families that did the executing. Why not? The state authorizes some shmuck with 12 weeks of training at a police academy (maybe) to pull a lever. He has NO stake or interest in a particular family. He's just doing his job. But if a mother did it... she, of course, DOES have a vested interest in her family. I think it would make the act more enduring, and maybe more of a deterrent.

If we are so dead-set on keeping the death penalty, may as well make it mean something.

Happy birthday, QE2!

NBC: At 80, U.K.'s queen of endurance - Europe - MSNBC.com

...and God save the Queen.

Now, why didn't I think of this??

Beware the free breast exam guy - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com

HEADLINE: Ancient fossil discovered in Wisconsin!!

CNN.com - Apr 19, 2006

Cock teases and sour grapes

I'm using an online dating service. I've had quite a few women (supposedly) express interest in me; and yet, when I respond to these women, I never hear from them again. I don't even get a "well, I thought about it, but changed my mind" email from them. This isn't true with ALL of these women (as I've met and had a good time with a few), but it IS true for about 90% of the time.

That's pretty lame.

This indicates to me that these girls (note I did NOT say "women", with all the emotional and mental maturity the word implies) have some kind of mental problem(s). They appear to get a much bigger thrill off of playing mind games with guys; or maybe they're just flakes. Either way, it's unattractive. I like a good-looking woman...but I love a goddess. And a goddess is someone with confidence and brains, and doesn't carry around an aura of drama. I'd rather have a plain-looking lady with intelligence, charm and sophistication over a supermodel with that "big, sucking sound" coming from between her ears.

So you girls can keep playing your games and getting your cheap thrills off of watching guys respond to your messages of alleged interest...and miss that one guy who could make you truly happy. This may sound like sour grapes, but I've been around the world enough to know that girls like this will end up alone and desperate at the age of 39 and 11 months, and probably end up marrying some loser out of fear of being alone. I know this because I've seen it happen too many times.

C'est la guerre.

Double standard

CNN.com - Ohioan gets 4 years for sex scam on Amish widower - Apr 13, 2006

So, why is it that the law will help this elderly guy, who was scammed out of $67,000; but they'll completely ignore the scammer who fooled my father PLUS at least 3 or 4 others? Let's look at the bullet points:

* Amount of money. The widower was scammed for $67,000. My father was scammed for over $90,000. The widower gets justice, while my father does not.
* Age. The widower is elderly. My father is elderly.
* Media. The widower was threatened to be exposed (extortion) over the Internet. My father was scammed via an Internet-based business.
* Premise. The widower was involved in what they're calling a "sex scam." My father was a victim of identity theft.

Apparently, the law only cares if it involves extortion and/or sex. How pathetic. I dread to think of what it would take to put the spotlight on my father's story. I don't know what kind of thing(s) he may do if he doesn't get his day in court. I have absolutely no idea.

http://retirednoway.blogspot.com/

Guns, and why I hate semicolons (or commas)

Why Is The Sky Chartreuse?: Shenanigans, part 2

The Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When I was younger, there was a semicolon between "free State" and "the right of the people." This led to many different interpretations of what the second amendment really meant. As I remembered it, anyway. May not be true. My memory can play tricks on me. But it still leads me to a point: the grammatical structure of this sentence is wierd at best. Why not "...free State AND the right of the people..."? Comma or semicolon, it still lends to confusion.

Something that many anti-gun people may or may not forget is that one of the very first (if not THE first) battle of the Revolutionary War was fought by a militia...made out of a bunch of people with guns who got together for the common defense. Not exactly "well regulated," mind you (like today's army or national guards), but there it is. These people were called the Minutemen. The thinking behind this amendment is that, say if there IS another invasion in the future. What if the army is too far away at that time to do something about it (which is unlikely nowadays with helicopters, etc)? But still. There'd be a few thousand rednecks nearby in their Durangos with their 30-30s ready to help repel such an invasion, right next to the army. You take the guns away from these "gun nuts," and you've just reduced the U.S.'s ability to repel an invasion.

THAT is the thinking behind the Second Amendment, and why "militia" and "right of the people" are practically all done in one breath.

That having been said, of course, I support things like the Brady bill. Why would ANYONE need a gun RIGHT AWAY unless they had some ...um... need for it. I'm sure that if there were an invasion, and Bubba Joe Bob Cleetus McCoy needed an AK-47 from the local gun store, the store owner would completely ignore the waiting-period laws; and that the Justice Department would probably not give a shit, considering the circumstances. Banning guns outright is, in my opinion (despite the unlikeliness--yet still possibility--of an invasion) irresponsible.

Yes, I'm a middle-ground kind of guy.

Bad moon rising

The New Yorker: Fact

Say what you will about the Bush administration. Say that nuking Iran is beyond insanity. I agree. But, I also have to agree with the following:

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said that “allowing Iran to have the bomb is not on the table. We cannot have nukes being sent downstream to a terror network. It’s just too dangerous.”

No shit.

These are the cold, hard facts. We can either concede the nuclear reality to Iran and just back off (in which case you'll see nukes in New York in, perhaps, 10 years, by way of al Qaeda); or, we can bomb Iran back to the stone age. Either way you look at it, there will be nukes dropping in about 10 years ("Robert Gallucci, a former government expert on nonproliferation who is now the dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, told me, 'Based on what I know, Iran could be eight to ten years away' from developing a deliverable nuclear weapon.").

Period.

Got Jesus?

Additionally...

Joseph’s heavy-handedness was unnecessary, the diplomat said, since the I.A.E.A. already had been inclined to take a hard stand against Iran. “All of the inspectors are angry at being misled by the Iranians, and some think the Iranian leadership are nutcases—one hundred per cent totally certified nuts,” the diplomat said. He added that ElBaradei’s overriding concern is that the Iranian leaders “want confrontation, just like the neocons on the other side”—in Washington.

You think?? Why else would Iran BOAST about their successful nuclear endeavors? They're thumbing our noses at us, DARING us to make a move! They WANT to be the national martyr of the Muslim world. They WANT to "prove" to all Muslims that the U.S. is the "great Satan."

Tell me something new.

Iran wants us to attack, to justify their so-far undisclosed weapons program. I personally wonder if they might already have nukes. Why else take such a provocative stance? ... other than to just inflame more of the Muslim world, I suppose. And the U.S. "neo-cons" (as the term has been coined) seem to WANT to attack, as well. Hell, let's make both sides happy, right?

Sheesh.

This is not going to end well.

Long distance?

Man hit with $218 trillion phone bill - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com

This is what happens when you let E.T. phone home.

Doing something

Strike The Root - a journal of liberty

I've oftentimes complained that people complain without doing anything--or, at least, suggesting something to do.

Why don't these people find a candidate for President?

Ignore the whole throwing-your-vote-away argument for a minute. Ross Perot was doing mighty well for himself for a while there. After the boondoggle that was the 2000 Elections (and 2004 came close), people are less likely to accept the reality of an electoral college. So if a third candidate garnered a majority of the votes, and LOST the electoral votes...well, I can only imagine the outrage there. But it would at the very least put a bright spotlight on a fundamental flaw in our system of government.

And, of course, if the third party candidate won...

I'm serious here. What other options do you have to beat the system than to beat the system at its own game? If anyone else has any viable options, I'd like to hear them. Any comments that say "you can't do that" or "it's stupid" without some kind of followup consisting of a constructive suggestion will be aired for the drivel that it is.

Just so that you're warned.

Why our society sucks

The Revolution Will Not Be American

When New-Age "hoo-hah" jives with libertarian socio-political thinking, there comes a time when we need to sit up and take notice. For example...

The simple fact of the matter is that the politicians (voiced with extreme venom and malice) have the single greatest weapon against conscious revolution ever discovered and, as strong as the internet is, as widespread as the memes have been sown, as loud as the song of liberty rings and as shrilly the howls of outrage echo across the digital plain, it is not enough to overcome apathy.

There's the magic buzzword: APATHY. The killer of American freedom. Not politicians...although they use our apathy to their advantage. This goes in line with my challenge (which, as I recall, I never posted here...doh!) to Mr. Bylund regarding his disdain for the phrase, "if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain." Bylund is right in so much that EVERYONE has the right to complain. It is our God-given right to say something sucks. However, I've always looked at that cliché from a different angle: if you don't DO SOMETHING, you have no justification to complain. People say, "the government sucks," and yet they do NOTHING about it.

Apathy. It's too hard. My voice won't make a difference. Blah, blah, blah.

There's one thing (this is going to be a horrendously politically incorrect statement, but here goes) that radical Middle-East fundamentalists, the writers at Strike The Root, and (yes) even President Bush have in common: conviction of belief. These are people who are DOING something--although most certainly in the first case, doing something horrifically wrong; and many would argue in the third case, also doing something wrong. My view is, as long as you're not intentionally harming an innocent, get off your lazy asses and DO SOMETHING!!! And people have the power to take action once they stop blaming everybody else for their woes. Remember...whenever you (as an American at least) blame the government, you are blaming yourself. Government for the people, by the people, and of the people. Period.

I can't put it any more succinctly than that.

Let's help fundamentalists by killing this guy.

CNN.com - 9/11 victims share heartache with Moussaoui jury - Apr 6, 2006

If we execute Moussaoui, we'll be helping Islam fundamentalists. Now, that's a good idea. Have the most hated government by extremists kill one of their own, and we turn Moussaoui into a martyr; a rallying cry for a thousand more would-be Moussaouis.

What a good idea!

Idiots.

Now this is interesting!

Study: People want freeloaders punished - Science - MSNBC.com

This, in my opinion, lends more credence to Mr. Bylund's socio-political outlook. His idealistic view on society (dubbed "anarcho-capitalism") would make it impossible for freeloaders to profit in such a society.

Definitely something to think about...

The crippling of the masses

PerBylund.com / A Declaration of Independence

First off, BOO TO BLOGGER for not having a way to go Back if you encounter some kind of stupid error while trying to post. BOOOOO!!!!!

Now for my article...as best as I can reproduce it.

I've read some of Per Bylund's work, and I agree on a few points. Society has crippled the individual from being able to truly be an individual. There's a term I've bandied about a few times on "Chartreuse": institutionalization. People on welfare get it. Convicts in prison get it. You give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; you keep feeding him, and he loses the ability to fish for himself. It's like a muscle: if you don't use it, you lose it. So, in that, I see how "the State" has crippled the individual.

However, the argument I have against any form of anarchy is that a "State" is essential. Per suggests that the only rule (at least in his version of anarchy) is that you do whatever you want to embetter yourself, as long as it is not at the expense of another. This is at the heart of what he terms "egoism."

For those of you who keep tabs on the news, you know that there will always be someone out there who is in it for him/herself, AT the expense of another. Always. How do you prevent this? You have to enforce it. And how do you enforce it?

You have to have a "State." This "State" would have the primary purpose of enforcing this rule of "egoism." A "state" is a necessary evil, because there will always be people who cannot be trusted to be true to the nature of this concept of "egoism."

The problem with a State is it tends to grow, and grow, until you get what we have now: a huge bureaucracy, run by politicians, who are primarily in it for their own selves, DEFINITELY at the expense of others.

So, a "State" would have to be designed to enforce individualism, while preventing any type of oppression (or bureaucracy, etc) to form.

How do you do that?

I don't know.

And how is this news?

Report: Tax cuts on investment income a windfall for rich - Apr. 5, 2006

Color me not surprised.

Whatever I may have said, even in quasi-, half-assed support, about Iraq or anything else; it is this kind of thing I can use when I say that I would never vote for this man (Bush) again...not like he can run again, anyway, but you get what I mean. Why is it that Republicans seem better at (or, at least, more interested in) foreign policy than domestic policy?

Stephen Entin, president of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, a Washington organization, told the Times that the tax cuts did not go far enough because the more money the wealthiest had to invest, the more that would go to investments that produce jobs.

I'm not even going to call shenanigans on this one. This is just plain-old, straight-up, full-strength "bullshit." And we're supposed to trust in the better nature of the more powerful (and wealthy) people of America? A man by the name of Lord Acton said that "power tends to corrupt." And I believe that. I do not believe in any "better nature" when it is the basic human instinct to horde up as much of anything you can. Trickle-down economics is the biggest lie of this century.

Vibrators are better than men because...

Textbook favors donkeys over wives - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com

It sounds like the old "vibrator vs. men" thing, but in reverse. And not as crude (I hope).

"...the donkey is a shade better [than the housewife]," continues the text meant for 14-year-olds, "for while the housewife may sometimes complain and walk off to her parents' home, you'll never catch the donkey being disloyal to his master."

Vibrators are better than men because they'll keep going until you're satisfied. Vibrators are better than men because they won't give you back-talk. Vibrators are better than men because they'll never cheat on you. Vibrators are better than men because... ok, I'll stop there.

My point? I'm sure that the women in India that complained about this text don't know about the "vibrator vs. men" thing; but I still find it ironic. If they DO...and they actually joke about vibrators and men, then shame on them for setting a double-standard! But, I'm sure that's not the case.

Still ironic, though...

What insurance executives are saying... [Post #300!]

Bill requires all to have health insurance - Politics - MSNBC.com

"Oh, goodie goodie goodie!" (rubbing hands together gleefully) $$$$

If they passed that law in Maine ($1000 penalty per year if you're not insured), I'd go with the penalty. To insure MY SON, who is in perfect health, costs $380 per month. That totals up to over $4500 per year. Hmm. $1000....or $4500.... hmm....

You tell me where the incentive lies. I could save $3500 a year by DEFYING the law. That $3500 could go towards doctor visits, immunizations, etc. Gee. Do you THINK I'm going to throw over $4500 a year (I should note that $380 per month with my insurance company--the CHEAPEST in Maine--does NOT cover all expenses) to some fat cat executive so he can get that golden cigarette lighter in his 13th Lexus? No!

I'm sure the lawmakers of Massachusetts have their hearts in the right place...or they have their hands in the wrong cookie jar. Not sure which. I agree every single person should be insured, and/or have FREE (ahem, FREE) access to basic health services (and reduced rates for emergency-type things).

Liberals typically support employer mandates, while conservatives generally back individual responsibility.

“The novelty of what’s happened in this building is that instead of saying, ‘Let’s do neither,’ leaders are saying, ‘Let’s do both,”’ said John McDonough of Health Care for All. “This will have a ripple effect across the country.”

I have an idea...let's do option (c): put responsibility on the INSURANCE companies and the medical industry in general. We hear all the time about the rising cost of health care. Why isn't THIS being fixed? Instead, we're going to put further financial burden on hard-working men and women in this country.

I've said it before, and I'm going to say it again: SHENANIGANS!

A dangerous thing to say

Condi's Surreal Visit to Iraq's Green Zone - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com

Again, the Americans don't seem to fully understand this. A Western intelligence expert who recently sat in on briefings by U.S. and Iraqi military officers in Baghdad described a disconnect between U.S. occupation authorities and Iraqi officials that was just as wide as what lies between the Green Zone and the rest of Iraq. The American officers, he said, spent an hour triumphantly describing how they had finally gotten the better of the insurgency while the Iraqis present doodled on their pads, their eyes glazing over.

That is a dangerous thing to say. I remember from my military history class about how our government touted all our successes against the VC and North Vietnam Army...before the Tet offensive. That effectively led our country to disbelieve just about anything the government ever said. And here we are again, saying how we're doing such a wonderful job against the insurgency in Iraq, when, in fact, "outside the Green Zone the sectarian violence is worsening--ensuring future dysfunction, if perhaps not outright civil war or breakup of the country."

If we Americans (and our so-called leaders) don't get a clue real quick, Iraq will truly be another Vietnam, win or lose. And the biggest losers will be the very people we tried so hard to liberate.

Your donation dollars well spent?

Some of the money I've received has already gone to working on Ian's (sigh) second home. It hasn't been very much money, to be sure. Shame on you all! No, but seriously. I'm not going to (give) put you (me) all under (money) any kind of (now!!) pressure.

Anyway, check out the site. I'm doing a blogumentary on the development of this place. You can even see what ...uh... condition it is in now. Doesn't that sound fun!?

Proof towards the rebellion hypothesis

Study: Sexy media triggers promiscuity - Children's Health - MSNBC.com

The teenage pregnancy rate in the United States is three to 10 times higher than that found in other industrialized nations, making that and exposure to sexually transmitted infections a major public health concern, the study said.

That's a rather alarming figure. Why, here in the United States, where the moral majority holds such great sway, are kids getting pregnant more than 3x their counterparts in more "liberal" countries like ...well, almost all of Europe. Is it truly all the media's fault? Or should parents hold some of the blame? Or should SOCIETY, in its attempt to repress free expression of all sentient beings in this country, be held to blame?

I think it falls under (d) all of the above. I've seen evidence of what happens when you repress people for extended periods of time. Gorbachev loosened the restraints in the former USSR, and the country collapsed not too long after. Now instead of being "enemies" with a known temperament, we have a multitude of "friends" that we just don't know what they're going to do the next day. I've seen what happens to US sailors after being cooped up in a ship for weeks at a time. We pull in to port for liberty call, and at least 5% or more of the entire enlisted crew...the largest group being between 18 and 25...get into alcohol-related trouble. The Canadians (and the Brits) aren't as anal about alcohol...they sometimes have it right on board!

This is just further proof that the more you try to restrain someone, the more likely they'll either rebel behind your back, or go hog-wild when the reins are finally released. Is this healthy? I don't think we should just let everyone do what they want to do...not by itself. We should educate our youth that they can go ahead and do whatever they want, but to expect that there will be consequenses. Set it up so that they will LEARN from what they do, instead of outright forbidding them from doing it. Because if not given the chance, they may never learn. Experience is always the best teacher.

And send some this way, too!

Bored bureaucrat looks online for a way out - Tech News & Reviews - MSNBC.com

To the right is a link for the "give Ian a good home" fund (Pay Pal Donate! button). My tax return (a ways from getting here) will finance some of this, but apparently I'll need $10,000 total to finish the job. I'm not going to go into a big sob story, because I helped create the situation; but I would really like to give my son a good environment to live in. Personally, if I ever got more than the $10,000, I'd start a *real* fund for other kids who need a good environment to grow and learn in. Yes, I would.

But, for now, my concern is for my son.

Now, who's the stupid person here?

SB XL trip adds 4.5 years to man's sentence - NFL - MSNBC.com

Tank Carter, for not showing up for prison (6 months for driving on a revoked license?!?)? Or the judge for (a) allowing 6 months for such a stupid offence and (b) adding 4 1/2 years to it for Tank not showing up for prison?

You decide.

Personally, I'm voting for the judge...AND the morons who passed this law. Well, it's the legislature for "Hanging Chad" Florida, so I guess I can't be surprised. It's not like more than 1% of the US population is in prison or anything. What's asinine is that we taxpayers are expected to pay for incarcerating someone for such a long time for (what I feel) is a trivial issue. Now, if the offense was a OUI/DWI (whatever), that's a different animal. But 4 1/2 extra years just to be with his brother is pretty stupid. An extra 6 months would have been MORE than enough.

But that's just me.

Remember when I bitched about how ridiculous it was to put someone in jail for a traffic fine they couldn't afford to pay? Not the operative word here is "afford." Essentially, the United States has rocketed back about 200 years, back to the days of "debtor prisons." How draconic. I'm so glad we live in such a modern society.