Now that more people are dying in Iraq, looks like we won't have to invade Iran after all! Cheney was starting to get worried that he might not hit his target body count before 2009, meaning that he'd be dragged straight into Hell upon the new President being sworn in.

-pb

So, John McCain has no idea who the people in the Middle East are. Shia, Sunni, Iran, Iraq, these distinctions meaningless to McCain, who, by the way, is touting his foreign policy experience as the reason you should vote for him. This is, of course, the equivalent of asking a devout Hindu to explain the taste difference between a Whopper and a Big Mac. And then bombing a country back into the Stone Age based on that advice. And then wondering why people are blowing themselves up and killing our troops.

So, here's how McCain sees the Middle East:



No need for international borders, we'll just crib a Beach Boys tune and start another failed war! And the best part for McCain is that he has Plausible Deniability! He won't remember who he gave the order to bomb!

-pb

Remember all of those bumper stickers demanding that we never forget that 2,998 3,017 people died? I'm thinking about making some that say "3-19-03 NEVER FORGET". Wonder how many people would even know what it meant?

Let's take a look back: (viked from DailyKos)

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof---the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
-George W. Bush, 10/7/02

"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
-Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

"There's a certain amount of pop psychology in America that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
-Bill Kristol, 4/1/03

"It's amazing that more than two weeks into the liberation of Iraq---as residents in Basra are cheering British forces and Americans occupy Baghdad's airport and Saddam Hussein's main presidential palace---the antiwar crowd is still spinning a doomsday scenario. But it's getting harder and harder to take seriously the claim that freeing Iraq will make it harder to win the war on terrorism. Indeed, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. [...] Who said war never solved anything?"
-Brendan Miniter, The Wall Street Journal, 4/8/03

"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals."
-Charles Krauthammer, 4/19/03

Ted Koppel: [Y]ou’re not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for $1.7 billion?
Andrew Natsios [Agency for International Development]: Well, in terms of the American taxpayer's contribution, I do. This is it for the U.S.
-4/23/03

[Liberals] can't deny that President Bush has won his two wars, and won them resoundingly.
-Paul Mirengoff, Powerline, 4/26/03

"The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints."
-Tony Snow, Fox News, 4/27/03

-pb

One of my co-workers belongs to a Friends Meeting that is bringing an Iraqi refugee family over to resettle in the Doylestown area. They'll be arriving March 11th. They're a Sunni couple from Baghdad with three children, ages 10, 8 and 3. The Meeting has gathered all of the clothing and furniture they'll need (which is considerable, as the family will be arriving with basically the clothing they're wearing). However, housing in the Doylestown area isn't cheap (as my cursory house-hunting has amply demonstrated), and they'll only have support of the parent organization for about three months. Any money they can raise to provide for longer than that will extend the amount of time that this family will have to gain a measure of stability.

If anyone out there in flist land wants help out, I'll match all contributions up to $100. Leave me a comment or drop me an email.

-pb

More details of our mercenary army fucking up in Iraq

Blackwater, ahh, the very name raises my bile. From shooting civilians for fun and profit to quietly firing murderers and shipping them home so they'll face no charges, Blackwater is a stain the already tattered honor of this nation... and pretty much all of humanity.

But now, there's word that they dropped CS gas on a crowded intersection to clear traffic. And, they caught U.S. troops in the fallout, directly endangering their lives and curtailing any effectiveness they may have had in patrolling the intersection.

Of course, it was an honest mistake:

“Blackwater teams in the air and on the ground were preparing a secure route near a checkpoint to provide passage for a motorcade,” Ms. Tyrrell said in an e-mail message. “It seems a CS gas canister was mistaken for a smoke canister and released near an intersection and checkpoint.”

CS gas is forbidden for use in a war zone by international law. What the fuck was it doing on a helicopter where it could be mistakenly dropped on a crowd of civilians? What else do they have in there? Mustard gas? Sarin? Didn't we invade Iraq on the flimsiest of suspicions that they were developing this shit?

Of course, even if it was a mistake, and they were just going to drop smoke canisters, what the fuck us up with that?! There's U.S. troops in the area, it's a checkpoint, it's 2005 and everything from cars to women to goats are detonating themselves in a concentrated orgy of violence that may as well be set to some sort of opera music for dramatic effect. So, let's drop smoke canisters so those troops won't be able to see the suicide bomber until he's stealing their lunch for a quick bite before he explodes. Wonderful. We're basically paying a mercenary army to kill our own soldiers.

-pb

March 17, 2003: "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing." - George W. Bush, in a televised address to the world.

February 12, 2003: "The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1 billion" - George W. Bush, speaking privately to lapdog (now former) Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain.

Saddam was indicating that he would leave for $1 billion. Bush decided that instead of Saddam in exile and the possibility for a peaceful transfer of power, he'd take door #2:

$600+ billion, 4,000+ dead U.S. service men and women, 1 million+ dead Iraqis, 4 million Iraqi refugees, and Saddam hanging from a rope.

Lies, murder and treason. The Bush legacy.

-pb

I've got four things I consider "dealbreakers" when it comes to voting for a candidate:

• Candidate does not support reproductive choice
• Candidate does not support LGTB rights
• Candidate is in favor of capital punishment
• Candidate does not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and/or supports indefinite deployment of even a token U.S. force in Iraq

I have other dealbreakers, like environmental concerns and so on and so forth, but since these four uniformly eliminate any Republican candidate, but might also eliminate a Democratic candidate, we'll focus on them.

Now, it's become apparent that with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, none of the Democratic candidates currently in the race are free of all of those dealbreakers. Dealbreakers aside, Gravel has some crazy ideas that I'm not down with (like the FairTax initiative, which is anything but), but I agree in principle with 99% of Kucinich's platform. The problem is, he's such an outside candidate that it's not even worth discussing him. I voted for him once, but I'd like to not have to do that again. Also, he's been getting on my nerves with his "Any media, any time, at any moral cost" stance, to the point of being the only Dem candidate to actually call FOX News a legitimate news organization (especially in the face of Edwards calling them on their increasing disconnection from reality).

So, I'm left with ranking the actual viable candidates against my dealbreaker list. And this is what I've come up with:

John Edwards - 100% NARAL voting record, opposes ban on late-term abortion. "Uncomfortable" around gays but supports civil unions. Supports death penalty. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely. (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 1 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Dealbreakers: 2.5/4.

Barack Obama - Opposes ban on late-term abortion, supports prevention education, is against Constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. In favor of civil unions that are "just like marriage". Fought against death penalty in legislation but is on record defending it in some cases. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.

Dealbreakers: 2/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, .5 for wishy-washing on death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Hillary Clinton - 100% NARAL voting record and supports education and prevention, but has engendered some pro-life sentiments depending on her audience. Uncertain on death penalty except to mandate DNA testing, so not obviously against. Supports civil unions, but not marriage. Supports blowing up more shit in Iraq.

Deal breakers: 3/4 (.5 for anti-choice chatter, .5 for civil unions, 1 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Joe Biden - 34% NARAL voting record. In favor of civil unions, voted against same-sex marriage but calls it "inevitable". No real position on death penalty. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.

Dealbreakers: 3/4 (1 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, .5 for no position on death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Chris Dodd - 100% NARAL voting record, opposes ban on late-term abortion. Supports civil unions but voted against same-sex marriage. Called for a moratorium on capital punishment. Favors a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but would keep some forces there indefinitely.

Dealbreakers: 1.5/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 0 for death penalty, 1 for Iraq)

Bill Richardson - Supports Roe v. Wade. Supports civil unions with full marriage benefits, would call it marriage if possible, aims for "achievable". Supports death penalty. Favors 6-month withdrawal from Iraq with no remaining troops.

Dealbreakers: 1/4 (0 for reproductive rights, 0 for civil unions as a first step, 1 for death penalty, 0 for Iraq)

And just for shits and giggles:

Al Gore - Supports Roe v. Wade, opposes ban on late-term abortion. Supports civil unions but against same-sex marriage. Supports death penalty in certain cases. No official stance on an exit from Iraq, but strongly opposed to involvement there.

Dealbreakers 1.5/4 (0 for reproductive rights, .5 for civil unions, 1 on death penalty, provisional 0 for Iraq)

So, that's what I'm left with. Up until this soul-search evaluation, my favorite candidate in the race was Edwards, but he's hitting over 50% of my dealbreakers. Next would probably have been Obama, hit he's right at 50%. Even my ideal candidate is has 1½ of them.

I want a voice in the primary, a voice other than "none of the above". I want to point to one of these people and say "that one..." Ideally, I'd like to end that with "is the best choice," but right now, I'm going to have to settle on "is the least objectionable." And barring a complete policy shift (which I wouldn't likely trust anyway), that one is Bill Richardson. Aside from his downsides, he's got a number of upsides, too. He's the only Dem candidate with a detailed environmental plan. That detailed plan is also far better than Clinton or Edwards "wish list". Richardson's been to Darfur and has been trying to do what he can to bring an end to the genocide there (a big step for a governor who doesn't have the federal government behind him). He's been to North Korea. He's got actual foreign policy experience. He supports a federal minimum wage for teachers of $40,000, and wants to scrap "Every No Child Left Behind." At the federal level, he's been responsible for the return of Native American land rights and has served as an advocate for them in both the House and at the Cabinet level. He made New Mexico the first state to offer $400,000 in life insurance coverage for active duty National Guardsmen. He's a supporter of regional rail and private space program development. He signed medical marijuana legislation while running for President despite calls that it might hurt him, because it was "the right thing to do". He's a supporter of gun rights. He cut taxes. (Hear that? He's a pro-gun, tax-cutting Democrat.) At the moment I'm writing this, I'm actually more excited for Richardson than Al Gore.

I still want Gore to get into the race, but if that's the case, I want Richardson as VP. Gore was a very hands-on VP, and with someone as well in line with his beliefs as Richardson, I think they'd make a very dynamic team that would get a lot done. But, until Gore gets into the race, I think I've found my horse.

-pb

Ok, so, let me get this straight:

The U.S. called on the Palestinians to hold free and fair democratic elections.
The Palestinians held free and fair democratic elections.
Hamas won the elections.
The U.S., not liking the outcome, cut off all support payments in an effort to starve out the Hamas government.


Palestine essentially has a two-party system: Fatah and Hamas. Fatah was in power. When Hamas won the election, the U.S. didn't like it. So that begs the question:

WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE POINT OF CALLING FOR ELECTIONS IF THE PARTY YOU WANTED IN POWER WAS ALREADY IN POWER?

It also begs another question:

WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH DEMOCRACY?

Can someone please name for me one point since the founding of our democracy that the United States has actively engaged in "spreading democracy"? Various administrations have talked about it ad nauseum, but I can't think of a single instance where our global policy has been the fostering of democracies.

And, because of this, when democracy does happen despite the government's best attempts to crush it, it's a democracy that hates our fucking guts. I wonder why that is?

-pb

So, Bush doesn't support the troops. He cut off funding. He hates America. He's giving aid and comfort to the enemy by not providing proper funding for our forces and weakening our position in the world.

Not much else to say besides "ITMFA".

-pb

File this under "statements that are supposed to allay fears that actually provoke them":

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/27/us.gulf.ap/index.html

The U.S. exercises come just four days after Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines who Iran said had strayed into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors were operating in Iraqi waters.

U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the U.S. maneuvers were not organized in response to the capture of the British sailors -- nor were they meant to threaten the Islamic Republic, whose navy operates in the same waters.

What the Navy was trying to say was "no, no, we're not going to blow up Iran over fifteen limeys that couldn't navigate", but what they wound up saying was "15 Brits? Jesus shit, people, we were ALREADY PLANNING THIS TO SHOW IRAN WHAT'S IN STORE FOR THEM".

Anyone want to take bets on the start of the invasion?

-pb

Four years have passed since America launched an unprovoked and illegal act of aggression against a mostly defenseless country. It's cost us over 3,000 men and women, and it's cost Iraq nearly a million with an additional two million displaced.

We'll be at Bridge and Main in Phoenixville at 6:30 for a vigil, if anyone's interested.

-pb

two monkeys fucking a football
Pronunciation: \ˈtü ˈməŋ-kēz ˈfə-kiŋ ˈā ˈfut-ˌbol\
Function: adjective
Date: March 8, 2007

1: The Democratic and Republican Parties trying to figure out something, anything concerning Iraq.

With over 30% of the electorate begging and pleading Democrats to pull out of Iraq, and the rest of the margin of vicotry at least asking for a new direction, Democrats have pretty much decided that Dubya is more powerful than both branches of Congress, while the Republicans have pretty much said "we can't be held accountable for this war if it never ends! Ha ha!

Good job.

-pb

"Them's fightin' words whar I comes from!"

"Then why don't you fight?"

"'Cuz I aren't WHAR I comes from!"

That's pretty much was Australian Prime Minister John Howard was saying when he called a Barack Obama victory “catastrophic for the West” and stated that Al-Qaeda is rooting for Obama.

Obama wasted no time in firing back: “So if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq”. Just for comparison, Australia has 1400 troops in Iraq. Howard thought it would be bad to pull troops out, stating “Let me make it perfectly clear, if I hear a policy being advocated that is contrary to Australia’s security interests, I will criticize it.”

Uh, yeah. Let me guess, you think that one Australian is worth 10 Americans? Lunatic. Put up or shut up.

-pb

I'd just like to say that I don't care what kind of evidence Bush claims to have about Iran. I seriously don't care. Even if he shows us a tape of Ahmedinejad dancing with glee over IED attacks and taking full credit, I still won't believe it. I'll simply assume that he's fabricated the evidence. And if I'm wrong and he was telling the truth? Well, you can't trust a liar, so it's not my fault he hasn't given me reason to believe him yet.

-pb

With a title like that, do you really need a post?

President O'Reilly will fucking shoot you

Bill O'Reilly sums up the entire Iraq excursion by saying that it was a four-year joyride, and now we should hand the keys back. Saddam Hussein, motherfucker knew how to lock shit down! Bill says he'd play it just like Saddam:

"Curfew in Ramadi, seven o’clock at night. You're on the street? You’re dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. Ok? That’s how I run that country. Just like Saddam ran it."

So, what you're saying, Billy, is that the only real solution for Iraq is to put Saddam back in power? Well, I'm sure he'd be more than happy to oblige you. Just open that cell and let him loose. I guess this begs the question: What was the point?

I'm a bit disturbed by not surprised by "I shoot you right between the eyes."

-pb

It's like one of those highly exaggerated clips where you see someone diving for a falling explosive in super-slow motion, screaming "NOOOOOOOO" in that time-distorted ultra-bass.

In this case, it's the United States moving in slow-mo, and the rest of the world is moving at normal speed.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- International warships under the command of the U.S. Navy moved Thursday into waters off Yemen, attempting to block possible escape routes for 23 prisoners who escaped last week, a senior U.S. military official said.

Now, I certainly don't know our exact force deployment, or average travel times and whatnot, but I can, with some certainty, expect that we have some sort of naval presence in the Persian Gulf. I can also be reasonably assured that our "allies in the Great War on Terror", mainly Yemen, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have some naval presence off their own shores. I can also expect that some of the "Coalition of the Bribed Willing" have some sort of naval presence there as well.

So why did it take them a WEEK to move ships into the region to head off an escape? It's highly likely that the escapees were gone like fog at noon within two days of the escape, but it took us a week to get our shit together. Hmm. Sounds similar to cornering Osama, and then outsourcing his capture to Northern Alliance forces. Sounds similar to Porter Goss saying we know where Osama is, but we can't get to him for fear of invading sovereign territory, because we never ever ever do that, ever. Never ever. Sounds like when we had the chance to kill Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi before he could begin the insurgency, but decided that securing the oil fields was a more pressing concern.

Yeah. meekay is going to suggest that I not attribute to malice what can be explained through incompetence, but that doesn't make me feel any better. I can either believe that our government is, at very least, purposefully not putting out an effort to capture terrorists, or, I can believe that they are too fucking incompetent to tie their own goddamn shoes. Either way, it's having the same effect. Osama is still on the loose, there's a flourishing insurgency in Iraq and the country is at the brink of civil war, and now there are 23 more known terrorists on the loose.

Sounds to me like we're turning yet another corner!

-pb

So, Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization, won the election in Palestine. The US now has to decide how to deal with it. Somehow, I think Bush is going to go the "cut them off until they renounce terror" route. This is a bad idea. Real bad.

Yes, I understand not negotiating with terrorists. However, Bush has a chance to draw them to the table and effect immediate change. Cutting them off is going to have dire consequences. The Palestinian government is bankrupt due to years of Fatah corruption. Hamas has no money. So, where will they get the money to pay government wages? If it doesn't come from us, I'm sure Iran and Syria would be happy to help. Do we want that? I don't think so.

We need to use a giant carrot and a big fucking stick here. Except the carrot and the stick need to be both made out of a lot of money. We need to give them more than we have been, and make it conditional: Terrorism goes way down, corruption goes way down, and everyone plays nice, or the money goes away. Telling Hamas to back off of the "Death to Israel" schtick isn't going to work. That'll happen in time. When they see how much fun governing is now that they're stuck with it, they'll shut up.

Let's look at the other side of the coin. Ariel Sharon was opposed to any Palestinian plan that didn't involve blowing things up or knocking them over. This man was responsible for atrocities against innocent Palestinians. Once they made him the leader, what happened? He saw that bulldozing houses wasn't getting anyone anywhere. His rabid idealism of a solid Israel gave way to a realization that he was going to have to give ground and suck it up if he wanted five minutes without a car bomb. Hamas will come to the same conclusion. They won't be able to function if every Tom, Dick and Mahmood is firing off explosive vests in the name of Allah, Palestine and Hamas. A democratic process put them in power. They are now beholden to it. Palestinians didn't vote for terrorists, they voted against corruption. Palestinians don't like terrorism any more than Israelis do. Hamas will have to govern, and they're not ambidextrous enough to blow up Israel and govern Palestine at the same time. One will have to prevail. Make them pariahs for winning an election, and I can guarantee that governing will take a back seat. Give them the tools to govern, and hold them to it, and I can imagine that the bombings will come less and less frequently as they get their ducks in a row.

-pb

"How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis"

~George W. Bush, admitting in a speech in Philadelphia on the 12th that we're still engaging in violence against Iraqis

At last! Some transparency from this administration! (please note the puddles of dripping sarcasm)

-pb

The Iraqi Constitution Refferendum passed. Get ready for the car with the megaphone on its roof to cruise slowly through your neighborhood blasting the following messages:

STAY THE COURSE
DEMOCRACY IS ON THE MARCH
WE'RE SPREADING FREEDOM
WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

This will be in an attempt to make you think that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were stars of some children's show, and nothing is wrong. Yeah, well, good luck with that. What they're not really getting too worked up over is that the Iraqi referrendum passed by a margin that John Kerry can appreciate. The provision for shooting down the constitution draft was that three provinces had to have a 2/3rds majority saying "No". Two provinces did. Another had 55%. That's 5% short of what they needed. Guess who voted no? Sunnis. Nearly all the no votes were Sunnis. Now, in America, a margin like this protested loudly by the loosers with bumper stickers and perhaps tshirts. In Iraq, however, things are different. These people are ALREADY BLOWING SHIT UP. Do you think that now they have a little piece of paper that says "Sunnis Suck, Kurds Can Fuck Off In Kurdistan, And I Can Cover And Rape My Wife With No One To Say Otherwise" that things will be shiny and happy? Do you think Michael Stipe is going to drop in on a helicopter and start singing in downtown Mosul? You think perhaps Jay Leno will do a stand-up in Baghdad while the camera catches Sunnis and Shiites guffawing and slapping each other on the back?

Think again. This is instant civil war. Just add bullets. Oh, wait, THEY ALREADY HAVE BULLETS. And guess who's there? THOUSANDS OF US SERVICEMEN! Now that we've lost another thousand (remember how the Administration was going to resign in disgrace when we lost the first thousands?!), we're primed and ready to go for another couple thousand to die in a civil war that will make ours, circa 1861-1865, look like day-old kittens fighting over a teat.

Well, we wanted to bring democracy to the region, so MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

There is no good that will come from keeping our people in Iraq for even one more day. It's time to bring them home. We're creating more problems than we're solving.

-pb

Who gets fucked? The little guy, that's who.

A gas station owner was run over and killed when he tried to prevent an SUV driver from bolting before paying for $52 worth of gas. (there's no small irony that an SUV killed a man of Arab descent over some gasoline there, either). The article above demonstrates something interesting. Gas stations make about $0.01/gallon out of what they charge you. That owner didn't die over $52, he died over the profits he would have made from all the gas I've put into my car SINCE I BOUGHT IT OVER TWO YEARS AGO.

Couple that with the fact that ExxonMobil announced over 7 billion in profits from last quarter, and you've got a giant, gas-powered fucking machine, and not the kind you marvel at in strange pornos. The oil companies, flush with resources garnered from Our Partners in the Great War on Terror, mostly despotic regimes, generate huge profits by selling their products at hugely inflated costs. The station owners, however, barely break even. If oil companies are raking in tens of billions in gross profits every year, do you really think that Hurricane Ivan battered the Gulf Coast is the reason prices spiked? Do you think it's because Saudi Arabia just can't pump it fast enough? No, it's because corporate greed is preying on our addiction to oil. They're priming us for that point where gas isn't as available, and they can continue to soar prices well above their margins. Gas costs them $3/gallon? By the time it gets to that, we'll be paying $6.

By the time it gets to that, smart people (hopefully myself included), will have found vehicles that don't require their 'black crack'.

-pb

Freed Italian journalist wounded, bodyguard killed in Baghdad

Hey, Ronald Dumbsfeld, answer me this: was it a mistake that they fired on her, or a mistake that they didn't kill her?

-pb

Bin Laden message to al-Zarqawi intercepted

Who the hell is this Osama bin Laden guy they keep talking about? Is he like the evil leader of Iran or something? I don't think I've ever heard his name before.

<smirk>

-pb

"Based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action because this is about protecting the American people."

- White House press secretary Scott McClellan, Jan. 12th, 2005, commenting on the end of the WMD search

Yet, conservatives still use Bosnia against Clinton.

Go figure.

I wonder what exactly invading Iraq had to do with protecting the American people, especially considering that the only threat Iraq could have posed to us was WMD, which did not exist.

-pb

Settlers compare Gaza pullout to Holocaust

Ok, now this has been taken too far. Jewish settlers in Gaza are comparing the Israeli government's plan to withdraw to the Holocaust. So, basically, being asked to move off land you forced your way on to 56 years ago is somehow the same as being rounded up, gassed and burned by the millions. Yeah, I can see the comparison.

That would be like black people being asked to move out of a condemned building comparing the move to hundreds of years of forced slavery. You know, it's pretty much the same thing. If Native Americans were to compare the building of a competing casino to the protracted massacre of tribes starting around 1492, it would pretty much be the same thing. It would be like stubbing my toe and comparing it to having my legs blown off in a mortar attack.

I'm not a big fan of the Israeli method of dealing with Palestine, because I compare it to using a flamethrower to kill a nest of hornets in your living room (sure, you might kill the hornets, but...), but these settlers are by far worse than the hawks in the Knesset. They're willing to resort to any old trick to keep a hold of land that their Great x 150 grandfathers lost in the Roman invasion, even if by doing so, they jeopardize a good chance for peace.

-pb

Who killed Margaret Hassan?

My belief that there is a massive shadow war being perpetrated by US operatives has once again been bolstered.

-pb

A bad quote hidden within a good idea:

Democrats consider grass-roots campaign, starting with eating at Applebee's to be more like the common man

And then there's this:

"The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over by the far left,"
- Sen. Evan Bayh, D-IN

'at risk'? Senator Bayh, I don't think you understand. The Republicans have already been taken over by the Far Right. If you think that the Far Left is Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich, you've got your head on backwards. The "Far Left" is Stalin or Castro.

Granted, the left needs to stop whining about the right. Screw the right! Don't tell me about how Bush broke all his toys in Iraq. Don't continue to harp on the fact that the enconomy is a shit sandwich that we're all enjoying a hearty bite from. Give me solid answers!

Here are my ideas on how to talk to red-state voters:

To all the people who are pro-life : Tell them the FACTS. Abortion is going to happen. Deal with it. It's legal, and it's not going away. You can be pro-life until you're blue in the face, it's not going to change. If you want to vote for a candidate based on how they feel on a subject that's already been decided, then don't complain when you can't afford a new alternator for your 1983 Ford Ranger.

To all the people who are pro-War in Iraq : We need to rethink our strategy there. We need to get everyone in the world to a table and figure out the best way to fix this thing. Yes, we broke it. But we don't have the right kind of glue to fix it.

To all the people who are pro-gun : We've been trying for years to bring about gun control reform. Even when we had the right political atmosphere to do so, guess what? We managed to ban 18 SPECIFIC weapons. Know what that ban did? Nothing. Therefore, you can rest assured that there's not much of a chance you're going to be holding out with cold, dead hands.

To all the people who favor lower taxes : You want a tax cut, Florida? We gave it to you in the form of billions of dollars in relief aid that came from the taxes of people in New York. The people who scream the loudest about taxes are those that pay the least and benefit the most. We need to pay the bills, too. I don't know of any good American that doesn't want to help their country, and the help we need is to get the deficit down. Once we've got that down, once we're running a surplus, we'll hook you up. We've done it before, there's no reason to believe we won't do it again.

To all the people who favor smaller government : Which would you rather see? Janet Jackson's breasts, or smaller government? Because we'll try to cut as much red tape as possible, but if you want us completely out of your life, then be prepared for gratuitious sex on the six o'clock news.

To all the people who favor fiscal responsibility : We've got you covered already. You say 'tax-and-spend', we call it 'pay-as-you-go'. We'll spend money on programs that help you, but only once we've figured out where the money's coming from.

To all the people who favor a bigger military budget : We've got a big military budget. If it gets any bigger, we'll need to start a world war to justify it. There is no cold war. We don't have to worry about Russia invading us or starting a nuclear war. There's no need for that technology. We've put our efforts into fighting 21st century battles, because we've adapted to the times to better serve you.

There you go. A big list of talking points without attacking the 'Other Party'.

-pb

It employs the moral equivalent of flying airliners into buildings.

http://d-n-i.net/lind/lind_10_21_04.htm

-pb

So, I sent a letter a while back to the Iraqi Provisional Government and our current administration. I recieved a letter from John D. Negroponte's chief adjutant, who told me that the Iraqis had jurisdiction (thanks, I knew that).

The other day, I got a letter from Iraq.



Full text is here.

If anyone can give me a translation, I'd be really happy.

Also, when I picked it up, the mail clerk said something like "Ohhh... Iraq!. From bin Laden?"

It caught me so off guard I didn't even respond. But yeah, WHITE BREAD HONKEY that I am is exchanging pen-pal letters to Public Enemy #1 IN THE WRONG COUNTRY.

Wow.

So, yeah, if you know Arabic, or someone that does, please let me know.

-pb

The left thinks legally, the right thinks morally
Dennis Prager, 21 September 2004

To understand the worldwide ideological battle -- especially the one between America and Western Europe and within America itself -- one must understand the vast differences between leftist and rightist worldviews and between secular and religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) values.

Let's start this off with a bang, shall we? Mr. Prager jumps right in with the term "worldviews" and speaks of the "worldwide ideological battle", and in virtually the same breath, implies that Judeo-Christian values are to be the basis for his arguments. So, 50% of the world's population does not matter to this argument, and if you are not in that 50%, you are a Leftist. Now that we have that established…

One of the most important of these differences is their attitudes toward law. Generally speaking, the Left and the secularists venerate, if not worship, law. They put their faith in law -- both national and international. Law is the supreme good. For most on the Left, "Is it legal?" is usually the question that determines whether an action is right or wrong.

So, by this argument, the Right has no regard for the law? The basic laws of this nation and the laws of the world are based on what is commonly perceived to be morality. Obviously, the finer distinctions get lost the deeper you go. Some things that are considered moral in San Francisco are not considered moral in Mobile. Things that go unopposed in Macon would be considered anathema in Boston. But when push comes to shove, killing a man in cold blood is a crime everywhere. "Is it legal?" is a question that needs to be applied by the Right more often, because without our system of laws, we are nothing more than barbarians. The Right needs to remember that it has a hand in writing those laws, as well.

Take the war in Iraq. The chief leftist argument against the war - before it began, not later when no weapons of mass destruction were found -- was that without U.N. sanction, attacking Iraq violated international law.

Whatever their feelings about George W. Bush or about attacking Iraq, for most of those on the Left, the rightness or wrongness of toppling Saddam Hussein's regime was determined by its legality (i.e., whether it was authorized by the U.N. Security Council). On the other hand, for those who supported attacking Iraq, whether the war was deemed legal played no role in their assessment of its rightness or wrongness.

To those who supported removing Saddam Hussein by force, if the United Nations did not authorize it, it was a reflection on the morality of the United Nations, not the morality of the war.

This is a very shallow assessment of a very deep issue. The Left does not simply object to the war on the basis of its illegality, but rather that the war is in violation of laws that the United States is a party to, and would violently enforce if another nation was the offender. The United States violated both national and international laws, showing a complete disregard for its own institutions. How can this be considered moral? How can a nation that demands to hold others to its legal standards be considered moral if it does not hold itself to its own legal standards? What Mr. Prager does not realize is that regard for the law is a moral issue. Those who disregard or circumvent the law are not good examples of moral people.

International law thus provides a clear example of the Left-Right divide. To the Left, an international action is right if nations such as China, Russia, France and Syria vote for it, and wrong if they vote against it. To the Right and to the religious, an action is good (or bad) irrespective of the votes of the world's nations. They judge it by a code of morality higher than international law.

"Right" (implying "correct") and "Legal" are not interchangeable terms, and it is a good idea that they not be. As I have already stated, morality has a few overriding principles, but other than that, it is an ambiguous concept. There is no common good, and therefore, applying laws based on a strict moral code is impossible. Laws are for protection. Sometimes they are there to protect one person from another's moral code.

If China, Russia, France and Syria outweigh the United States four votes to one, that has nothing to do with morality. It does, however, have a lot to do with democracy.

To cite one other contemporary example, the Left throughout the world opposed Israel's 1981 air strike razing Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor, thereby destroying his ability to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Among major American newspapers, only the conservative Wall Street Journal supported the strike along with various religious Jewish and Christian groups. From The New York Times to Le Monde to your local university, there was outrage that Israel had acted against international law. It meant nothing to their judgment of Israel's action that the leading mass murderer of the time had his nuclear weapons facility destroyed with the loss of but one life. All that mattered was that it was illegal.

Israel has, and continues to, act in defiance of world law. They crossed into Iraqi airspace and bombed their soil. Regardless of the target, Iraq had not directly threatened Israel. There was little attempt at diplomacy. Israel acted in a violent manner, just as the United States has, under the guise of national security. If there had been credible evidence that Iraq was actually developing a nuclear weapon, then the UN would have had a reason to act. However, this was not the case. Israel committed an illegal act of war, and therefore deserved sanction under international laws. The ends simply do not justify the means. Incidentally, it's a safe bet that any nation attacking Israel to neutralize their own covert nuclear weapons programs would be met with a great deal of force, likely from the United States.

To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself. Even the Left has to acknowledge this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Ala., bus in 1955, she violated the law. Therefore, anyone who thinks she did the right thing is acknowledging that law must be subservient to morality. Why, then, must the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein be subject to international law as determined by Communist China, neo-KGB Russia, amoral France and the thugs who rule Syria?

Rosa Parks was a peaceful demonstrator who was arrested for a display of civil disobedience. Comparing her peaceful protest to the United States' blatant disregard for world justice in launching an illegal war against a sovereign nation is similar to comparing Hitler's genocide to a drunk driver injuring (not even killing) a pedestrian. They are two wildly different acts with wildly different meanings and repercussions. If the United States had been simply protesting the UN's decision to not attack Iraq, then top government officials would have quietly surrendered themselves to war crimes tribunals.

Rosa Parks was protesting an oppressive law. She understood that her protest would bring punishment. At that point in time, she had to understand that such punishment could very well have included a roadside beating resulting in her death. She took that responsibility to better her situation and the situation of her people. The United States can not be held to such lofty ideals in its invasion of Iraq. Had the justification been "to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein" from day one, perhaps that argument would have been more valid. However, the justification was "to disarm Iraq's stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction". Upon discovering that there were no WMDs, the justification changed. In fact, there have been 23 separate official justifications. There was no valid moral argument to go to war. It was simply illegal. To cloak it in morality is complete hypocrisy.

The answer is to be found in the Left's substitution of legal for moral.
And why is the Left so enamored of law?

First, the Left, which is largely secular, regards morality not as absolute, but as relative. This inevitably leads to moral confusion, and no one likes to be morally confused. So instead of moral absolutes, the Left holds legal absolutes. "Legal" for the Left is what "moral" is for the Right. The religious have a belief in God-based moral law, and the Left believes in man-made law as the moral law.

There are no absolutes in morality. The Right would like to believe that everything is black and white, good and evil, and absolute. However, they cannot agree with themselves what those absolutes should be. Should we outlaw same sex marriages? Of course, it says so in the Bible! It also says not to eat shellfish, and to stone my new bride to death if I find that she is not a virgin on our wedding night. Should we outlaw marriages between people of two different races? Perhaps women should stay in the home?

The Right criticizes the Taliban for being "fundamentalist", then tries to be fundamentalist itself and fails in all the wrong places. Conservativism and religiousness are not the same. The hijacking of the once-great Right-wing has led to vilifying the Left, and vilifying the law.

Second, whereas they cannot change God's laws, those on the Left can and do make many of society's laws.

In fact, the Left is intoxicated with law-making. It gives them the power to mold society just as Judeo-Christian values did in the past. Unless one understands that leftist ideals function as a religion, one cannot understand the Left.

Laws are the Left's vehicles to earthly salvation. Virtually all human problems have a legal solution.
Some men harass women? Pass laws banning virtually every flirtatious action a man might engage in vis a vis a woman. Flood legislatures with laws preventing the creation of a "hostile work environment." Whereas the religious world has always worked to teach men how to act toward women, the secular world, lacking these religious values, passes laws to control men.

One would assume from this last line that no man of proclaimed religious conviction has ever, nor ever would, act in a sexually inappropriate manner, sexually harass, or otherwise sexually intimidate a woman. The simple idea that religion in and of itself is enough control is ludicrous. The religious control applies only to its adherents, and therefore, cannot be applied to those of other religions. If we lived in a theocracy, there would be no issue. Religion would be Law, and Law would be Religion. However, we do not. We live in a democracy. We live in a nation of nearly 300 million. There are Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Hindus, Sikhs, and of course, nearly 600 denominations of Christianity that have varying takes on their religious law. To believe that allowing everyone to act according to the dictates of their religion and expect no problem is sheer stupidity. We have a system of laws that acknowledges that we are diverse and foreign to each other, and that we need a system of laws to protect us from ourselves.

In fact, since it lacks the self-control apparatus that is a major part of religion, the Left passes more and more laws to control people. That is why there is a direct link between the decline in Judeo-Christian religion and the increase in governmental laws controlling human behavior.

I find it amazing that a man who clings to a party that wishes to pass a law to define marriage, that wishes to pass a law preventing the courts from overturning laws that are contrary to our founding document, that wishes to pass laws restricting the rights and privileges of citizens it does not agree with, would find a way to argue that the Left's desire is to pass laws to control people.

The differences between the Right and the Left are numerous, to be sure. However, the Right once embraced our system of laws. Now, they claim a higher authority, and do as they please. They claim to speak from the mouth of a god. That is not morality, it is narcissism, and it is dangerous at best. They shun the law, claiming that the law is not moral. They make war with no justification other than "because we have the right". They take what they want by force, and claim divine right. They seek to control, subvert, or silence anyone that does not conform with them. And they claim that we have no morality?

Better to have law and no morals than a sick morality and no laws.

-pb

Got this in my Kerry-mail today. Now, if he can bring convey this at the debates and refuse to be caught in any percieved flip-flops, he can wrap this up.

( A message from John Kerry )

I could do without the G-bombs, but as long as he can show he's got a pair, I'm cool.

-pb

I have indicated [the U.S. invasion of Iraq] was not in conformity with the U.N. Charter from our point of view, from the chapter point of view, it was illegal.

- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, 15 September, 2004.

Now, if Kofi and the UN would grow a pair and start enforcing provisions in the charter. Get The Hague on the phone! Start the war crimes trials!

-pb