TheNewFormatSux is a fascist, genocidal frightfest from Allentown. He's the guy that used the phrase "The Muslim Problem" and didn't get it when I said "Huh, that sounds disturbingly like 'The Jewish Problem'".

Here's a little exchange I had with him:

TheNewFormatSux : Getting back on topic, the original letter is titled "Indict the Neo-Cons". The widely accepted definition of this new word "neo-con" is "new conservative". So I'm a little puzzled about who the letter writer wants to indict. Is it every American who has recently become a conservative?

Me : "Neo-", while meaning new, does not indicate what you're talking about. It refers to the ideology. A "neo-conservative" doesn't refer to someone who just became conservative, it refers to the school of thought being a new version of conservative thought. It also doesn't indicate an actual connection with the previous. Neo-conservatism doesn't have much in common with conservatism (less civil liberties vs. greater civil liberties, more government spending vs. less government spending, more rational foreign policy vs. cowboy diplomacy, etc.).

Just like neo-Nazis don't look too much like the highly organized political machine esposing national social ideals that the original Nazi party did, neo-conservatives don't look much like Abraham Lincoln's conservatives.

Of course, you knew that, you were just trying to set fire to your own strawman.

TheNewFormatSux : Phew - I'm glad you cleared that up for me and even more glad that I'm not a neo-con (indictable or otherwise). Since I believe in civil liberties (some of them currently illegal), less government spending (except when it goes towards eliminating the threat from Muslim extremism) and rational foreign policy (like hunting down and exterminating Muslim extremists wherever they breed). I'll sleep much better tonight knowing I'm not a "neo-con".

Me : So, I take it you'd like to see Bush out of office as soon as possible?

TheNewFormatSux : You take it wrong. I wish he could serve a third term because he has done more to fight Muslim extremism than any other president in our country's history. And Muslim extremism is clearly the biggest threat the civilized world has ever faced. Oh, and I love the tax cuts.

Me : Wow, your world sounds great! Because in the real world, the tax "cuts" amounted to an average of $300 and were just an advance on the next year's bill, and terrorism has steadily increased worldwide since we invaded Iraq.

Did Bush invade Iraq in your world? Probably not, because in the real world, that turned out to be a horrific blunder that gave terrorists a complete training course on "how to competely embarrass the U.S. Military", lead to huge recruitment numbers, increased Iran's power in the region, and sapped our already flagging credibility in the Middle East. Bummer. Guess that didn't happen in your world?

In the real world, climate change poses an even greater threat to economic stability than terrorism. Did they solve that in your world?

What other wonders do they have in your world? Flying cars? Dinosaurs that play chess? Talking dogs?

-pb

So, I'm having fun with a thread started from an anti-immigration (read: racist) rant on The Morning Call's letter page (my new favorite watering hole). Here's one of the more outrageous discussions:

Jon Obert - Allentown Pa And who did the Mexicans steal the land from? What, if you're the first thief, you get a pass? Mexicans, Columbians, Peruvians, etc are all descendents of the Spanish who came to these shores to loot, and kill and enslave.

Me: Actually, Mexicans, Columbians, Peruvians, etc are all decended from the people that the Spanish came here to loot, kill and enslave. They were here first.

used2play: their ancestors may have been here 200 years ago, but for generations theyve been slumming it up in puerto rico. now they are here illegally.

Me: Do you even think before you type? Puerto Ricans are *American Citizens*. They're not here illegally any more than someone who moves from New Jersey to Kansas is there illegally. Maybe next time do a little research.

used2play: I know about the hissy fit PR threw to become part of our country! Just cause im not 100 yrs old like you doesnt mean i dont know about our history! What im saying is they SHOULDNT be part of our country!!!!!!!!!! and as far as im conserned i tell my children we have 50 states and one leaching cesspool of an island.

Me: a) I'm not 100.

b) Puerto Rico didn't "throw a hissy fit" to become part of our country. The U.S. Government acquired Puerto Rico in the 1898 Treaty of Paris as reparations for the Spanish-American War.

c) Puerto Rican politics are divided into three camps concerning America: Independence, Statehood, or continued Commonwealth status.

Again, try doing a little research. You're embarrassing yourself with your horribly wrong collection of racist-tinted "facts".

-pb

Some of you may already know that I abhor Ted Nugent and everything he embodies. The rest of you know now. Given the choice between sitting in a room for an hour with Ted Nugent or Ann Coulter I'd take Coulter in a heartbeat, because at least I could amuse myself seeing if I could cleary see all of her bones.

So here's Ted Nugent's latest antics: He's even managed to offend Texas Republicans with his confederate-flag waving, machine-gun toting, racist remark-spouting claptrap.

Ted Nugent is many things. He's a chicken hawk, a draft dodger, and apparently now a bigot. The fact that he's even given a stage to play on is a shame. The Nuge needs to be a relegated to a sad chapter in our history, held up as an icon of everything that was wrong with people like him.

-pb

I haven't been motivated to rant lately, so I pretty much missed the boat on this. After some drama over at actual_liberals, I decided to weigh in on the story.

Personally, the more details I hear about it, the more it sounds like a colossal fuck-up. First, it was one Air Marshal who fired one shot, killing a man on the tarmac who was screaming about having a bomb. Now, it's two AMs unloading into a guy on the jetway while his wife screamed that he was bipolar and off his meds.

What bothers me is that many passengers reported that the man had been acting erraticly during the flight, yet BOTH AMs failed to notice or clarify this. These men have guns. In the interest of not compromising their undercover status, I'm sure that they have some way of communicating with the ground, or even the cockpit. Had they arranged for a steward to ask questions, the mans wife would probably have explained right then and there. Problem averted. However, he was of course in the wrong. He was Flying While Brown, and as we saw in London, taking any form of transporation While Brown is pretty dangerous.

All this technology, and they still can't keep us safe without filling someone with lead every now and then. We live in a society that accepts a loss of innocent life for our own safety. That's the worst part about this whole thing.

-pb

Ganked from neworleans:

It's only looting if you're not white.

Sickening.

-js?!

In the wake of the execution-style murder of Jean Charles de Menezes by London police as he boarded a train, wearing a sweater and armed only with his valid Underground pass, the London PD has announced no change to their "Shoot to kill brown people" policy. A CNN poll today asks "Is the "shoot-to-kill" policy by police in London justified?"

And now, to demonstrate just how willing people are to give up not only personal freedoms, but the life of the occassional innocent person just for the illusion of safety, is the response to the poll:

Yes		70%	13989 votes
No		30%	5969 votes
Total: 19958 votes

This sounds like the plot of many a horror/sci-fi story where people are all too glad to sacrifice a random citizen to sate their evil overlord, all the while acting like this is normal, and that the sacrificed victim never existed.

-pb

(title quote from Issue 1 of Walter Koenig's 'Raver')

(via Mary Shaw)

White guy tries to board plane with a bomb in his backpack

What was that, England? What was that, Ann Coulter? Sure this *may* have been an innocent misunderstanding, or he could be another Tim McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, etc...

It's not just Muslims and darker-than-Anglo people out there trying to blow shit up. Just ask your average Iraqi.

-pb

WorldNetDaily, known for its highly reputable and unbiased news (snort), is reporting a rumor (ha ha) that Dick Cheney is going to step down next year, and that Bush will name Condoleeza Rice as his next Vice President.

I love this quote: "'We all know that Dick Cheney has been the best vice president of modern times, perhaps in American history'", which, incidentally, they didn't attribute to anyone with a name.

"Being a sitting vice president places Condi in an impregnable position for the GOP nomination in 2008 and sucks every breath of wind from Hillary's sails," says geopolitical expert Jack Wheeler.

I'm sorry, but given a choice between Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice, I really might just move to Canada. Of course, Hillary will win. The last election was 51-49%, and I guarantee that whatever percentage of the Black vote Condi picks up will be more than overshadowed by the Southern Bigot vote that she looses. It's not a racist statement, it's a statement on racism. This country's not going to elect a woman unless it has no other choice, and given the choice between a black woman and a white woman, well, I think we know how that's going to go over.

A campaign between those two would be like watching giant killer robots attacking us.

-pb

Someone Tries To Burn Cross On Family's Lawn

Ditty said he saw a man with a shaved head trying to light a cross wrapped in cloth and soaked with a flammable liquid.

"I saw him start sticking something in the ground," said Ditty. "I started approaching him, asking him what he thought was doing. He then said to me, 'Come down here and I'll show you what I'm doing. I have a gun and I'll shoot you.'"

Welcome to Pennsylvania, where more hate groups exist than any other state north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh: Trying hard to keep Pennsylvania sane.

By the way, if you haven't already,

GO VOTE, YOU BASTARD.

-pb

Swastika Burned Into Grass On Bush-Cheney Supporter's Lawn

"State Republican Party officials claim it's the latest in a series of desperate acts by Democrats."

Now, why would a Republican automatically think that Democrats would be linking Bush support with a symbol of Fascism?

Hmmm? Someone got a guilty conscience?

-pb

Nazis parading in Valley Forge!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5887677/

Because I think I want to go for a stroll in the park.

-pb

"I'm Ok, You're Ok" -- Unless You're Christian"

Google has become the target of a lot of media lately with its Initial Public Offering, and rightly so. They're a huge, profitable company that's even managed to work themselves into our common parlance. We Google things now, as opposed to searching for them. It's a simple page with a simple service: You want to find something on the web?

Google it.

Google's business model is simple, too. They run short ads on the side of your search. These ads are simple blurbs put up by paying customers. The concept is that the ads will display when certain keywords are entered. Google's policy concerning these ads is "Don't Be Evil". They are very strict about not allowing hate, porn, or other badness into these ads. However, they don't censor internet that's searched. On one hand, they're a business: they don't want to promote hate, so they don't sell ads to people who promote hate. On the other hand, they're a service: If someone is looking for hate, they're not going to stop them.

Recently, Google declined to sell ad space to a Christian organization whose ideals Google determined to be 'hate speech', based on their hard-line anti-homosexual rhetoric. Obviously, this has touched off a firestorm.

In this article, there are a lot of misconceptions, and outright lies. Let's take a look:

When the word 'gay' is searched, the theme of the ads is strictly homosexual pornography sites.

I just tried this. I entered 'gay' into the search bar, and then refreshed the page 10 times. A total of 43 ads displayed, mostly for Gay singles sites. Some of them had titillating content, but nothing that could even be remotely construed as 'pornography'. Not even close. What I saw was less racy than a 30-second Victoria's Secret ad. Most of them were pay sites, as well. There were also a few ads for advocacy and help groups.

Images offered by Google can also be obscene. A WorldNetDaily reader claimed, 'I often go to Google images, looking for pictures to use. Almost without fail you will find porn mixed in with innocent requests.' Searching for the word 'Clinton,' produced a nude woman, the reader said.

The Google Images feature is the same as their search tool. Google makes no attempt to censor internet content. As for the Clinton search, however, I had to go down 9 pages into the search to find a thumbnail of a picture that no longer existed on the original server. The thumbnail was a photoshopped image of Bill Clinton and a Monica Lewinsky's head on a (thin) lingerie-clad body. It wasn't even large enough to actually see anything. Another racy-but-cartoony image appeared on page 22.

Of course, with such a broad search, it's not beyond the imagination to think that something other than what you intend will display. A search for 'Clinton' also returned the seals of about 15 Clinton Counties, along with a number of towns named Clinton. There was also Hillary Clinton and George Clinton of Parliament Funkadelic fame, not to mention random images of many people around the country who happen to share a last name with our 42nd President.

Another WorldNetDaily reader pointed out that when the word 'Jew' is put into Google, the second site listed is JewWatch, 'a venomous anti-Semitic website,' the reader stated.

'Jew' has taken a negative connotation in recent history. It is no longer the most acceptable method of describing someone of Hebrew descent. Therefore, someone searching for 'Jew' likely isn't looking for something on Jewish culture. They're not looking for Israeli news. They're likely not trying to find a detailed history of Hebrew culture.

Likewise, were I to search for 'teen sex' expecting to find information on teenage sexual activity statistics, I'd be a fool to think that the first site wasn't going to be a porn site.

Yet another reader noted when one enters 'WMD' in the search engine, the first result is a page ridiculing President Bush about the lack of weapons the U.S. has found in Iraq. The page is disguised as a 'Page Cannot be Displayed' error message but instead is titled 'These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed.'

Well, when I searched for 'liberals', the fourth site down was "Laugh At Liberals", which is 'Conservative political commentary that satirizes the liberal left, with weblog, videos, and pictures.'

Google's system is highly complex, but often, clever programmers will find a way to boost their page in Google's search. That's exactly what happened with the 'WMD' search, as well as 'Miserable Failure'. If John Kerry prevails as the winner in the November election, I would wager that something similar would pop up within a year's time.

Google is well within its rights to restrict advertising content that it deems questionable. They are also well within their rights to not restrict search content that is in the public domain. The business model and the service model don't have to abide by the same rules. Hate speech is not something that needs to be promoted. Google's non-biased search rankings show that it promotes itself.

When I searched for 'fags', I got GodHatesFags.com. Sad, too, because I was just looking for cigarettes.

-pb

I got to flex my administrative muscles on the PhillyGoth site today. Someone signed up for a bio and listed a link to a neo-Nazi record label. So I deleted the link, emailed him, and added a line in the FAQ clarifying that such things are unacceptable.

Should have been common knowledge.

Strangely enough, the user ID of the new bio was 88 (a racist code for Heil Hitler). While it's likely coincidental, he may have been waiting for it. I may be reading in to this a bit, but he's been using the site for a while to email nearly every woman on the site with lame chat attempts, so it's not too much to think that he's been waiting until the user IDs got up to 87 to post his bio, ensuring him #88.

So, just to be spiteful, I changed it to 89.

-pb

One of my pet peeves is negative stereotypes and slurs that exist within the bounds of acceptance. Things that you see every day, and automatically associate when they're brought up. We've come far as a culture in making a lot of negative stereotypes taboo subjects. This goes right along with verbal insults. People who use 'nigger' in everyday speech, regardless of intent, are viewed as crass and hateful people for using such a word. If someone dresses up in blackface, it's easily identified as a racist gesture. These are obvious stereotypes and slurs that are easily recognized. However, there are a number of stereotypes and slurs that are part of our common parlance and culture that are often used and rarely recognized. However, just because a word or image isn't intended to be used in the pejorative doesn't make it any less hurtful or hateful. The origin of the word conjures up memories of a hateful past, regardless of its intent.

I make an active effort to avoid these when I learn of them. To continue their use, especially with my knowledge of their origin, is racist in and of itself. Take for instance, the term 'gyp'. It's a common phrase, indicating petty fraud. The term itself comes from the word Gypsy, the commonly used term for nomadic Romani tribes that have wandered the world for ages. The Romani have a strange view of the world outside themselves, and consider any non-Romani to be targets of theft, fraud, or other schemes. They typically take what they need to survive, and the trickster way serves them well enough. Our society finds such actions to be deplorable, and more importantly, illegal. However, through the course of European history, the Romani have been considered less than human. Even now, Romani in Hungary are considered sub-human. They are considered lower than we would consider the average homeless, strung out heroin addict. Murdering them is often uninvestigated and unpunished.

During the holocaust, 200,000 to 600,000 Romani were slaughtered, being considered ‘non-persons’ by the Nazi government.

While use of the word ‘jew’ to mean ‘bargain lower than the product’s worth’ (‘I jewed the car salesman down to $200 below invoice!’) is no longer acceptable speech, the term ‘gyp’ is still a part of our common parlance. It’s a hateful term, and it has a hateful history that’s still playing itself out.

A stereotype that I take personal offense to is the image of a pointy-hatted, wart-covered, hag-like figure that everyone associates with witches. Being a Wiccan (or Witch) myself, I’m highly offended by this. While witches are firmly entrenched in fiction and fantasy, this stereotype helped fuel one of the bloodiest purges in human history, the Inquisition. Stretching from the early 1200’s to 1834, the Inquisition targeted heretics and those who were accused of practicing witchcraft. People, particularly older women, were searched for warts (a Witch’s Tit), a sure sign that the Devil had pulled their soul out in exchange for temporal power. While the Inquisition rarely killed an actual witch, the stereotype sent a large number of old, wise, but devoutly Christian women to the burning stake. Even today, the stereotype does not foster good will towards witches.

A closely related (and widely used) slur is the word ‘bitch’. The common term for a female dog, it is also used to refer to women in a highly negative sense. The term itself actually was used in the negative first as ‘Son of a bitch’. ‘Bitch’, in early pagan cultures, was an honorific, even a term of respect for a goddess. A female dog was often the symbol of fertility, accompanying hunting goddesses such as Athena and Diana. Therefore, to be known as a ‘Son of a bitch’ was a term of respect. However, once pagan religions were converted and subsumed into Christianity, and goddess worship was stamped out, the term took on a negative meaning. Pagan deities were co-opted as saints or demons, depending on their aspects. Often, horned gods such as the Celtic god Herne, were turned into depictions of Satan. Conversely, beautiful fertility goddesses were often made into demonesses, out to seduce the good men of the world. To be known as a ‘Son of a bitch’ was to be referred to as the son of a demon, and the term went from an honorific to an insult quickly.

We use this term on a daily basis, though it is considered profane. It is often ‘toned down’ to ‘witch’, which in turn conjures up the negative image from mythology.

Our common speech is littered with these terms. It’s up to us to remove these prejudicial and hateful words and stereotypes from our vocabulary and cultural thought, just as we have to others in the past.

-pb

So, it's been a while since I've felt the need to analyze Frau Coulter's fascist ranting, but she's got a doozy out now that deserves my attention. USA Today hired her to provide a conservative counterpoint to the Democratic National Convention (and did the same with Michael Moore and the RNC), but after she turned this in as her first piece, they told her to take a long walk off a very short pier. It's no surprise that WorldNetDaily picked it right up. So, here we go:

Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston…

Great start! She's managed to let even people who have never before read her work know that she is completely biased, and nothing that comes after this statement can be accepted as anything less than wild exaggeration or outright lies. Powerful start. I love it!

There's a few paragraphs about how the hated Liberal hates the police and all the police stand for, and a rare dig at Al Sharpton. I say rare, because Sharpton is a Democrat not named Bill Clinton, so I'm surprised she knows his name.

My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call ‘women' at the Democratic National Convention.

Ann Coulter must be taking a cocktail of anti-suicidal medication every day just to keep from killing herself every time she notices that she's a woman. She gives new meaning to the term misogyny. I'm quite shocked that she hasn't found a devout fundamentalist alcoholic to marry and beat her, just so she can point to her bruises and say ‘See! Women are truly weak!' Of course, she wouldn't be able to say that to us, because she'd be too busy being subservient to her new husband. Either that, or he'd just kill her the first time she talked for more than five minutes. I'm neither a fundie or a drunk, and I'm sure my non-violence would end shortly after she opened her piehole.

I refuse to believe that women need makeup, bras or razors to be beautiful. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, believes that the feminine form is to be restrained, devoid of hair, and slathered in layers of makeup to be considered tasteful. To that, I have three words: Tammy Faye Bakker.

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

Dennis Kucinich, man who received my vote in the primary, you have ARRIVED. Ann Coulter not only knows your name, but has seen fit to mock you. Of course, this paragraph is particularly funny to me. Frau Coulter offers her 7-11 challenge, but what do you bet she'd fail miserably herself? Let's see how this plays out:

Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and she'll be curled up in the freezer after fleeing from the first non-white person to ask her where the restroom is. She'll spend most of that time lamenting the fact that, as a woman, she's completely helpless and defenseless. Either that, or she would have outsourced the entire store to Pakistan, and collected a huge tax incentive. No matter how you look at it, the shelves are bare. Something tells me that Dennis Kucinich would do a much better job.

For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. We've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting 'Allah Akbar!' Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.

Jimmy Carter was no prize when it came to foreign policy. However, someone needs to remind Ann that no one's head got lopped off for being American under Carter's watch. If you want to point to one man and say ‘Him! He made me a Jihadi!', it's Dubya. We've had a piss-poor image in the Middle East since we made friends with Colonial England, but the past three years have seen more damage done to our reputation than the past 100 combined. Sure, Carter coddled the Shah and botched our relationship with Iran, but Ronnie built Saddam, funded the muhajedin in Afghanistan, sold weapons to Iraq and Iran at the same time, and countless other things. And then Dubya and Friends launched two illegal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, and now they're eyeing up Iran.

As for the ‘millions of fanatical Muslims' part, well, there we go with the racism again. I've got millions of fanatical Christians out there trying to burn me at the stake for being a Witch. Every single Christian in America would like nothing more than to see the flesh melt off my bones. Just like every single Muslim wants to kill me. Just like every single European hates me because I'm American. Just like every single black man is lusting after my wife. Just like every single Jew is controlling the media and working towards bringing about the NWO. Just like… you get the picture.

With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying "digital Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush – in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.

More gibberish about the ‘Liberal Media'. You know, the same liberal media that doesn't give even a blurb to a missing black man who disappeared on his way home from planning his best friend's bachelor party and hasn't been heard from since, but will give you 24 hour coverage of a blonde, white, pregnant jogger that goes missing for two days. The same liberal media that declared Bush the winner before the polls closed on the west coast. The same liberal media that ISN'T VERY LIBERAL. But the Republicans are starting to look a lot like brown shirts, so Gore wouldn't have been too far off base had he chosen that route.

On the basis of their placards, I gather the [protester's] position is that they love the troops so much, they don't want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. 'Support the troops,' the signs say, 'bring them home.'

More of the party rhetoric that somehow equates pissing the entire world off with increased security. You know, because we've seen how well that works.

That's my new position on all government workers, except the 5 percent who aren't useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much – I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much – I think they should go home.

This part is wonderful. She shows her fascist lack of art appreciation (it's either worth something, or it's kindling), and she demonstrates her lack of support for the government and its employees, including postal workers, health inspectors, public defenders, etc, etc…, and she manages to get in a pro-Christian stance. God bless the woman.

Walking back from the convention site, I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks.

He was mostly bemused by the Democrats' primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the 'American.'

So, Republicans, which represent less than 50% of the population, are ‘American', and the rest of us are not? Welcome to Apartheid!

By the way, "normal" is defined as "conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern". As most Bostonians vote Democrat, the one she was talking to was not "normal". Considering she chatted with him for "several blocks" means that he was either brain dead or deaf, as well.

I'd say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don't.

That's ok, Ann, we hate you too. But, we do want you to go home. Of course, we are working to make your meds cheaper!

-pb

I've been having a little dance with some conservatives on a tiny backwater forum I found. The current thread started out with the Lowest Common Denominator on the forum claiming that Kerry is a Communist. It has since evolved into a debate on Iraq. I wrote a huge response to the last post, which I'll post here.

http://homepageseek.com/forums/Presidential_Elections/posts/12.html (Check it out, some of it is hella funny)

Original Post:

"Saddam was a snake waiting for his opportunity to strike, just like he did in Kuwait. When the next opportunity came he would have taken it again.
After the Twin Towers were destroyed, we sent a message this time. Even though we couldn't pinpoint the blame on one country, we had to go and push over some rocks to show that we weren't going to sit back and take it again. You have to admit, we have created some deterrence, in at least they know if something happens in this country again under the current administration there will be an even bigger crackdown on their operations. I would say this is why nothing else has yet happened, I won't guarantee this because these people are unpredictable, but I'll tell you they are thinking about possible repercussions. Other tyrannical leaders are also watching their step (Khadafi) because they now realize that hiding terrorists is not worth losing their lifestyle over."


My Riposte:

It's this flawed thinking that caused 9/11.

Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait over economic factors. After their 10 year war with Iran, Iraq’s economy was in shambles. They began to increase their oil production to get back on track, but in response, Kuwait did the same. Iraq was then pumping twice the amount of oil for the same revenue. They pleaded with Kuwait to reduce their output, mainly because without the revenue, they would be hard pressed to repay the $14 billion that the Kuwaiti government had loaned them. They begged OPEC to intervene. When these measures did not work, they massed their troops on the border and threatened to invade. It was a border dispute. We gave our implicit support by calling it a border dispute and stating we had no intention to intervene. Everything that Saddam Hussein did up until January 1991 was funded, supplied and approved by us. (Incidentally, we’d also been selling arms to Iran.) He had no reason to think that we’d do anything else. Since then, we've fought one war in bad faith, and a second war on false pretenses.

The only message we've sent since 9/11 was this: "We have no respect for your culture. We have no respect for your citizens. We have no respect for your basic human rights. Someone threw a rock at us, and since every Arab looks alike, we'll kill you all."

The Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden. We refused their offer, declared them an outlaw regime, and invaded their country. We have killed tens of thousands of their civilians. Our 'allies', warlords in the Northern Alliance, have used us as pawns to kill other warlords. We still have not found Osama bin Laden, and we're not even sure he's still in Afghanistan. He may be hiding in Pakistan, another one of our 'allies’.

We invaded Iraq because of falsified evidence that stated he was capable of hitting us directly. He was not. Even the evidence that supported that claim was shaky at best. Given the proper amount of time, we would have discovered what we now know: Saddam had no WMDs. He had no capacity to hit us. We have now killed almost 30,000 Iraqis in just over a year. Saddam Hussein killed less than 10,000 of his own people per year. We’ll kill more in 10 years than he did in 35. We have turned Iraq into a Jihadi recruitment center. We have allowed Al-Qaida and other militant groups into the country where none existed before. We have not made any significant dent in these group's ability to strike whenever and wherever they choose. Simply because they haven’t struck on American soil since 9/11/01 doesn't mean that they can't or won't.

Do you want to know why they hate us, and why 19 men were more than willing to fly planes into buildings? We’ve been doing worse to them for years.

Their reasons for hating us are simple:

1) We support them against our enemies as long as it is convenient, then we attack them ourselves (Afghanistan against Russia, Iraq against Iran).

2) We support murderous secular dictators while condemning their religious leaders.

3) We actively support, fund, and arm Israel, which has saddled the Arab world with 3.5 million Palestinian refugees, who are a burden and a drain on those other countries. Israel has maintained an Apartheid (and nearly genocidal) policy since its inception as a nation, and has launched wars against its neighbors, taking land, and defying UN resolutions (nearly as many as Iraq).

4) When it suits us, we use overt military force to take what is theirs by right (land, oil, lives)

Their rhetoric confuses us, because it is spoken through the mouths of men whose culture we do not understand. We, as Americans, do not understand that this current conflict actually spans the entire 20th century, dating back to the British colonial empire. We do not understand that economic factors and our malevolent policies are to blame, and our military aggression is like gasoline on that fire.

Every time an Iraqi child is killed by American gunfire, every time an American plane drops a bomb on an Afghan wedding, there's another angry Jordanian or Syrian youth saying 'Enough!', and joining a militant group. We trample over their holy sites. We shame their fathers by pressing their heads to the ground because we do not understand that a Muslim man does not touch his head to the ground except during prayer. We commit abuses at places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo that are far worse in their culture than ours. We rape their land. We lay claim to everything they own. We kill their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers. All of this, and we sit in the lap of luxury. Take a look through their eyes. Put yourself in the shoes of that disaffected Jordanian youth. What would you do if someone invaded Canada and kicked all the Canadians out onto your doorstep? What would you do if they invaded New York for its resources? What would you do if they killed your father? We simply have no empathy for what the Middle East has endured over the past century.

Our policies there have not made us safer. They have created a festering wound that will continue to plague us. This administration has heaped piles onto the damage of every administration since World War II.

Was Saddam Hussein a murderer? Yes. Did his policies result in the deaths of nearly 300,000 civilians? Yes. Did he invade another country? Yes. Did he use chemical weapons in violation of world law? Yes. Did we actively support him for 20 years? Yes. Did we give him chemical weapons? Yes. Did we turn a blind eye when he killed his own people? Yes.


If I paid you to kill someone for me, I’d be considered as much a murderer as you. Between the 600,000 Iraqis killed in the ten-year Iran-Iraq conflict, to the 100,000 we killed in Desert Storm, to the 10,000 we killed between then and now, and the 300,000 Saddam Hussein’s regime killed, we’ve got the blood of over a million Iraqis on our hands. And that’s just Iraq. That’s not counting Iranian dead. That’s not counting Afghan dead. That’s not counting Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese dead, killed by US weapons in Israeli hands.

Someday, hopefully, we, as a nation, will learn that you can’t wash all that blood away with more blood.

-pb

There. I said it. She's got no right to speak on matters of American policy, because she is inherently un-American, anti-democracy, and pro-everything that has made us the target of world terrorism today. In essence, she is the voice of madness, and if the Right manages to restrict free speech, she should be the first to be silenced.

But she won't be, because she's the swinging leathery teat at which the Rush-loving, Hannity-hoarding dittoheads suckle. And contrary to what anyone says, she's not beautiful. Granted, she is the model of Aryan perfection (which, I'm sure, she reminds herself of every morning), and that typically does it for me (hey, I like blondes. I married a blonde.), but she's sickly thin and her face is just... ugly.

So, now that we've gotten past those vicious attacks on both her ideology and her face, let me explain:

In today's vomit-heap of a column, she spews forth this line in the midsts of her usual violently anti-Arab vitriol, a decomposing horse she has been beating since... September 12th 2001.

The ACLU had zeroed in on the true meaning of 9/11: Americans needed to be more tolerant of and sensitive toward ethnic minorities.

Now, you've got to pry open a slimy oyster to get at a pearl, which is essentially hardened oyster-spit, but you get a pretty little rock. And so we have this statement.

Frau Coulter would have us believe that every person of Arabian descent or Moslem religion should be detained, gassed, and incinerated. She doesn't really bother to hide this. If this were 1943, she wouldn't have been limited to 6 million Jews. She would have ordered the forcible extermination of Arabs and then gone after the 'liberals' (A word she uses to describe anyone that does not agree with her 100%). Lucky for us it's 2004.

I digress. Again.

She spouts off this hate-filled line, never in a million years realizing just how right she is. Because We The People need to be tolerant and sensitive towards ethnic minorities. We need to be a hell of a lot more tolerant and sensitive towards those people in THEIR OWN COUNTRIES. Are we? No, we bomb them with no justification. We prop up dictatorial regimes and rubber stamp the wholesale slaughter of millions, then decry it when it suits us. We use our political clout to support a terrorist, expansionistic nation (Israel), and then do it again (Iraq). The difference between the two? No Arab expects us to invade Israel when they become 'inconvenient'.

If you've never heard of Ann Coulter, consider yourself lucky. She's a mouthpiece of hatred and lies. She makes the KKK look like a quilting club.

Want proof? From the same article:

Like many of you, I carefully reviewed the lawsuits against the airlines in order to determine which airlines had engaged in the most egregious discrimination, so I could fly only that airline. But oddly, rather than bragging about the charges, the airlines heatedly denied discriminating against Middle Eastern passengers. What a wasted marketing opportunity! Imagine the great slogans the airlines could use:

'Now Frisking All Arabs -- Twice!'

'More Civil Rights Lawsuits Brought by Arabs Than Any Other Airline!'

'The Friendly Skies -- Unless You're an Arab'

'You Are Now Free to Move About the Cabin -- Not So Fast, Mohammed!'

Yeah, she's a Nazi, she's a hatemonger, and she should be forcibly deported to recently liberated Afghanistan. You know, where women no longer have to wear burqas. They still do anyway, because all the American soldiers are too busy in Iraq to stop rape gangs from attacking them.

Incidentally, The Taliban didn't have this problem. Why? Because at least they had the rule of law. All Afghanistan has now is a few soldiers scouting for a pipeline in Kabul. But that's ok. According to Ann Coulter, they deserve no better simply because they're Arabs.

If you want to read the article I'm quoting, click here, but please, wear some protection.

-pb

Abortion?:	Keep your laws of my woman!
Death Penalty?:	If there were a flawless way to determine guilt or innoncence, I would approve of the death penalty dor crimes that normally warrant a life sentence.
Prostitution?:	The first profession! It should be legalized and regulated to make it safer for all involved.
Alcohol?:	I like the hard liquor.
Marijuana?:	While I've never partaken, I have no problem with it, and think that the government keeps it illegal out of spite.
Other drugs?:	Now, there's a genuine problem.
Gay marriage?:	There should be no restrictions on consenting, unrelated adults marrying.
Illegal immigrants?:	Why do they keep coming here when we keep sending our jobs somewhere else?
Smoking?:	Gave it up.
Drunk driving?:	Should be a much longer prison sentence.
Cloning?:	Human cloning is impractical and stupid. Stem cell research should be promoted.
Racism?:	Ethnic penis envy.
Premarital sex?:	A religious issue. I don't care who sleeps with who under what pretenses, as long as it's not rape or incest. Get over it.
Religion?:	It's the cause of billions of deaths throughout the ages.
The war in Iraq?:	Illegal, immoral, unjust, and all about oil.
Bush?:	A fascist fundamentalist warmongering criminal.
Downloading music?:	Not as damaging as the RIAA makes it out to be.
The legal drinking age?:	Health studies have proven that 21 is the best minimum drinking age... but that didn't stop me.
Porn?:	It's a ton of fun!
Suicide?:	Pretty friggin' dumb.

What is your stand on..... brought to you by BZOINK!

-pb