Sunday, March 22, 2009

Tried Wordpress for a while...

... wasn't impressed.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Back in Action

Yes, it has been a long while and life has changed much since I stopped posting.

There's plenty going on and much to say.

I cleared out some other junk from the site, but left some other marginally constructive posts.

Friday, August 12, 2005

Turkey Polls Poorly

Turkey seems to have the same mentality as so many others do when it comes to acts of terrorism and what causes it. In a report (see web address below) from Turkish Weekly, it appears that, "Sixty-six percent of participants blamed US Middle Eastern policies as the cause of global terrorism, yet 20 percent pointed to inequality in income distribution and economic problems as the reason for terror."

Global Terrorism is a nifty and possibly meaningless term if it is to include the Bali bombing since the US did not have anything to do with that at all, nor would it go very well for the bombings in Egypt or Turkey itself since Turkey did not let the US send troops into Iraq, and while Egypt is not nearly the same as Iran, Egypt is still not quite in bed with US policy either. But somehow the US is still to blame.

It is also sad to see that one in five Turks still think that poor people are the ones blowing up stuff. Osama bin Laden isn't poor (or we wouldn't be freezing al Quaida's assets), and most of the terrorists we see from 9/11, and London are / were educated, have / had jobs, and know / knew how to use soap too!

By far the saddest survey question found the following: "Only four percent of the Turkish public link terror with religion."

Only four percent, but two-thirds can blame the US for it all. According to a video with ObL in it from December 26, 2001, he said, "After three months passed since the blessed attacks against the global infidelity, against America, the head of infidelity, and after almost two months passed since the beginning of the vicious crusade campaign against Islam, we would like to talk about some of the meanings of these events. These events revealed many issues that are significant to Muslims."

Let's count religious words: blessed, infidelity, infidelity, crusade, Islam, Muslims

That's six in fifty-seven words. Since one is a duplicate, and adds only emphasis, we can take out the " against America, the head of infidelity" and we have five out of a total of 51 words. Almost ten percent - and only four percent of Turkey thinks that religion plays a role in terror.

The US has not run a very good PR campaign in a very long time and it shows. To me, this is the weakest link in our ability to fight terror because we are not doing a good enough job of explaining why this needs to be done. While it seems obvious to me and many others in the US, much of the rest of the world is far more isolated from our ideas and since we are not communicating effectively there is indeed a growing lack of sympathy and understanding.

Full Article: of ObL quote:

Regrets of NARAL - Not enough regrets at all

While I'm prepping to finally go to college and have the amount of hours I'll be working diminish greatly, I've been quite busy either working (getting hours in), or doing all that needs to be done for school.

I've found many items worth conversation, but haven't had time to address them at all. Once this situation stabilizes I will be very happy indeed.

One subject that is quite pathetic is the attempt by liberals to slam John Roberts. From trying to dig for information about his adopted children to the last garbage passed as 'information' by that wonderfully out of touch group called NARAL, this man has been dealing with items that would not be brought up by statesman, nor sophisticated critics.

NARAL is now pulling the ad from television, but not because of the actual statements they made, but because it seems many people seem to be too stupid to understand the true meaning of it I guess:

"We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record," NARAL President Nancy Keenan said.

How does something get 'misconstrued'? Usually it is either because the item does not contain enough substance or it lacks validity, or if not, then it is because the target audience is simply too stupid to grasp the depth of the subject and draw their own conclusions.

I personally side with the first possibility over the second, but what is telling is like with so many other points of interest these days, people are not regretting the fact that they put up an ad so very bereft of facts and then decide to blame 'many people' for the results instead of themselves. This is in line with the modern version of the timeless idea to blame others for what goes wrong and shrug off any and all responsibility.

In the end, I am still undecided as to how I personally feel about Judge Roberts, but either way, it does not excuse the tactics being employed against him.

Full article:

Thursday, July 28, 2005


Another misguided Judge sputters foolishness in an effort to flaunt his ignorance and has much success. According to a report U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour decided to equate fighters captured in Afghanistan and Iraq by our military units with people in custody by law enforcement personnel in the United States.

Foolishness prevailed, "We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant or deny the defendant the right to counsel...The message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart."

Ahh how true and yet irrelevant. The courts have no authority to do anything to people captured by our military forces and held while there are still hostile zones. The idea that Judge Coughenour even needs to speak such idiocy says much about his inability to grasp the difference between what the military does and what civil police forces do.

There are many good reasons why there are not to be standing armies on US soil unless in a time of war: one usually less important one is that there is a different code of both behavior and responsibilities for the members of the military and a different legal system that operates inside of it as well.

This is another example of an activist judge who feels that being on the bench enables him to lecture and give social commentary. This behavior is more fit for Judge Judy than an active member of our district judges. Let him pat himself on the back for being so bold as to criticize something about which he seems to understand so little because at least the terrorist trash will be rotting for at least 14 years from the date of this sentencing and that I do not mind.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Can We Legislate Morality?

It's been said many times by many people that we should not legislate morality. On the surface this seems like something that is both true, and even possibly desired, but when one actually examines this statement we can see that it leads down the path of moral and philosophical relativism. To some this is still desirable, but I hope to illustrate why they are incorrect.

For example, there are those who consider some of the debates of today to be battles of morality and thus unfit for legislation: Abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, censorship, prostitution, and so forth and so on. They feel that some or all of these issues are all based on an idea of morality that not everyone may share. Because of this lack of universal consensus no action should be taken. Without engaging in an act of reductio ad absurdum (hopefully), if this were the case then we'd have no laws at all since there is no universal consensus about anything - even most murders and rapists can 'justify' their acts.

Let's take a look at some other examples that might enable us to understand that, yes, in fact we are engaging in legislating morality all the time. I found this example from Robert Bork in relation to some debate he was having regarding this issue and it is very striking and clear: Imagine a person who purchases a small island (part of the US though), and on that island he builds a large kennel where he breeds dogs and cats. No one can see nor hear these animals because of the location of the island and the kennel itself.

Every so often this guy goes out and he takes some of the cats and dogs and tears off their limbs and eats them while these animals watch. He then practices other various forms of torture and cruelty on them until they die a slow, horrible death. Most everyone would say this behavior is completely unacceptable, but on what grounds? Do animals have Constitutional rights? No, of course not. Animals do not pay taxes, cannot vote, and have no sense of duty, responsibility, or much of anything else - and in fact they are the property of this man.

Because we feel a sense of disgust, and to most of us it is wrong to do those horrible things, we make laws enabling us to help end the suffering of non-humans that are not even our own property. Based on that argument, should such laws based simply on our outrage and disgust even exist?

It is here that the libertarian arguments fall completely apart. Unless the person is a heartless sociopath, one would not want animal cruelty laws that prevent this type of behavior eliminated, but that very law is only based in emotion and forcing your own beliefs on others who do not feel the same way.

While many people also would like some (or all) drugs legalized, the same argument can be made about this. We, as a society, know the effects drugs have on the family, friends, and most everyone else even slightly associated with someone who is addicted to drugs. This can ruin a marriage, destroy childhoods, and of course drive a family into destitution before all is said and done. Because our society - as a whole - does not feel the individual liberty of using drugs freely is worth the trouble, we make them illegal.

Thus when some states vote on gay marriage, it should left to the states to decide what to do and not up to a federal court to strike down anti-gay marriage laws. If the people of certain states feel one way while those in another feel differently then it should be up to those places to decide. I hear some liberals paying lip service to this notion (only on this issue), but I'm willing to wager they'd be backing such groups as the ACLU who would sue in some federal court.

And on what grounds might they sue? The Fourteenth Amendment of course!
See reference:

Thursday, July 21, 2005

'Uprising cards' all the rage in Nablus

I missed this 2003 article, sadly enough. I guess there's a nifty trading card game in the Palestinian occupied areas that immortalize all sorts of types of people... great for kids of all ages:

Thursday, Dec 25, 2003,Page 7

Advertising Palestinian children are collecting cards showing gunmen and soldiers the way kids in the US trade baseball cards, and some educators are concerned that the hobby is helping to breed a new generation of militants.
The cards are an enormous hit, according to Majdi Taher, who makes them. He said that 6 million cards have been sold over two years and 32,000 albums this month alone in the two main population centers of the northern West Bank -- huge numbers for a territory in which about 1 million Palestinians live -- and he plans to expand his business.
The card craze reflects reality in the West Bank, where three years of Palestinian-Israeli violence has become the dominant reality for children. Israeli soldiers enforce curfews, confining residents to their homes, and often carry out raids in towns and villages looking for militants.
Sometimes children throw rocks at Israeli soldiers or are caught up in exchanges of gunfire. At least 319 Palestinian children under the age of 18 have been killed in the conflict.

A Palestinian girl displays a collage of picture cards featuring scenes of the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank town of Nablus on Tuesday.PHOTO: APIn the West Bank, Palestinian militants carry their weapons openly on the streets and gain the adulation of the young. More than 100 Palestinian suicide bombers have carried out attacks against Israelis, becoming folk heroes in their home towns.
The collectible cards depict real-life Middle East action figures familiar to the children: An Israeli soldier shooting a large gun, a soldier forcing Palestinians off their land, a small Palestinian child dressed in militant's clothing holding a toy gun and Palestinian boys throwing stones.
The albums are sold in cardboard boxes shaped like Israeli tanks and include a dedication from Nablus governor Mahmoud Alul.
A child who fills an album with all 129 pictures can win a computer, a bicycle, a watch or a hat.
Some teachers and parents are concerned about the new fad, trying to forbid their children from buying the pictures, saying they are teaching children violence and forcing them to grow up too quickly.
"I take hundreds of these pictures from children every day and burn them," said Saher Hindi, 28, a teacher at a Nablus elementary school. "They turn children into extremists," she said.
The desire to fill the albums has captivated children in Nablus and Ramallah, teachers say, keeping them from their homework as they spend all their money on the cards.
It's a business success for Taher, who said he plans to expand the sale of the cards and albums to other West Bank towns.
The former candy salesman said he means for the album and pictures to be a history lesson.
Children who are now seven cannot remember incidents from the start of the fighting three years ago, he said.

Monday, July 18, 2005

What Rudolph and Fundamentalism DO Have in Common

In an effort to paint Christians and Christianity as bad as Islamic Fundamentalists, you know, the 'Taliban-wing' of US government, as Senator Tim Johnson has put it ( , we've had Eric Rudolph added to the list just for good measure. The problem is, the United States has put him away for a very long time (4 life sentences), and - in his own words - he prefers Nietzsche to The Good Book. And since one of Nietzsche's most oft-quoted statements is "God is dead" I wonder how that'll square with the left's desire to place Rudolph in the same line as hard-core Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists.

Certainly, Rudolph qualifies as a complete outcast from civilization and, to me, is a perfect candidate to ride the lightning into oblivion. Feel it, tough guy.

It's not because I am particularly fond of abortion clinics, anyone who's read some of previous posts would know that, but I also not fond of those who wish kill those who's inclinations do not mesh with their own. We are a society with the rule of law, and because of this he should put his efforts at convincing others his way is correct rather than killing people. And with so many modern tools (i.e. the internet and blogs) once can make headway by presenting cases in the same way.

There is one other aspect of Rudolph that came to light to me as a revelation (excuse the New Testament reference - purely coincidental) and that has to do with those certain others who decide that they need to blow up people - people who have no power to change politics or social structure - Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists.

While I just said that the left is wrong for putting the two together one can wonder why I am now lumping them right back together. The answer is simply this: Mentality.

To Rudolph, he might have thought that ridding the world of those who kill unborn children is, in a way, an act of defending the unborn. This argument has been posed by some, and it is a thought - if you subscribe to the willingness to destroy the rule of law in the process.

To Islamic terrorists, the Western World is a cancer - it is home to The Great Satan - and it must be brought down. There is no negotiating with Satan, and as such there is no negotiating with the West. No matter what the cost, no matter what the risk, a unified Arab state must come into existence and Islam - Wahhabism or some other element - must be the form of all policy and doctrine.

Since the United States is the largest exporter of ideas and objects that directly go against this idea, it is only natural that these people hold nothing but disdain in their hearts for us. The fact that if the US were to stop exporting these items and ideas, the other nations of the west would have follow suit or they'd face the same 'punishment'. This eludes them currently and many mistakenly feel that simply not fighting in a place like Iraq will keep them free from these terrorists.

It is because of this need to build an Islamic empire that these people will never tire, and giving them dane-geld will not make them stop - it will only make them feel legitimatised - and then they will move forward quicker - not slower - than before. It is the same thing with Rudolph, or any other person who defies the rule of law in an effort to make their form of 'how things should be' a reality - this mentality cannot be challenged because they do in fact have their own logic and their own rational plan of action.

It is, has been, and always will be an 'us versus them' struggle, but it is not purely racial, religious, nor even economic struggle, although those elements are used to justify many actions; it is a battle of ideologies and this is why educated people are willing blow themselves up even before the poor and 'downtrodden'. The left's complete failure to understand that is exactly why the left is currently unfit to lead this nation.