It looks like the Iraqi people pulled off a successful election, their first in fifty years. By their courage and determination, they have effectively thumbed their noses up at the insurgents and shown them (the insurgents) that they do not have the support of the people.
If history has shown us anything over the last hundred years, it’s that democracy is often born from conflict. It took two world wars to bring democracy to central Europe, a Cold War which lasted another fifty years to bring Eastern Europe out of the shadow of communism, a civil war and break-up of Yugoslavia to bring democratic principles to that formerly communist-dominated territory, and a collapse of a superpower to bring democracy to Russia, Ukraine, and other former Soviet territories. Democracy is still tenuous in Russia and Ukraine, but it has begun. The first President Bush said “you can’t put democracy and freedom back into a box.” He was absolutely right.
For all the problems that the U.S. invasion brought with it, one of the benefits will be that democracy will take hold in Iraq. The people want it, despite the actions of the insurgency and foreign terrorists who, despite being dealt a knockdown blow by the Iraqi people today, continue to stream into Iraq to fight the U.S. military and the new democratic government of Iraq.
It’s a great day for Iraq, and hopefully, one giant step toward bringing our troops home.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Israel & Palestine Back on Track for Peace
Newly elected Palestinian President Abbas took strong steps this week to contain terrorism coming from the West Bank and Gaza Strip against Israel. He has deployed Palestinian police forces into those areas with express orders to stop terrorists and banned weapons from being owned by Palestinian civilians. Israel has responded by stopping military action in the Gaza Strip and stopped targeting Hamas members and leaders for assassination.
In addition, there is now talk of a summit between the top officials of Israel and Palestine and the prospects for a return to the roadmap to peace look brighter.
They still have a long ways to go, but at least they’re talking again, which is great news for the peace process.
In addition, there is now talk of a summit between the top officials of Israel and Palestine and the prospects for a return to the roadmap to peace look brighter.
They still have a long ways to go, but at least they’re talking again, which is great news for the peace process.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Global Warming: More Propaganda
The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!! That’s how the latest global warming propaganda is coming across.
Scientists have adapted their data again so that the results look much worse than before and are now using it as a story. Here's what happened:
Climateprediction.net used 90,000 computers across the Internet to run their models with different variables. 2,000 simulations were run. Out of all those possible combinations, a handful of them predicted temperature rises of eleven degrees celsius. There was no timetable. Most of the other simulations predicted a 3.4 degree celsius increase in global temperatures.
Yet the journal Nature ran with the story that the temperature was going up 11 degrees and that the Kyoto Accords do not go far enough to stop it. And of course the pro-global warming media picked up on the story and ran with it as fact, while ignoring 99.8% of the other models in this so-called "study."
Global warming is inevitable. It's happened before, it will happen again. Ice core samples of the polar ice fields in Greenland show that the polar ice pack has melted several times over the last 500,000 years. Sound research suggests that temperatures across the planet undergo major changes every 1,000 years and that this cycle can be disrupted by volcanic activity and lack of sunspot activity, such as what happened from 1650-1680 and resulted in major weather changes in Britain. The global warming crowd ignores stuff before 1750 (the beginning of the Industrial Age).
For an interesting read, click here. This article will not be popular with the global warming village people, but they keep manipulating the data to produce the results that they want. That isn't scientific research, that's propaganda.
Scientists have adapted their data again so that the results look much worse than before and are now using it as a story. Here's what happened:
Climateprediction.net used 90,000 computers across the Internet to run their models with different variables. 2,000 simulations were run. Out of all those possible combinations, a handful of them predicted temperature rises of eleven degrees celsius. There was no timetable. Most of the other simulations predicted a 3.4 degree celsius increase in global temperatures.
Yet the journal Nature ran with the story that the temperature was going up 11 degrees and that the Kyoto Accords do not go far enough to stop it. And of course the pro-global warming media picked up on the story and ran with it as fact, while ignoring 99.8% of the other models in this so-called "study."
Global warming is inevitable. It's happened before, it will happen again. Ice core samples of the polar ice fields in Greenland show that the polar ice pack has melted several times over the last 500,000 years. Sound research suggests that temperatures across the planet undergo major changes every 1,000 years and that this cycle can be disrupted by volcanic activity and lack of sunspot activity, such as what happened from 1650-1680 and resulted in major weather changes in Britain. The global warming crowd ignores stuff before 1750 (the beginning of the Industrial Age).
For an interesting read, click here. This article will not be popular with the global warming village people, but they keep manipulating the data to produce the results that they want. That isn't scientific research, that's propaganda.
When Politics Go Bad: Activists Charged With Election-Day Sabotage
If you remember, before the general elections in November, a number of political offices were shot at, looted and burned, flag displays in front yards were vandalized, yard signs were taken, homes were damaged, and cars with the wrong bumper sticker were vandalized. All of this was done in the name of "exercising political expression." Nonsense!
At least five activists in Wisconsin were charged today with slashing the tires of twenty-five rented vehicles in the employ of the state Republican Party. Several others in four other states were under investigation for their role in the vandalism. Idiots!
The punishments for such crimes are not severe enough to deter overly emotional people from acting on those emotions. Hatred kills common sense and lack of common sense gets idiots like those who were charged in Wisconsin into serious trouble.
Politics is politics, but violence is not politics. Violence in all forms is a crime. Period. Some of these idiots say that they were upset about this or that and acted on their emotions. And some activist judge will probably be sympathetic to their feelings and give them probation instead of a good kick in the a$$!
Perhaps some time behind bars will cure these idiots of their stupidity and convince others to think twice before acting on their hatred.
At least five activists in Wisconsin were charged today with slashing the tires of twenty-five rented vehicles in the employ of the state Republican Party. Several others in four other states were under investigation for their role in the vandalism. Idiots!
The punishments for such crimes are not severe enough to deter overly emotional people from acting on those emotions. Hatred kills common sense and lack of common sense gets idiots like those who were charged in Wisconsin into serious trouble.
Katherine Harris of Florida was nearly run over by an upset Democrat who was "excercising his political expression." (See news brief here). There were other reports of people being threatened regardless of their political affiliation. This must stop.
Politics is politics, but violence is not politics. Violence in all forms is a crime. Period. Some of these idiots say that they were upset about this or that and acted on their emotions. And some activist judge will probably be sympathetic to their feelings and give them probation instead of a good kick in the a$$!
Perhaps some time behind bars will cure these idiots of their stupidity and convince others to think twice before acting on their hatred.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Elian Gonzales Illegal Use of Force Trial Underway
Thirteen people who suffered various "injuries" during the illegal raid on a house in Florida that saw federal agents under then-Attorney Janet Reno’s orders capture Elian Gonzales have begun a lawsuit against the government.
Reno sent the agents in after being told by a federal judge that his American relatives could keep the kid until the appeals were finished. This was in April 2000.
But Reno decided she didn’t want to wait any further and ordered the agents to storm the house, break down the doors, wave guns around and use tear gas on anyone who got in the way. And they did.
The Reno Justice Department chose to break the very law it was supposed to be upholding by taking the action it did. What happened was inevitable, but the way it happened was unconscionable.
Let the courts sort out the trauma cases.
The people who ordered those agents into that house need to take responsibility for their decisions; something that hasn't happened yet. In other words, Reno ought to be on the stand too so this flagrant government violation of due process can finally be answered and an ugly chapter in the history of the U.S. Justice Department can finally be closed.
Reno sent the agents in after being told by a federal judge that his American relatives could keep the kid until the appeals were finished. This was in April 2000.
But Reno decided she didn’t want to wait any further and ordered the agents to storm the house, break down the doors, wave guns around and use tear gas on anyone who got in the way. And they did.
The Reno Justice Department chose to break the very law it was supposed to be upholding by taking the action it did. What happened was inevitable, but the way it happened was unconscionable.
Let the courts sort out the trauma cases.
The people who ordered those agents into that house need to take responsibility for their decisions; something that hasn't happened yet. In other words, Reno ought to be on the stand too so this flagrant government violation of due process can finally be answered and an ugly chapter in the history of the U.S. Justice Department can finally be closed.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
FCC Director Resigns: Hopefully Not a Set-Back for Decency on Airwaves
“Embattled” Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell is stepping down following the start of President Bush’s second term in office.
Why are the networks describing him as “embattled?”
Because shock-jock Howard Stern criticized him on the radio? Who saw thousands of protestors picketing in front of the FCC offices, criticizing his control of the FCC? Didn’t happen. How many lawsuits were filed against the FCC, charging that the First Amendment was being violated? Very few. How many pro-Janet Jackson letters came in? Not many.
No, he wasn’t embattled. All he tried to do was clean up the programming on radio and TV. He was criticized because the various radio and TV networks didn’t want to clean up their act. He was criticized because Stern’s sleazy show knew what the rules were, proceeded to stomp all over them, and in response the FCC sent Stern packing to satellite radio. And the now-infamous wardrobe malfunction? Yep. Sure.
So Powell should be praised for doing a good job and sharpening the teeth of the FCC.
There should be balance, but if the networks had their way, they’d continue lowering the standards of decency in favor of beating their competition. Strengthening the FCC was the only way to slam on the brakes so that people have a little more of a say in what the networks present on TV or how personalities say things on the radio. That's a major point; radio personalities can express their views, but HOW they express them is the issue.
A strong FCC is needed to punish the sleaze-mongers who break the rules and dare the FCC to do something about it.
Why are the networks describing him as “embattled?”
Because shock-jock Howard Stern criticized him on the radio? Who saw thousands of protestors picketing in front of the FCC offices, criticizing his control of the FCC? Didn’t happen. How many lawsuits were filed against the FCC, charging that the First Amendment was being violated? Very few. How many pro-Janet Jackson letters came in? Not many.
No, he wasn’t embattled. All he tried to do was clean up the programming on radio and TV. He was criticized because the various radio and TV networks didn’t want to clean up their act. He was criticized because Stern’s sleazy show knew what the rules were, proceeded to stomp all over them, and in response the FCC sent Stern packing to satellite radio. And the now-infamous wardrobe malfunction? Yep. Sure.
So Powell should be praised for doing a good job and sharpening the teeth of the FCC.
There should be balance, but if the networks had their way, they’d continue lowering the standards of decency in favor of beating their competition. Strengthening the FCC was the only way to slam on the brakes so that people have a little more of a say in what the networks present on TV or how personalities say things on the radio. That's a major point; radio personalities can express their views, but HOW they express them is the issue.
A strong FCC is needed to punish the sleaze-mongers who break the rules and dare the FCC to do something about it.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Boycott the Boycott
There is a movement underway to bring the economy to a standstill on Thursday during the Presidential inauguration ceremonies. People are being encouraged to call in sick, stay home, not to shop on Thursday, not to watch TV, not to make long distance phone calls and so forth.
The point of this is to draw attention to the fact that not everyone agrees with President Bush and that the money that is not put into the economy cannot be taxed, and therefore not be used to fight the ongoing war in Iraq, to support President Bush's programs and to show that Bush does not have a mandate. They are doing this to vent their rage at Bush.
Bush got 3.5 million more votes than Kerry did on Election Day. They're still talking about the thousands that were "disenfranchised" but the thousands still aren't enough to overcome the millions that went in Bush's favor.
So who is this boycott going to hurt first? It's going to hurt the people who can least afford a boycott: the working class. Will it hurt Bush personally? No. He knows he didn't have 100% of the vote.
This boycott will be as useless and as harmful to the average American worker as the so-called "gas-outs" were. The gas companies laughed and still made millions in profits.
A note to those who are considering participating in the boycott: find a better way to show your displeasure with the policies of the government but do it in a way that doesn't hurt people making minimum wage. Make a web site. Use your e-mail to express your displeasure (not in a threatening way, mind you). Protest. Make noise. Do whatever you need to to do to get it out of your system. Run for office.
But don't take it out on others who may have voted the same way you did.
The point of this is to draw attention to the fact that not everyone agrees with President Bush and that the money that is not put into the economy cannot be taxed, and therefore not be used to fight the ongoing war in Iraq, to support President Bush's programs and to show that Bush does not have a mandate. They are doing this to vent their rage at Bush.
Bush got 3.5 million more votes than Kerry did on Election Day. They're still talking about the thousands that were "disenfranchised" but the thousands still aren't enough to overcome the millions that went in Bush's favor.
So who is this boycott going to hurt first? It's going to hurt the people who can least afford a boycott: the working class. Will it hurt Bush personally? No. He knows he didn't have 100% of the vote.
This boycott will be as useless and as harmful to the average American worker as the so-called "gas-outs" were. The gas companies laughed and still made millions in profits.
A note to those who are considering participating in the boycott: find a better way to show your displeasure with the policies of the government but do it in a way that doesn't hurt people making minimum wage. Make a web site. Use your e-mail to express your displeasure (not in a threatening way, mind you). Protest. Make noise. Do whatever you need to to do to get it out of your system. Run for office.
But don't take it out on others who may have voted the same way you did.
EU Politicizes Unveiling of World's Largest Commercial Aircraft
It’s amusing that the leaders of the European Union have hailed their “victory” over the United States in the production of the world’s largest passenger jet.
No, it was an Airbus victory over Boeing. It was a little strange that European political leaders used the occasion to throw barbs at Washington but politicians are the same the world over.
Airbus needs to make money fast or their thirteen-billion dollar bird will turn this victory into a catastrophe for Airbus.
Why exactly do the struggling airlines need aircraft that big? They’re plenty big now and can’t fill the seats they already have available. How much money will the airlines lose per flight if they can’t fill every seat? Will there be any savings by replacing smaller aircraft like the 747s with these gigantic aircraft?
The military would probably like them a lot; they could transport an entire division of troops with twelve of the A380s.
No, it was an Airbus victory over Boeing. It was a little strange that European political leaders used the occasion to throw barbs at Washington but politicians are the same the world over.
Airbus needs to make money fast or their thirteen-billion dollar bird will turn this victory into a catastrophe for Airbus.
Why exactly do the struggling airlines need aircraft that big? They’re plenty big now and can’t fill the seats they already have available. How much money will the airlines lose per flight if they can’t fill every seat? Will there be any savings by replacing smaller aircraft like the 747s with these gigantic aircraft?
The military would probably like them a lot; they could transport an entire division of troops with twelve of the A380s.
Iran to World: We Can Repel U.S. Attack
Iran is reacting to a U.S. newspaper's "revelation" that the U.S. military is conducting reconnaissance operations inside Iran to identify nuclear and military targets by saying that they can repel any U.S. attack.
Yeah, right! They lost their eight-year war against Iraq, for crying out loud, and the U.S. beat the Iraqi military (that Iran couldn't) in six weeks. While no one is interested in seeing the U.S. cross swords with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, Iran's posturing IS highly dubious.
Unlike Iraq, any military conflict with Iran would have a definite start and a definite end and would not end with a U.S. occupation of Iranian territory. Current thinking is the U.S. would come in, destroy what it wanted, and then pull out immediately. The question would then become: would Iran continue the conflict by sending its military and Revolutionary Guard units across the border to attack U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Let's not find out. The U.S. needs to restore order in Iraq, get out of there and retool the U.S. military before opening another front in the war on terror.
France and Germany are making all the noise about Iran's nuclear program. Let's see their intelligence on the subject for a change.
Yeah, right! They lost their eight-year war against Iraq, for crying out loud, and the U.S. beat the Iraqi military (that Iran couldn't) in six weeks. While no one is interested in seeing the U.S. cross swords with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, Iran's posturing IS highly dubious.
Unlike Iraq, any military conflict with Iran would have a definite start and a definite end and would not end with a U.S. occupation of Iranian territory. Current thinking is the U.S. would come in, destroy what it wanted, and then pull out immediately. The question would then become: would Iran continue the conflict by sending its military and Revolutionary Guard units across the border to attack U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Let's not find out. The U.S. needs to restore order in Iraq, get out of there and retool the U.S. military before opening another front in the war on terror.
France and Germany are making all the noise about Iran's nuclear program. Let's see their intelligence on the subject for a change.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Court Upholds President Bush's First Amendment Rights
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia threw out a lawsuit that an atheist had brought against the government that challenged the use of an invocation and a benediction at the Presidential Inauguration.
The court decided it did not have the power to order a President-elect to remain silent at his own inauguration and that banning the prayers would amount to the same thing. This is a victory for the First Amendment against a frivolous lawsuit.
The plaintiff first came into the public eye when he challenged the government in court over the same issue four years ago when George W. Bush took office. Since then he's filed a lawsuit against the Pledge of Allegiance, claiming that the words "under God" violates the left-loved "separation of church and state" clause that the courts created and have upheld ever since.
That first case was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court because he did not have custody of his daughter, whom he claimed was victimized by the recital of the Pledge, and did not have the support of the mother (who has custody of their daughter and opposed the case.)
He recently re-filed the case without using his daughter as his pawn and with eight other families who support his cause.
That entire case with the Pledge came across as a man using his daughter to gain social brownie points for himself with his legal attack on the Pledge. That's very sad.
The court decided it did not have the power to order a President-elect to remain silent at his own inauguration and that banning the prayers would amount to the same thing. This is a victory for the First Amendment against a frivolous lawsuit.
The plaintiff first came into the public eye when he challenged the government in court over the same issue four years ago when George W. Bush took office. Since then he's filed a lawsuit against the Pledge of Allegiance, claiming that the words "under God" violates the left-loved "separation of church and state" clause that the courts created and have upheld ever since.
That first case was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court because he did not have custody of his daughter, whom he claimed was victimized by the recital of the Pledge, and did not have the support of the mother (who has custody of their daughter and opposed the case.)
He recently re-filed the case without using his daughter as his pawn and with eight other families who support his cause.
That entire case with the Pledge came across as a man using his daughter to gain social brownie points for himself with his legal attack on the Pledge. That's very sad.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon Breaks Off Talking to Palestinian President Abbas: Dumb Move
Israel cut communications with newly elected Palestinian President Abbas a day after militants broke with Abbas and bombed a Gaza Strip crossing, killing six Israelis.
What is Israel doing?
They should be helping Abbas deal with the terrorists, not cutting ties with him and telling him to get a handle on the Palestinian territories as a precondition of resuming relations with him.
Has Israel forgotten that Arafat isn’t around anymore and that Abbas is the democratically elected leader of the Palestinian people? They should treat him as the leader of a nation and not like Arafat. Isolating Abbas will only insure his downfall and failure; it will not motivate him.
Abbas represents the best chance that the Israelis have in making peace in the occupied territories so they should work with him instead of against him.
Israel needs to confront its own behavior in dealing with the Palestinian leadership and begin to realize that Abbas cannot control all of the terrorist groups. Some of those groups are dedicated to destroying Israel and do not care about what Abbas says.
Get with the program, Sharon.
What is Israel doing?
They should be helping Abbas deal with the terrorists, not cutting ties with him and telling him to get a handle on the Palestinian territories as a precondition of resuming relations with him.
Has Israel forgotten that Arafat isn’t around anymore and that Abbas is the democratically elected leader of the Palestinian people? They should treat him as the leader of a nation and not like Arafat. Isolating Abbas will only insure his downfall and failure; it will not motivate him.
Abbas represents the best chance that the Israelis have in making peace in the occupied territories so they should work with him instead of against him.
Israel needs to confront its own behavior in dealing with the Palestinian leadership and begin to realize that Abbas cannot control all of the terrorist groups. Some of those groups are dedicated to destroying Israel and do not care about what Abbas says.
Get with the program, Sharon.
Court Decision on Prayer at Inauguration Expected Today
The atheist who has legally attacked the Pledge of Allegiance in California has now attacked President Bush's personal First Amendment rights as well. In a court case sure to make waves, he has continued his attempts to ban displays of religion in public because he is offended by them. This time he's making an issue in Washington, DC.
He is challenging the practice of having an opening prayer at the inauguration of the President. If his challenge is upheld, it will ban the practice which began with George Washington's inauguration. A ruling is expected today.
Shouldn't it be the right of the President to choose whether or not to have prayers at his/her inauguration? Does the court have the right to choose the religious rights of one person over another person? That's what this is about.
If the man who is challenging the practice doesn't like prayers at someone else's inauguration, then he should change the channel or get out of town.
Here's the background.
He is challenging the practice of having an opening prayer at the inauguration of the President. If his challenge is upheld, it will ban the practice which began with George Washington's inauguration. A ruling is expected today.
Shouldn't it be the right of the President to choose whether or not to have prayers at his/her inauguration? Does the court have the right to choose the religious rights of one person over another person? That's what this is about.
If the man who is challenging the practice doesn't like prayers at someone else's inauguration, then he should change the channel or get out of town.
Here's the background.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Nazi Stunt Lands Prince Harry in Hot Water
What on earth was Prince Harry of Great Britain thinking when he showed up to a party wearing Nazi regalia and wearing a swastika armband? This is no laughing matter.
For a British royal to do something like this defies belief. People in the UK are now asking that the Prince apologize in person and on international TV and to visit a Nazi death camp (Auschwitz) with the British delegation that will be going there later this year to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the camp by Allied troops.
A photo appeared on the cover of the British tabloid “The Sun” under the headline “Harry the Nazi.” The photo will not be posted here.
For someone who vowed to lift his mother’s torch and carry on her mission in her stead, he’s not doing a very good job of presenting himself in the best traditions of humbleness, strength and humanity.
The prince has offended so many people this time that he will be making up for it for a very long time to come. The criticism coming from Britain itself is scathing and the international reaction is coming in hot and heavy as people wake up to this scandal coming from the royal palace.
What did he think the reaction would be?
Disgraceful!
For a British royal to do something like this defies belief. People in the UK are now asking that the Prince apologize in person and on international TV and to visit a Nazi death camp (Auschwitz) with the British delegation that will be going there later this year to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the camp by Allied troops.
A photo appeared on the cover of the British tabloid “The Sun” under the headline “Harry the Nazi.” The photo will not be posted here.
For someone who vowed to lift his mother’s torch and carry on her mission in her stead, he’s not doing a very good job of presenting himself in the best traditions of humbleness, strength and humanity.
The prince has offended so many people this time that he will be making up for it for a very long time to come. The criticism coming from Britain itself is scathing and the international reaction is coming in hot and heavy as people wake up to this scandal coming from the royal palace.
What did he think the reaction would be?
Disgraceful!
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Michael Jackson Trial....Re-Enacted??!
Oh, no…
E! Entertainment and British Sky Broadcasting (BskyB) are planning on taking daily transcripts of the upcoming Michael Jackson molestation trial and dramatically re-enacting the court proceedings since cameras are banned from the courtroom.
This is just great. More quality television on the way.
The Jackson trial is going to be a bigger circus than the O.J. Simpson trial and the Scott Peterson murder case combined.
They’ll probably make a TV movie about the odd happenings at the Neverland Ranch based on the testimony at the trial too. It will be decidedly...disgusting.
Carry that thought forward. If he's convicted the other prisoners in the system will decide to beat the stuffing out of Jackson right in front of a camera to make themselves famous. Then some diabolical genius will probably put the footage on pay-per-view and make millions!
Sick and wrong!
E! Entertainment and British Sky Broadcasting (BskyB) are planning on taking daily transcripts of the upcoming Michael Jackson molestation trial and dramatically re-enacting the court proceedings since cameras are banned from the courtroom.
This is just great. More quality television on the way.
The Jackson trial is going to be a bigger circus than the O.J. Simpson trial and the Scott Peterson murder case combined.
They’ll probably make a TV movie about the odd happenings at the Neverland Ranch based on the testimony at the trial too. It will be decidedly...disgusting.
Carry that thought forward. If he's convicted the other prisoners in the system will decide to beat the stuffing out of Jackson right in front of a camera to make themselves famous. Then some diabolical genius will probably put the footage on pay-per-view and make millions!
Sick and wrong!
Patriot Act Misused to Charge Man With Pointing Laser at Aircraft
A man who was accused of pointing a laser beam at a landing chartered jet’s cockpit area and a helicopter in New Jersey has been arrested and charged with a violation of the Patriot Act.
THE PATRIOT ACT??!
The FBI has admitted that this incident had nothing to do with terrorism, but charged him under the auspices of the Patriot Act of 2001, saying the man was “foolhardy and negligent.”
Why does the government do stuff like this?
Are they so desperate to give the Patriot Act good press that they are stooping to this level?
He is being charged with interfering with the operator of a mass-transit vehicle and for lying to the FBI after he accused his daughter of doing it.
The charge was only leveled against the shining of the airliner and not the helicopter. The reason for this is that a helicopter is not recognized as a mass-transit vehicle under the Patriot Act.
If the Patriot Act were not being used, this man would be facing at least seven federal charges. But he’s facing two under an Act that is being reviewed by a federal court on whether it’s constitutional or not. This sounds like a case that’s going to slip through the government’s fingers.
Here's the story.
THE PATRIOT ACT??!
The FBI has admitted that this incident had nothing to do with terrorism, but charged him under the auspices of the Patriot Act of 2001, saying the man was “foolhardy and negligent.”
Why does the government do stuff like this?
Are they so desperate to give the Patriot Act good press that they are stooping to this level?
He is being charged with interfering with the operator of a mass-transit vehicle and for lying to the FBI after he accused his daughter of doing it.
The charge was only leveled against the shining of the airliner and not the helicopter. The reason for this is that a helicopter is not recognized as a mass-transit vehicle under the Patriot Act.
If the Patriot Act were not being used, this man would be facing at least seven federal charges. But he’s facing two under an Act that is being reviewed by a federal court on whether it’s constitutional or not. This sounds like a case that’s going to slip through the government’s fingers.
Here's the story.
Star Wars Defense Shield Revisited--Part II
Going on with the Star Wars anti-missile system, the topic of rogue nations is frequently mentioned by the proponents of the shield.
It is feared that the U.S. will one day be threatened or attacked by a rogue nation and that’s the primary basis for the anti-ICBM system.
Would such a system work? The test results thus far have not been encouraging. It also doesn’t take “local” threats into consideration either. What if an enemy launched a SCUD with a nuclear warhead from a freighter off the coast of New York instead of firing it from four thousand miles away? The system doesn’t account for that. What about a sub-launched missile from off the coast? Would there be time to redeploy anti-missile assets to deal with a missile impact that would occur three minutes later?
Theatre defense will address these areas that are being ignored in favor of a bigger picture. Continuing to develop missile defense systems that protect smaller areas of territory is definitely worth the cost.
It is feared that the U.S. will one day be threatened or attacked by a rogue nation and that’s the primary basis for the anti-ICBM system.
Would such a system work? The test results thus far have not been encouraging. It also doesn’t take “local” threats into consideration either. What if an enemy launched a SCUD with a nuclear warhead from a freighter off the coast of New York instead of firing it from four thousand miles away? The system doesn’t account for that. What about a sub-launched missile from off the coast? Would there be time to redeploy anti-missile assets to deal with a missile impact that would occur three minutes later?
Theatre defense will address these areas that are being ignored in favor of a bigger picture. Continuing to develop missile defense systems that protect smaller areas of territory is definitely worth the cost.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Star Wars Defense Shield Revisited--Part I
There are some who are not entirely convinced that a missile defense shield will be necessary in the war against terror.
It is highly unlikely that al-Qaeda will launch an ICBM at the United States. It's more likely that they will try to smuggle a warhead into the U.S. and then detonate it when it is precisely where they want it to be. So why do we need a missile shield if the enemy pre-positions WMDs on our soil?
As far as protecting American territory from terrorists, more money should be spent on border interdiction to stop WMDs from being smuggled in by al-Qaeda and other similar groups.
It is highly unlikely that al-Qaeda will launch an ICBM at the United States. It's more likely that they will try to smuggle a warhead into the U.S. and then detonate it when it is precisely where they want it to be. So why do we need a missile shield if the enemy pre-positions WMDs on our soil?
As far as protecting American territory from terrorists, more money should be spent on border interdiction to stop WMDs from being smuggled in by al-Qaeda and other similar groups.
Monday, January 10, 2005
CBS News Wraps Up Internal Investigation on MemoGate
Does anyone remember MemoGate?
CBS finally issued their final MemoGate report today on the falsified National Guard documents that CBS News used in their September 8th, 2004, edition of 60 Minutes. Those falsified documents accused President Bush of lying about his National Guard service during the Vietnam era. It appears that the investigation was very thorough.
However, some of their conclusions are wrong. There was indeed an axe to grind and party stalwarts at CBS attempted to carve a piece out of George W. Bush's hide to help Senator Kerry on Election Day.
It was a character assassination attempt that went seriously wrong and CBS got caught on it. Their like-minded competitors criticized CBS for its actions on one hand, but then justified the reporting as being perfectly legitimate because the feeling behind it was "right on." Bull!
This entire story was not about Bush and Kerry, but about CBS News making the news instead of reporting it. It was wrong during the campaign, and it is wrong today.
Stunts like this have made it possible for right-wing news organizations to attract a huge number of viewers. Why? Because they tell the other side of the story. Who likes to hear one side of an argument before taking a side? Most informed people want to know the issues before deciding on where they stand and are tired of news organizations who use an emotional appeal to tell only one side of a much larger story.
The right-wing media has nothing to crow about either. They've done their fair share of rubbish reporting too. All news organizations should pay attention to what's happened to CBS because the same thing could happen to them if they take short-cuts and try to make the news instead of reporting it.
A personal suggestion to the CBS people who lost their jobs today over this scandal: you ought to consider running for office. If you feel that strongly about your politics, then do something about it. But don't pretend to be objective journalists, because you clearly are not. Your own falsified report proves it.
CBS finally issued their final MemoGate report today on the falsified National Guard documents that CBS News used in their September 8th, 2004, edition of 60 Minutes. Those falsified documents accused President Bush of lying about his National Guard service during the Vietnam era. It appears that the investigation was very thorough.
However, some of their conclusions are wrong. There was indeed an axe to grind and party stalwarts at CBS attempted to carve a piece out of George W. Bush's hide to help Senator Kerry on Election Day.
It was a character assassination attempt that went seriously wrong and CBS got caught on it. Their like-minded competitors criticized CBS for its actions on one hand, but then justified the reporting as being perfectly legitimate because the feeling behind it was "right on." Bull!
This entire story was not about Bush and Kerry, but about CBS News making the news instead of reporting it. It was wrong during the campaign, and it is wrong today.
Stunts like this have made it possible for right-wing news organizations to attract a huge number of viewers. Why? Because they tell the other side of the story. Who likes to hear one side of an argument before taking a side? Most informed people want to know the issues before deciding on where they stand and are tired of news organizations who use an emotional appeal to tell only one side of a much larger story.
The right-wing media has nothing to crow about either. They've done their fair share of rubbish reporting too. All news organizations should pay attention to what's happened to CBS because the same thing could happen to them if they take short-cuts and try to make the news instead of reporting it.
A personal suggestion to the CBS people who lost their jobs today over this scandal: you ought to consider running for office. If you feel that strongly about your politics, then do something about it. But don't pretend to be objective journalists, because you clearly are not. Your own falsified report proves it.
Earth Still Vibrating From 9.0 Earthquake
The earth is still feeling the aftereffects of the 9.0 earthquake that loosed tsunamis on a dozen nations and sent smaller waves all the way around the world.
Some thirty-two hours after the earthquake, thirteen-inch waves hit the coast of central Florida. They were not noticed by humans, but the tsunami warning systems that are active on the U.S. coast clearly noticed them as they approached the coastline. Similar waves registered on tidal gauges off of Russia’s Pacific coastline.
According to scientists, they can still hear the earth reverberating. They have a baseline to compare today’s data to and the sound the earth is making is still well above normal. This oscillation is likely to continue for several weeks.
We’re just now beginning to grasp what effect this earthquake had on the entire planet. It just goes to show that while humans are the dominant life-form on the planet, when the planet lets loose with a catastrophic display of raw power, all we can do is run for our lives and try to get out of the way.
If you are of the mind that humanity will destroy itself in the end, the question becomes: will we destroy the planet, or will it destroy us?
Some thirty-two hours after the earthquake, thirteen-inch waves hit the coast of central Florida. They were not noticed by humans, but the tsunami warning systems that are active on the U.S. coast clearly noticed them as they approached the coastline. Similar waves registered on tidal gauges off of Russia’s Pacific coastline.
According to scientists, they can still hear the earth reverberating. They have a baseline to compare today’s data to and the sound the earth is making is still well above normal. This oscillation is likely to continue for several weeks.
We’re just now beginning to grasp what effect this earthquake had on the entire planet. It just goes to show that while humans are the dominant life-form on the planet, when the planet lets loose with a catastrophic display of raw power, all we can do is run for our lives and try to get out of the way.
If you are of the mind that humanity will destroy itself in the end, the question becomes: will we destroy the planet, or will it destroy us?
Post-Arafat Democracy Arrives in Palestine
The Palestinian people are to be congratulated on having a successful election, which saw Mahmoud Abbas elevated to the top spot in the Palestinian Authority. Hopefully, as Palestinian President, he will be able to broker peace with Israel and establish a Palestinian state which will live side-by-side with Israel in relative harmony.
“Relative” being the key operational phrase. It is doubtful that the terror groups will stop their attacks on Israeli territory, but hopefully the Israelis and Palestinians will stop shooting at one another long enough to work together to combat terrorism. Abbas needs to distance himself from some of his comments during the campaign and Israel needs to keep more of an open mind. It will be up to Abbas, the Israeli leadership, the U.S. and other intermediaries to keep the momentum going.
The chance for an enduring peace has improved; the arrival of democracy in Palestine is historic and Abbas has a mandate from the Palestinian people to move forward with peace efforts. After all the suffering and bloodshed, any good news is welcome.
“Relative” being the key operational phrase. It is doubtful that the terror groups will stop their attacks on Israeli territory, but hopefully the Israelis and Palestinians will stop shooting at one another long enough to work together to combat terrorism. Abbas needs to distance himself from some of his comments during the campaign and Israel needs to keep more of an open mind. It will be up to Abbas, the Israeli leadership, the U.S. and other intermediaries to keep the momentum going.
The chance for an enduring peace has improved; the arrival of democracy in Palestine is historic and Abbas has a mandate from the Palestinian people to move forward with peace efforts. After all the suffering and bloodshed, any good news is welcome.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
"Under God" Under Attack Again
The atheist who originally filed a lawsuit to ban the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance is at it again.
He won the case in a federal appeals court but was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court because he did not have custody of his daughter and because her mother objected to the lawsuit.
He’s re-filed the lawsuit with a group of parents (and without his daughter) in California. This time when it reaches the Supreme Court, the Court will either have to rule on it, or allow whatever decision the appeals court reaches to stand.
One fails to understand why he filed the original lawsuit in the first place; he did not have custody of his daughter and so could not (and cannot) make decisions for her without the approval of his ex-wife. It sounds like he tried to use his daughter to score political points and got slapped down the last time.
This time he’s recruited a small group to give his cause more legitimacy.
Barring unforeseen legal turns, there will be a decision this time and no postponements.
If the high court rules in favor of keeping “under God” in the Pledge, then this issue will finally be laid to rest and the vast majority of Americans will be satisfied with the outcome. Polls are overwhelmingly in favor of this result.
One would hope that IF the Court rules that “under God” is unconstitutional that the majority of people continue to use “under God” in the Pledge when they say it to show their disapproval of the court decision and to make the minority squirm with the knowledge that the First Amendment trumps their court-imposed God-ban.
He won the case in a federal appeals court but was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court because he did not have custody of his daughter and because her mother objected to the lawsuit.
He’s re-filed the lawsuit with a group of parents (and without his daughter) in California. This time when it reaches the Supreme Court, the Court will either have to rule on it, or allow whatever decision the appeals court reaches to stand.
One fails to understand why he filed the original lawsuit in the first place; he did not have custody of his daughter and so could not (and cannot) make decisions for her without the approval of his ex-wife. It sounds like he tried to use his daughter to score political points and got slapped down the last time.
This time he’s recruited a small group to give his cause more legitimacy.
Barring unforeseen legal turns, there will be a decision this time and no postponements.
If the high court rules in favor of keeping “under God” in the Pledge, then this issue will finally be laid to rest and the vast majority of Americans will be satisfied with the outcome. Polls are overwhelmingly in favor of this result.
One would hope that IF the Court rules that “under God” is unconstitutional that the majority of people continue to use “under God” in the Pledge when they say it to show their disapproval of the court decision and to make the minority squirm with the knowledge that the First Amendment trumps their court-imposed God-ban.
United Nations Must Not Fail Tsunami Survivors
Now that the United Nations has control of relief efforts in South Asia to aid tsunami and earthquake victims, they had better not drop the ball.
Early reports say that after the change-over in command, there was a breakdown in communication between aid groups, the various militaries that are assisting in moving supplies around and the various U.N. agencies.
This is not good. Hopefully the problems have been rectified and the movement of aid continues unhindered to those who need it the most.
Early reports say that after the change-over in command, there was a breakdown in communication between aid groups, the various militaries that are assisting in moving supplies around and the various U.N. agencies.
This is not good. Hopefully the problems have been rectified and the movement of aid continues unhindered to those who need it the most.
VIP's Get in the Way of Relief Efforts
It's being reported that so many VIPs are flying in and out of Banda Aceh's (Sumatra Island) small airport that the flow of supplies and critically needed materials are being disrupted.
Enough, already! The area's destroyed! What else do these people need to know?
With Colin Powell's visit, his plane took off immediately after dropping him off to avoid taking up room; American congressmen arrived from the USS Abraham Lincoln via helicopter for the same reason. Others international dignitaries have not been so courteous.
Sounds like someone needs to get a handle on things over there.
Enough, already! The area's destroyed! What else do these people need to know?
With Colin Powell's visit, his plane took off immediately after dropping him off to avoid taking up room; American congressmen arrived from the USS Abraham Lincoln via helicopter for the same reason. Others international dignitaries have not been so courteous.
Sounds like someone needs to get a handle on things over there.
Friday, January 07, 2005
U.S. Accepts U.N. Leadership in Asian Tsunami Relief Efforts
The United States has made a good decision in turning over command and control of the disaster relief efforts to the United Nations and the World Bank.
Those agencies are more appropriate for handling the humanitarian relief efforts as they represent the entire family of nations. The U.S. coalition that was organized will be dissolved and their considerable power and influence will be thrown behind the U.N. effort, which is very good news.
The ultimate goal is to get aid to people who need it, not to grandstand in the face of such devastation.
Those agencies are more appropriate for handling the humanitarian relief efforts as they represent the entire family of nations. The U.S. coalition that was organized will be dissolved and their considerable power and influence will be thrown behind the U.N. effort, which is very good news.
The ultimate goal is to get aid to people who need it, not to grandstand in the face of such devastation.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Attorney General Confirmation Hearings: Independence of the AG in Question?
Sean Hannity said on his radio show yesterday that Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales is exactly what the country needs to prosecute the war on terror. The “exactly” part is the issue that scares people.
The Attorney General must be loyal, yet independent from the President. This, by definition, means that the AG should not be a close personal friend of the President, which Gonzales is. His work records indicate he would probably be a very good Attorney General, but his independence would be highly questionable.
Janet Reno turned her Justice Department into a shield for the scandal-ridden Clinton Administration, blocking probes of wrongdoing by Clinton’s people, and the President himself. She shortcut the law when she illegally seized Elian Gonzales without a sanction from the court. The Ruby Ridge and Waco standoffs were disasters; a boy was fatally shot by federal agents at Ruby Ridge, and the Branch Davidians burned inside their compound after tear gas was pumped into the main building. That has not been fully explained yet either.
John Ashcroft had this annoying habit of ignoring parts of the Constitution in Bush’s first term in office as Attorney General during his prosecution of the war on terror. The Attorney General swears to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land; the actions of the Ashcroft Justice Department tried to navigate around them. Consider: citizens held without trial for over three years; questionable interrogation tactics; illegal detainment issues; end result: denial of justice. Ashcroft showed remarkably little faith in the criminal justice system that he was supposed to be supporting.
I hope when Gonzales is confirmed (he will be), he does the job right.
The Attorney General must be loyal, yet independent from the President. This, by definition, means that the AG should not be a close personal friend of the President, which Gonzales is. His work records indicate he would probably be a very good Attorney General, but his independence would be highly questionable.
Janet Reno turned her Justice Department into a shield for the scandal-ridden Clinton Administration, blocking probes of wrongdoing by Clinton’s people, and the President himself. She shortcut the law when she illegally seized Elian Gonzales without a sanction from the court. The Ruby Ridge and Waco standoffs were disasters; a boy was fatally shot by federal agents at Ruby Ridge, and the Branch Davidians burned inside their compound after tear gas was pumped into the main building. That has not been fully explained yet either.
John Ashcroft had this annoying habit of ignoring parts of the Constitution in Bush’s first term in office as Attorney General during his prosecution of the war on terror. The Attorney General swears to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land; the actions of the Ashcroft Justice Department tried to navigate around them. Consider: citizens held without trial for over three years; questionable interrogation tactics; illegal detainment issues; end result: denial of justice. Ashcroft showed remarkably little faith in the criminal justice system that he was supposed to be supporting.
I hope when Gonzales is confirmed (he will be), he does the job right.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Marine Accused of Desertion...Disappears
The Marine who was thought to have been kidnapped in Iraq by terror groups but unexpectedly showed up at the U.S. Embassy in his native Lebanon, has "disappeared" once again. This time, he's gone missing...not in the sands of Iraq, but from an airport in Utah.
Given the highly dubious story that his captors transported him to Lebanon and dropped him off to see his family, that's not entirely unexpected.
Key questions: why did the military let a soldier accused of a crime go on leave? His family could have come to him. And what is going through this man's mind right now? And if he didn't want to play Marine in a war zone, why on earth did he volunteer to join them? It's still an all-volunteer military so he wasn't drafted. He could have joined another service that could have kept him out of the infantry.
When he's caught in Lebanon, he'll probably say he was trying to return to his unit in Iraq. Pathetic.
Given the highly dubious story that his captors transported him to Lebanon and dropped him off to see his family, that's not entirely unexpected.
Key questions: why did the military let a soldier accused of a crime go on leave? His family could have come to him. And what is going through this man's mind right now? And if he didn't want to play Marine in a war zone, why on earth did he volunteer to join them? It's still an all-volunteer military so he wasn't drafted. He could have joined another service that could have kept him out of the infantry.
When he's caught in Lebanon, he'll probably say he was trying to return to his unit in Iraq. Pathetic.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Mixed Messages From Bush Administration on Human Rights
The Bush Administration took a major step forward in advancing human rights and then took two steps backwards with a plan to hold onto detained people for the rest of their natural lives without having to charge them with a crime.
Human Rights advocates were cheering early last week but were crying the blues by the end of the week, so it was a mixed message that the Administration sent out.
It started with an announcement that the Bush Administration was enlarging their definition of what “torture” constituted, which now includes some of the things that the military, CIA and FBI have done in Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq. This was cause for celebration in some quarters.
Then a few days later, unnamed sources claimed that the Bush Administration was preparing legal briefs to hold some prisoners for the rest of their lives without so much as charging them with a crime. Thank you very much.
Sometimes Administrations leak information to the media to get a reaction from the general public to see if it would enjoy support on one issue or another, and this appears to have been the case for the “life sentences without a trial” situation.
This needs to be resisted.
Human Rights advocates were cheering early last week but were crying the blues by the end of the week, so it was a mixed message that the Administration sent out.
It started with an announcement that the Bush Administration was enlarging their definition of what “torture” constituted, which now includes some of the things that the military, CIA and FBI have done in Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq. This was cause for celebration in some quarters.
Then a few days later, unnamed sources claimed that the Bush Administration was preparing legal briefs to hold some prisoners for the rest of their lives without so much as charging them with a crime. Thank you very much.
Sometimes Administrations leak information to the media to get a reaction from the general public to see if it would enjoy support on one issue or another, and this appears to have been the case for the “life sentences without a trial” situation.
This needs to be resisted.
Lieberman to Propose Global Tsunami Warning System
Senator Joe Lieberman intends to propose building a worldwide tsunami warning network to give people time to move away from the coastlines when giant tidal waves are detected heading in their direction.
This is long overdue. With the utter devastation that we have seen on our television screens since the day after Christmas from South Asia, what more proof do we need?
Millions spent on such a system will not stop the waves from smashing everything in reach, but if we could save hundreds of thousands or millions of lives in the process, that’s well worth it.
Now that global attention is on how deadly tsunamis can be, it is the perfect time for nations to participate in setting up a global warning system.
This is long overdue. With the utter devastation that we have seen on our television screens since the day after Christmas from South Asia, what more proof do we need?
Millions spent on such a system will not stop the waves from smashing everything in reach, but if we could save hundreds of thousands or millions of lives in the process, that’s well worth it.
Now that global attention is on how deadly tsunamis can be, it is the perfect time for nations to participate in setting up a global warning system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)