A very dangerous Category 5 hurricane is making it's way across the Pacific and will slam into Wake Island by tonight.
Super Typhoon Ioke is continuing on it's westerly course in the Pacific Ocean and is expected to completely submerge Wake Island under the storm surge, which is expected to be 18 feet high. The island itself rests 8 feet above sea level. Wave heights are expected to be in excess of 40 feet. As a result, the U.S. Air Force completely evacuated the island of it's 200 workers and as much equipment as they could in two C-17 Globemaster III's.
They're saying that everything not made of concrete on the island will be utterly destroyed as this is the most powerful Pacific hurricane ever recorded. It's a stark reminder of the power of these storms and what they can do to man-made structures as well as the natural environment.
If Hurricane Katrina had been as powerful as this super-typhoon is, the damage sustained by our Gulf Coast would have been much more extreme than it was. The storm surge and giant waves would have pushed right over the top of the levees. They would have been the equivilent of speed bumps for the monster waves. And the breaches would have been bigger, too.
As bad as Katrina was, it could have been much, much worse.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Monday, August 28, 2006
No Justice for JonBenet Yet: Self-Confessed "Killer" Had Nothing to Do With It and DA Drops Charges
Apparently JonBenet Ramsey's killer is still on the loose. Well, DUH!!
The self-confessed "killer" John Mark Karr was nothing of the sort; he's an attention-seeker who greatly enjoyed his time in the limelight and used JonBenet's death to get exactly what he wanted.
The DNA didn't match, so the entire "case" came apart. It should be noted that the police had an obligation to bring this man home to investigate whether Karr did what he said he did, and they did precisely that. The prosecuting attorney looked at the results of DNA testing and confirmed what Karr's family was saying, and dismissed the charges against him.
The press ought to be ashamed of itself on how it handled this entire mess. Splashing this man's face all over creation; recording every movement Karr made and moving it to the top news story position under the screaming caption "BREAKING NEWS." This was a total media-driven fiasco.
How many copycats are going to follow Karr's example now? And how much law enforcement time and effort will be wasted in sorting out the liars from the real criminals? Whatever follows, the blame will belong exclusively to the media.
The self-confessed "killer" John Mark Karr was nothing of the sort; he's an attention-seeker who greatly enjoyed his time in the limelight and used JonBenet's death to get exactly what he wanted.
The DNA didn't match, so the entire "case" came apart. It should be noted that the police had an obligation to bring this man home to investigate whether Karr did what he said he did, and they did precisely that. The prosecuting attorney looked at the results of DNA testing and confirmed what Karr's family was saying, and dismissed the charges against him.
The press ought to be ashamed of itself on how it handled this entire mess. Splashing this man's face all over creation; recording every movement Karr made and moving it to the top news story position under the screaming caption "BREAKING NEWS." This was a total media-driven fiasco.
How many copycats are going to follow Karr's example now? And how much law enforcement time and effort will be wasted in sorting out the liars from the real criminals? Whatever follows, the blame will belong exclusively to the media.
Friday, August 25, 2006
More Contradictions in Global Warming Debate
First they tell us that global warming is causing the glaciers to melt. Now they tell us that some of the glaciers are growing due to global warming.
The global warming people don't know what's going on any more than the rest of us. One theory is just as good as the next.
The global warming people don't know what's going on any more than the rest of us. One theory is just as good as the next.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
International Moratorium on Cluster Bomb Use is Needed: Civilians Pay TOO High a Price Long After Conflict Ends
Before I go any further, I need to go on the record as having a strong dislike of cluster bomb and landmine use by various military and paramilitary forces. These weapons end up killing more civilians than the enemy that they were being used against, years later, long after peace has been declared.
Cluster bombs have again been in the news since it was learned that Washington was looking into the Israeli use of American-built cluster bombs on civilian areas in southern Lebanon. It was understood that these weapons were to be used against defined military targets and invading Arab armies.
Hundreds of American cluster bomblets have been spotted littering the southern Lebanese ground; three Lebanese soldiers died last week while disarming an unexploded shell. One Israeli soldier died while removing a mine that was planted by his army the same day. And civilians are dying, too.
A cluster bomb works by bursting in the air above a target and scattering hundreds of bomblets over a wide area. The bomblets fall on and around the target and explode. The results are devastating.
The weapons have become very controversial since up to 30% of the bomblets don't explode on contact, it turns them into deadly landmines where they impact. Cluster bombs were extensively used against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the after-effects are continuing to take a toll on civilians, soldiers and especially children who pick up the bomblets, thinking they're toys.
There needs to be an international moratorium on producing and using these weapons. In their current form, they endanger more civilians over the long haul than they do enemy soldiers.
Cluster bombs have again been in the news since it was learned that Washington was looking into the Israeli use of American-built cluster bombs on civilian areas in southern Lebanon. It was understood that these weapons were to be used against defined military targets and invading Arab armies.
Hundreds of American cluster bomblets have been spotted littering the southern Lebanese ground; three Lebanese soldiers died last week while disarming an unexploded shell. One Israeli soldier died while removing a mine that was planted by his army the same day. And civilians are dying, too.
A cluster bomb works by bursting in the air above a target and scattering hundreds of bomblets over a wide area. The bomblets fall on and around the target and explode. The results are devastating.
The weapons have become very controversial since up to 30% of the bomblets don't explode on contact, it turns them into deadly landmines where they impact. Cluster bombs were extensively used against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the after-effects are continuing to take a toll on civilians, soldiers and especially children who pick up the bomblets, thinking they're toys.
There needs to be an international moratorium on producing and using these weapons. In their current form, they endanger more civilians over the long haul than they do enemy soldiers.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Syria Doesn't Want U.N. Peacekeepers in Lebanon Watching for Syrian Aggression Against Lebanon or Israel: That's Why They're Objecting to U.N. Plan
Syria flatly said "NO" to peacekeepers being stationed on the Lebanese side of the Lebanon/Syria border today, saying it would be a "hostile act."
The real reason Syria doesn't want the peacekeepers keeping watch is that they are in the process of defying the cease-fire and re-arming Hezbollah. Syria doesn't want their illegal arms shipments to Hezbollah to be intercepted or observed by the U.N. This is more than enough reason to station the peacekeepers along the Lebanese border with Syria. It's the only way to make sure that Syria stays out of Lebanon's internal affairs.
By all means, station the peacekeepers there, and let's see what the Syrians are REALLY up to.
The real reason Syria doesn't want the peacekeepers keeping watch is that they are in the process of defying the cease-fire and re-arming Hezbollah. Syria doesn't want their illegal arms shipments to Hezbollah to be intercepted or observed by the U.N. This is more than enough reason to station the peacekeepers along the Lebanese border with Syria. It's the only way to make sure that Syria stays out of Lebanon's internal affairs.
By all means, station the peacekeepers there, and let's see what the Syrians are REALLY up to.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Whole Lot of Nothing from Iran on 8/22/06--No Nuke Compromise; Cease Fire Holds; No Israel-Iran Conflict
A whole lot of nothing happened on 8/22/06. It's good that dire predictions of war between Iran and Israel didn't come to pass; it would have been the end of Iran as we've known it. Half the Middle East would be in flames by now.
Iran made no decision on the nuclear incentive package offered by the West, but said it was willing to "enter serious negotiations."
Sounds like another stall tactic from Iran.
Iran made no decision on the nuclear incentive package offered by the West, but said it was willing to "enter serious negotiations."
Sounds like another stall tactic from Iran.
Self-Confessed Child Killer is Getting Too Much Press: Media Rewards Karr By Giving Him the Attention He Craves
The media frenzy surrounding self-confessed killer Mark Karr is ridiculous, way overblown and utterly retarded.
They're going to all look ridiculous if it turns out he's simply an attention craving lunatic who confessed to the killing of JonBenet Ramsey simply to get his fifteen minutes of fame. Thanks to the media circus, it's become much worse than the circuses surrounding the OJ Simpson case, the Nancy Kerrigan/Tonya Harding skating fiasco, the Michael Jackson trial, and about two dozen lesser cases.
If it turns out he did kill JonBenet, then the media has simply splashed the face of a child killer into millions of homes around the world, repeatedly, 24 hours a day.
The media ought to take a breath, step back, and examine what they're doing by having their cameras trained on this individual, who is a liar at best and a murder and rapist of children at worst.
It's going to inspire copycats to confess to other crimes that they didn't commit, just to get their faces on TV and their names in the newspapers, and it's going to waste law enforcement resources and time to sort it all out.
They're going to all look ridiculous if it turns out he's simply an attention craving lunatic who confessed to the killing of JonBenet Ramsey simply to get his fifteen minutes of fame. Thanks to the media circus, it's become much worse than the circuses surrounding the OJ Simpson case, the Nancy Kerrigan/Tonya Harding skating fiasco, the Michael Jackson trial, and about two dozen lesser cases.
If it turns out he did kill JonBenet, then the media has simply splashed the face of a child killer into millions of homes around the world, repeatedly, 24 hours a day.
The media ought to take a breath, step back, and examine what they're doing by having their cameras trained on this individual, who is a liar at best and a murder and rapist of children at worst.
It's going to inspire copycats to confess to other crimes that they didn't commit, just to get their faces on TV and their names in the newspapers, and it's going to waste law enforcement resources and time to sort it all out.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
"Nobody Died When Clinton Lied" Slogan: Selective Memory at It's Best
The "Nobody Died When Clinton Lied" mantra found on t-shirts and bumper stickers isn't quite accurate.
People forget that Clinton ordered Tomahawk cruise missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan on August 20, 1998, to distract the American public from his Monica Lewinsky scandal following his testimony to a Grand Jury three days before and a few weeks before the Starr Report was submitted to Congress for consideration.
This, from a President who was reluctant to arrest or take a shot at bin-Laden when American authorities knew where he was and could have taken him off the street years before 9/11...and then all of a sudden he gets the nerve to strike at the al-Qaeda leader, his bases of operation and...some kind of milk and drug plant in Sudan. It was a weak response to the destruction of two U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania from terrorist bombs three weeks prior.
"Nobody Died When Clinton Lied" indeed.
They still aren't sure how many of the thirty killed in Afghanistan were al-Qaeda/Taliban supporters and how many were innocent civilians.
Now if someone wants to compare body counts between the Clinton and Bush administrations, that's a different story altogether, but it's not germaine to the bumper sticker discussion.
People forget that Clinton ordered Tomahawk cruise missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan on August 20, 1998, to distract the American public from his Monica Lewinsky scandal following his testimony to a Grand Jury three days before and a few weeks before the Starr Report was submitted to Congress for consideration.
This, from a President who was reluctant to arrest or take a shot at bin-Laden when American authorities knew where he was and could have taken him off the street years before 9/11...and then all of a sudden he gets the nerve to strike at the al-Qaeda leader, his bases of operation and...some kind of milk and drug plant in Sudan. It was a weak response to the destruction of two U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania from terrorist bombs three weeks prior.
"Nobody Died When Clinton Lied" indeed.
They still aren't sure how many of the thirty killed in Afghanistan were al-Qaeda/Taliban supporters and how many were innocent civilians.
Now if someone wants to compare body counts between the Clinton and Bush administrations, that's a different story altogether, but it's not germaine to the bumper sticker discussion.
August 22nd and the Middle East: Will Iran Attack Israel On or About This Day?
This is a strange one.
August 22, 2006, is referred to in the Islamic calendar as the "Night of the Shia'a and Miira'aj", when the Prophet Mohammed ascended to Heaven from the Asqa Mosque in Jerusalem, and that a great light was seen in the skies over Jerusalem as he visited Heaven and Hell before returning to Mecca.
It also happens to be the specific date that the Islamic government of Iran chose to reply to the Western incentive package to end it's nuclear weapons program. The West had originally wanted a response by June 29th, but the Iranians chose August 22nd. Why not September 1st, or July 20th or June 30th?
Frontpage Magazine is suggesting a "nuclear attack or a full-scale assault on Israel" due to the Iranian President's threats against Israel. One of the people it interviewed for the story, one Farid Ghadry of the Syrian Reform Party, said that "Ahmadinejad is planning an illumination of the night sky over Jerusalem to rival the one that greeted the Prophet of Islam on his journey."
It sounds like a stretch to me, but the Iranian President is clearly nuts, and with Israel's "not-victory" against Hezbollah, he may well try something this week. Iran just happened to kick off a major wargames exercise yesterday.
Israel will turn Iran into a parking lot if it does launch an all-out assault. I do not think that Israel will even bother using conventional forces to stop Iranian missile launches or airstrikes. They'll eliminate Iran as a threat through other means, regardless of the consequences.
August 22, 2006, is referred to in the Islamic calendar as the "Night of the Shia'a and Miira'aj", when the Prophet Mohammed ascended to Heaven from the Asqa Mosque in Jerusalem, and that a great light was seen in the skies over Jerusalem as he visited Heaven and Hell before returning to Mecca.
It also happens to be the specific date that the Islamic government of Iran chose to reply to the Western incentive package to end it's nuclear weapons program. The West had originally wanted a response by June 29th, but the Iranians chose August 22nd. Why not September 1st, or July 20th or June 30th?
Frontpage Magazine is suggesting a "nuclear attack or a full-scale assault on Israel" due to the Iranian President's threats against Israel. One of the people it interviewed for the story, one Farid Ghadry of the Syrian Reform Party, said that "Ahmadinejad is planning an illumination of the night sky over Jerusalem to rival the one that greeted the Prophet of Islam on his journey."
It sounds like a stretch to me, but the Iranian President is clearly nuts, and with Israel's "not-victory" against Hezbollah, he may well try something this week. Iran just happened to kick off a major wargames exercise yesterday.
Israel will turn Iran into a parking lot if it does launch an all-out assault. I do not think that Israel will even bother using conventional forces to stop Iranian missile launches or airstrikes. They'll eliminate Iran as a threat through other means, regardless of the consequences.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Israel Didn't Violate the Cease-Fire: Iran and Syria Did By Smuggling Arms to Hezbollah in Violation of U.N. Resolution 1701
The U.N. was quick to decry an Israeli raid deep into Lebanon to stop an illegal arms shipment to Hezbollah today, calling the Israeli military action a "violation of the cease-fire resolution."
Horsecrap!
This is just more proof that the U.N. passes resolutions that it doesn't enforce. There is an arms embargo against Hezbollah in the same resolution (1701) that the U.N. says Israel broke. Yet Iran and Syria continue to ship arms to Hezbollah, which led Israel to act...in support of resolution 1701. It's Hezbollah and it's benefactors who are violating the resolution.
The Security Council has no business passing resolutions it has no intention of enforcing. This "cease-fire" doesn't have much time left to it.
Horsecrap!
This is just more proof that the U.N. passes resolutions that it doesn't enforce. There is an arms embargo against Hezbollah in the same resolution (1701) that the U.N. says Israel broke. Yet Iran and Syria continue to ship arms to Hezbollah, which led Israel to act...in support of resolution 1701. It's Hezbollah and it's benefactors who are violating the resolution.
The Security Council has no business passing resolutions it has no intention of enforcing. This "cease-fire" doesn't have much time left to it.
Reason for French Reduction of Troops in U.N. Force is Obvious: Syria Threatened Them and Paris Knuckled Under
The reason for France's sending a mere 400 soldiers to join a U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon instead of the force of 3,000 French soldiers that was expected by the United Nations is quite obvious.
Syria threatened to turn Hezbollah loose on the French peacekeepers in a repeat of the 1983 Hezbollah suicide attack on French and American forces, in which fifty-eight French soldiers and 241 American Marines died.
France caved in.
Syria threatened to turn Hezbollah loose on the French peacekeepers in a repeat of the 1983 Hezbollah suicide attack on French and American forces, in which fifty-eight French soldiers and 241 American Marines died.
France caved in.
Friday, August 18, 2006
U.S. and Israeli Armor is in Trouble: Russian Anti-Tank Missiles Can Destroy M1 and Merkava Tanks
The U.S. and Israel have discovered that the new Russian AT-13 Metis-M (NATO codename: Saxhorn) anti-tank missile can penetrate the reactive armor and thick armor plating that both armies have come to rely on for their tanks to survive on a modern battlefield.
All versions of the U.S. M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams main battle tank and the next generation Israeli Merkava main battle tank have proven vulnerable to the anti-tank missile. It uses a "tandem" warhead, or a warhead that explodes twice.
The first part of the warhead is designed to take out a tank's "reactive" armor (explosive packs or bricks which explode outwards to blunt the impact of the missile and keep the tank operational.) Both the U.S. Army and the Israeli Army use reactive armor on their main battle tanks.
Then the second part of the warhead hits the tank itself and penetrates, exploding on the inside. Israel lost four Merkava tanks and at least 26 other Merkavas were badly damaged by the Russian anti-tank missiles (which were originally sent to Syria by the Russian Federation and then transferred to Hezbollah). Israel captured a number of the weapons plus the Russian-made RPG-29 (which also happens to have a tandem warhead) and has filed a protest with the Russians over the illegal transfer of arms.
The number of tank crews injured or killed was very high and made up a significant percentage of the Israeli military killed/wounded.
U.S. forces are encountering the weapons in Iraq as well with devastating results: tanks that ate multiple RPGs and kept on fighting during the invasion of Iraq and in the months afterward can be severely damaged or destroyed by a single Metis-M hit today.
When the U.S. makes an arms deal, there's a "no transfer" clause in the contract; do the Russians do the same thing? If Russia's against terrorism, one would think they would be demanding explanations from the Syrians on why their most advanced weapons systems ended up in the hands of terrorists.
In any case, the U.S. and Israeli defense communities are working on a fix to the problem. Hopefully it's an easy solution and they make haste.
All versions of the U.S. M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams main battle tank and the next generation Israeli Merkava main battle tank have proven vulnerable to the anti-tank missile. It uses a "tandem" warhead, or a warhead that explodes twice.
The first part of the warhead is designed to take out a tank's "reactive" armor (explosive packs or bricks which explode outwards to blunt the impact of the missile and keep the tank operational.) Both the U.S. Army and the Israeli Army use reactive armor on their main battle tanks.
Then the second part of the warhead hits the tank itself and penetrates, exploding on the inside. Israel lost four Merkava tanks and at least 26 other Merkavas were badly damaged by the Russian anti-tank missiles (which were originally sent to Syria by the Russian Federation and then transferred to Hezbollah). Israel captured a number of the weapons plus the Russian-made RPG-29 (which also happens to have a tandem warhead) and has filed a protest with the Russians over the illegal transfer of arms.
The number of tank crews injured or killed was very high and made up a significant percentage of the Israeli military killed/wounded.
U.S. forces are encountering the weapons in Iraq as well with devastating results: tanks that ate multiple RPGs and kept on fighting during the invasion of Iraq and in the months afterward can be severely damaged or destroyed by a single Metis-M hit today.
When the U.S. makes an arms deal, there's a "no transfer" clause in the contract; do the Russians do the same thing? If Russia's against terrorism, one would think they would be demanding explanations from the Syrians on why their most advanced weapons systems ended up in the hands of terrorists.
In any case, the U.S. and Israeli defense communities are working on a fix to the problem. Hopefully it's an easy solution and they make haste.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Americans Who Supported Hezbollah Over Israel During War are Traitors: What Other Explanation is There?
Before I proceed further, some points: Lebanon is not Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is not Lebanon.
I have a major problem with Americans who sided openly with Hezbollah against Israel during the recent fighting. Those people chose to side with terrorists over a democracy. One common thread (especially in the media) in their supporting of Hezbollah was their pointing out all of the good works that Hezbollah does where they have a presence.
Good works, eh?
They were blindly firing lethal weapons into northern Israel and murdering people. At the same time, they placed their rocket launchers right next to peoples' houses (the very same people that Hezbollah was "helping") to insure that any Israeli retaliation would destroy the houses and whomever was inside them. Good works, indeed.
More than one Israeli military video showed the Israeli bombs hitting the launcher, then the rockets inside the launcher went off and struck nearby houses, causing the actual damage to the structures. But Israel ended up taking the blame, despite what their videos showed. Hezbollah's PR people did an amazing spin job on the entire war.
I disagreed with Israel's widespread attack on Lebanon and thought it was excessive. But I wanted Israel to destroy Hezbollah, regardless of the fate of their missing soldiers. Many others felt this way too.
But for Americans to support a terrorist organization against a democracy is revolting. And particularly since that particular terror group murdered 241 United States Marines as they were resting in their barracks in Beruit as part of a U.N. peacekeeping force in 1983. Hezbollah has American blood on their hands, and our own people would side with them against Israel?
Americans who support Hezbollah are traitors to their own country.
I have a major problem with Americans who sided openly with Hezbollah against Israel during the recent fighting. Those people chose to side with terrorists over a democracy. One common thread (especially in the media) in their supporting of Hezbollah was their pointing out all of the good works that Hezbollah does where they have a presence.
Good works, eh?
They were blindly firing lethal weapons into northern Israel and murdering people. At the same time, they placed their rocket launchers right next to peoples' houses (the very same people that Hezbollah was "helping") to insure that any Israeli retaliation would destroy the houses and whomever was inside them. Good works, indeed.
More than one Israeli military video showed the Israeli bombs hitting the launcher, then the rockets inside the launcher went off and struck nearby houses, causing the actual damage to the structures. But Israel ended up taking the blame, despite what their videos showed. Hezbollah's PR people did an amazing spin job on the entire war.
I disagreed with Israel's widespread attack on Lebanon and thought it was excessive. But I wanted Israel to destroy Hezbollah, regardless of the fate of their missing soldiers. Many others felt this way too.
But for Americans to support a terrorist organization against a democracy is revolting. And particularly since that particular terror group murdered 241 United States Marines as they were resting in their barracks in Beruit as part of a U.N. peacekeeping force in 1983. Hezbollah has American blood on their hands, and our own people would side with them against Israel?
Americans who support Hezbollah are traitors to their own country.
UN Cease-Fire Can't Hold: It Simply Has Too Many Fatal Flaws Built Into It By the Feuding Security Council
A closer examination of UN Resolution 1701 (the cease-fire resolution aimed at stopping the Israeli/Hezbollah war) reveals that it does mention previous resolutions which call for the disarmament of paramilitary groups (Hezbollah), but does not authorize the international force to carry out the disarmament plan.
France and Lebanon are trembling at the very idea of disarming Hezbollah. And now Israel is saying it won't leave Lebanon until it is relieved by the U.N. force. And the U.N. is saying it may be weeks or months before they get their force in. Things are moving too slowly.
The only thing robust about this de-fanged U.N. force will be how fast they scuttle their butts out of town after the cease-fire collapses and the shooting begins again. And the U.N. Secretary General has the unmitigated gall to insist that Israel not respond to further Hezbollah rocket strikes? That's like telling an angry boxer not to hit back when the bell rings for the next round. Mr. Annan has yet to get the Hezbollah boxer out of the ring.
For all the good that they're going to do, perhaps the Lebanese Army should redeploy back to where they were. They run the risk of getting royally creamed by Israel if they are mixed amongst the Hezbollah militias once fighting resumes.
This cease-fire has about a snowball's chance in hell of holding. The only way to stave off disaster is for the U.N. force and the Lebanese to show some initiative and start taking away Hezbollah's weapons as the U.N. Security Council has already directed.
More U.N. hypocricy, passing resolutions that they have no intention of enforcing.
France and Lebanon are trembling at the very idea of disarming Hezbollah. And now Israel is saying it won't leave Lebanon until it is relieved by the U.N. force. And the U.N. is saying it may be weeks or months before they get their force in. Things are moving too slowly.
The only thing robust about this de-fanged U.N. force will be how fast they scuttle their butts out of town after the cease-fire collapses and the shooting begins again. And the U.N. Secretary General has the unmitigated gall to insist that Israel not respond to further Hezbollah rocket strikes? That's like telling an angry boxer not to hit back when the bell rings for the next round. Mr. Annan has yet to get the Hezbollah boxer out of the ring.
For all the good that they're going to do, perhaps the Lebanese Army should redeploy back to where they were. They run the risk of getting royally creamed by Israel if they are mixed amongst the Hezbollah militias once fighting resumes.
This cease-fire has about a snowball's chance in hell of holding. The only way to stave off disaster is for the U.N. force and the Lebanese to show some initiative and start taking away Hezbollah's weapons as the U.N. Security Council has already directed.
More U.N. hypocricy, passing resolutions that they have no intention of enforcing.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Bye Bye, Democrat Lieberman. Hello, Independent Lieberman
The Democrats finally won an election against someone they didn't like! But it says something when the only thing they can crow about is beating a member of their own party, and not a Republican. Senator Joe Lieberman lost the primary election on Tuesday and is now promising to mount an independent campaign to retain his seat. Now the Democrats are starting to weigh in, asking Joe to drop out for the good of the party.
Good of the party, my foot.
I hope Joe does stay in. He needs to teach his party a lesson about loyalty. He was hung out to dry by his so-called friends, so I don't blame him for wanting to go about this in his own way. I think he's prepared to draw enough votes away from the Democrats to throw the election to the Republican candidate.
But a betrayal like the one Lieberman experienced MUST be answered, so I applaud Senator Lieberman for his gump in going after his own party. And the Dems should remember that if he wins the seat he's still a liberal, no matter what his view on the Iraq War is, so he's going to vote with them regardless of his party label. And he says what he believes, whether or not it's the popular thing TO say.
I do like Joe Lieberman, despite his being a flaming liberal. And I hope he makes his party suffer for their turning on him.
Good of the party, my foot.
I hope Joe does stay in. He needs to teach his party a lesson about loyalty. He was hung out to dry by his so-called friends, so I don't blame him for wanting to go about this in his own way. I think he's prepared to draw enough votes away from the Democrats to throw the election to the Republican candidate.
But a betrayal like the one Lieberman experienced MUST be answered, so I applaud Senator Lieberman for his gump in going after his own party. And the Dems should remember that if he wins the seat he's still a liberal, no matter what his view on the Iraq War is, so he's going to vote with them regardless of his party label. And he says what he believes, whether or not it's the popular thing TO say.
I do like Joe Lieberman, despite his being a flaming liberal. And I hope he makes his party suffer for their turning on him.
Monday, August 07, 2006
What is an Anti-Semite? And Does Mel Gibson Fit the Profile?
There's been a lot of conversations on whether Mel Gibson is an anti-semite since his arrest for drunken driving and his subsequent tirade against Jews. Gibson has repeatedly apologized, saying that the alcohol made him say terrible things against those of the Jewish religion. I'm inclined to believe that he is not an anti-semite.
But this situation has brought up the question: what is an anti-semite?
One definition that I've seen is "an opponent of Jews." Does this interpretation mean someone who disagrees with someone (who is Jewish) about a particular issue, or someone who doesn't like the Jewish religion, or someone who harbors hatred toward the Jewish religion and it's followers? What about someone who openly disagrees with a particular part of the Jewish faith itself? This definition is way too broad.
Wikipedia's definition is "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." This definition is better; though the definition doesn't include feelings less than hatred.
Now, does Mel fit into either of the above descriptions? I don't think so and here's why:
Consider: Mel Gibson has an Israeli bodyguard (possibly a former Israeli Moussad agent no less, if media rumors turn out to be true) and a Jewish spokeswoman. Would Mel hire someone he hates to protect him and his family (for the last ten years!) or to speak on his behalf? That doesn't really make sense.
Consider: is Mel Gibson anti-British? He made them look REAL bad in "The Patriot" and in "Braveheart" but does that mean he hates English people? NOT.
Consider: Mel Gibson holds to pre-Vatican II Catholic beliefs and has gone so far as to build a church on his property so that he can practice his religion freely. Does this mean he hates post-Vatican II Catholics? NOT.
He's no more an anti-Semite than he is a British hater or a Catholic hater.
I think that people are reading too much into Mel's behavior. He was drunken lush when he was pulled over, and he proved it when he opened his mouth. But an anti-Semite? I think not.
Unless he says otherwise, it's unproven speculation. But he has a ton of explaining to do to save his career from the damage that is being inflicted on it by those who think he is an anti-semite, and from his own appalling behavior.
But people should have the decency to refrain from putting labels on other people when the people they are accusing are getting treatment and choose not to hold daily press conferences to satisfy the media's thirst for scandal.
The treatment Gibson is getting in the media and in Hollywood is a scandal of its own.
But this situation has brought up the question: what is an anti-semite?
One definition that I've seen is "an opponent of Jews." Does this interpretation mean someone who disagrees with someone (who is Jewish) about a particular issue, or someone who doesn't like the Jewish religion, or someone who harbors hatred toward the Jewish religion and it's followers? What about someone who openly disagrees with a particular part of the Jewish faith itself? This definition is way too broad.
Wikipedia's definition is "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." This definition is better; though the definition doesn't include feelings less than hatred.
Now, does Mel fit into either of the above descriptions? I don't think so and here's why:
Consider: Mel Gibson has an Israeli bodyguard (possibly a former Israeli Moussad agent no less, if media rumors turn out to be true) and a Jewish spokeswoman. Would Mel hire someone he hates to protect him and his family (for the last ten years!) or to speak on his behalf? That doesn't really make sense.
Consider: is Mel Gibson anti-British? He made them look REAL bad in "The Patriot" and in "Braveheart" but does that mean he hates English people? NOT.
Consider: Mel Gibson holds to pre-Vatican II Catholic beliefs and has gone so far as to build a church on his property so that he can practice his religion freely. Does this mean he hates post-Vatican II Catholics? NOT.
He's no more an anti-Semite than he is a British hater or a Catholic hater.
I think that people are reading too much into Mel's behavior. He was drunken lush when he was pulled over, and he proved it when he opened his mouth. But an anti-Semite? I think not.
Unless he says otherwise, it's unproven speculation. But he has a ton of explaining to do to save his career from the damage that is being inflicted on it by those who think he is an anti-semite, and from his own appalling behavior.
But people should have the decency to refrain from putting labels on other people when the people they are accusing are getting treatment and choose not to hold daily press conferences to satisfy the media's thirst for scandal.
The treatment Gibson is getting in the media and in Hollywood is a scandal of its own.
Microsoft Telling Hackers to Take Their Best Shot at Cracking Windows Vista is Unwise
It's been reported for a little over a week now that Microsoft Corp. has challenged hackers to try and hack their new state-of-the-art (and unreleased) Windows Vista operating system.
I think someone's cheese has slid off his cracker. Microsoft is nuts to dare hackers to break their system. That's just asking for trouble and more embarassing security breaches.
Given Microsoft's track record so far, this looks like a publicity stunt. And they should remember that hackers will attack their operating system on their own time, not on Microsoft's.
I think someone's cheese has slid off his cracker. Microsoft is nuts to dare hackers to break their system. That's just asking for trouble and more embarassing security breaches.
Given Microsoft's track record so far, this looks like a publicity stunt. And they should remember that hackers will attack their operating system on their own time, not on Microsoft's.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
OK, Oil Speculators, Tropical Storm Chris is Going Away: KNOCK IT OFF!!
They're doing it to us again!!!
Gas prices jumped from $2.94 a gallon up to $3.15 a gallon overnight due to the possibility of Tropical Storm Chris heading toward the Gulf Coast.
There was no disruption in the oil supply, no oil platforms or oil refineries were damaged or destroyed, and there was no increase in demand. And the storm is going away. This means gas prices should immediately return to $2.94 a gallon, correct??!
Of course not. They'll take three weeks to drop the prices down again, making more windfall profits along the way.
Revolting.
Gas prices jumped from $2.94 a gallon up to $3.15 a gallon overnight due to the possibility of Tropical Storm Chris heading toward the Gulf Coast.
There was no disruption in the oil supply, no oil platforms or oil refineries were damaged or destroyed, and there was no increase in demand. And the storm is going away. This means gas prices should immediately return to $2.94 a gallon, correct??!
Of course not. They'll take three weeks to drop the prices down again, making more windfall profits along the way.
Revolting.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Media And Public Need to Leave Gibson Alone So He Can Focus on His Alcohol Rehab Program
Mel Gibson released a second statement yesterday, clarifying his first statement and acknowledging his tirade against Jews, and asked for forgiveness.
Now that that's out of the way, will people leave Gibson alone so he can focus all of his attention on his rehab program? In order for the treatment to work properly, he has to focus all of his attention and energy on getting better.
He can explain himself AFTER he's completed his treatment program.
Now that that's out of the way, will people leave Gibson alone so he can focus all of his attention on his rehab program? In order for the treatment to work properly, he has to focus all of his attention and energy on getting better.
He can explain himself AFTER he's completed his treatment program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)