The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Rants and Raves from a proud card-carrying, unilateralist and simplistic American member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Oh, and full-time Emperor and Ruler of All the Known Universe and Every Last Organism in it as well.
Ask Mr. Misha
[Email policy: The content of any and all emails sent to the above address will become the property of the owner of this website and eligible for publication, with the exception of personal details. Such details will not be published unless specific permission is given by the sender.]
Saturday, August 17, 2002
More From The (al-)GuardianColumnist (paid Idiotarian) Jonathan Freedland also has some blather he needs to get rid of on the issue of The Evil Unilateralist US Hegemon™ (it's kinda like a Pokemon, only not as cute. And anything but yellow). It would be so much more appropriate if you'd go to the rest room when you need to relieve yourself, Jon...
Greens don't need the US
I know the US sure as Hell don't need the Greens. Whether the Greens need us or not remains to be seen. If they don't, then what's the reason for all of this whining?
...coupled with the presidential absence, it suggests Johannesburg will provide the biggest demonstration yet of the new American disregard for the rest of the world.
No. Disregard for Idiotarian Summits.
The summit will give eloquent expression to the Bush doctrine of go-it-alone unilateralism, in which America pursues its own interests first -
...a sovereign nation pursuing its own interests first? What a novel and barbarian concept!
with an avowed aversion to any multilateral efforts to make the world a better place.
No again. An avowed aversion to any multilateral efforts to make some parts of the world a "better place" while making the US a worse place as a result. And I share that aversion, I might add.
There has been other evidence, such as Washington's refusal to sign up for the international criminal court.
...more evidence that he's actually doing the job he's been elected to do: Protecting our interests and our Constitution.
But just as Bush's tear-up of the Kyoto protocol shocked the world into realising the depth of the new administration's contempt for multilateralism,
Well boo-hoo-hoo... Clinton is gone and so is his habit of offering blow jobs to every inane idea that comes out of the UN... Get over it, you ninnies, you're embarassing... And was that the same Kyoto
so the Johannesburg stayaway will reveal again the unilateralist heart of Republican thinking, confirming the coalition-building that followed September 11 was the exception, not the rule.
We love coalitions, everybody is welcome aboard. But if you sign on and expect to run the show as a result, you're in for a rude awakening, my friends. We were attacked, we'll make the decisions on how to defend ourselves from being attacked again, thankyouverymuchly, and we don't much believe in winning wars by committee vote.
Lead, follow or get the Heck outta the way before you get hurt...
This poses a great danger for those who want to see results from South Africa.
I'd say that anyone who expects results out of anything the UN presides over have serious problems they need to deal with already.
At a presummit meeting last month, European diplomats spoke openly of their fears that the US was bent on undermining the global get-together, replacing binding targets and timetables with mere "voluntary initiatives".
Oh shoot! Those Bastard Imperialist Merkins! Wanna replace dictatorial decisions by unelected bureaucrats with voluntary initiatives! And they're calling the US "totalitarian"?
Washington has also sought to have trade, aid and debt relief taken off the Johannesburg agenda - which would not leave much to talk about.
Good. Short meeting then. Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing... Sounds like the usual M.O. for UN "summits"...
The summiteers are left wondering how they can hope to achieve anything if the world's sole superpower is at best barely engaged and, at worst, outright hostile?
You can do anything you damn well please, just don't expect us to enter into your suicide pacts willingly.
And that's your real problem isn't it? Your entire agenda is aimed at crippling the richest, strongest and most free democracy in the world and that won't really fly if they won't slit their own throats, will it?
I mean, let's just look at it for a moment, right? You could go ahead and implement your "brilliant" ideas by yourself, couldn't you? I know full well that the effects wouldn't be as profound without the US on board, but at least you should be able to empirically prove the superiority of your models, right? And then, later, when your ingenious plans have miraculously shown themselves to actually Turn the World Into a
But since we all know that that isn't the point of your Idiotarian schemes, we all know why you don't, don't we? Of course we do. And you're all bent outta shape because we won't play along with your obvious attempts at shackling us...
Well cry me a friggin' river, you nitwits...
They could try to battle on regardless, as they did at Bonn last year when they renewed the Kyoto protocol despite the US boycott.
...see? That wasn't so hard, was it?
But that kind of effort takes leadership. Most environmentalists can see only one candidate: the European Union. "This is as much a test of the EU as it is about America," says Kevin Watkins, senior policy adviser at Oxfam. "Is the EU capable of showing leadership?"
The US has left a vacuum and the EU alone has the capacity to fill it.
...and this is where I snarfed half a coke out my nostrils... The flaccid, limp EUrowankers don't have the capacity to fill a thimble! Heck, they can't even agree on the curvature of cucumbers!
Put together, EU nations have far greater voting strength on the World Bank and the IMF than the US (and more than Africa, Latin America and South Asia combined). It has the muscle if it wants to use it.
You mean: If they can agree on using it at all, right? Then they'll have to agree on where to use it, how to use it and for how long to use it... By the time that anything that they might agree on actually begins having an effect, the rest of the world will be wondering what the Heck it is that they're talking about in the first place, which means back to the drawing boards again, more talking, yammering and flapping gums, sending memos and filing reports in triplicate...
But so far Europe has not dared act as a coherent power bloc. And nor, says Watkins, has it set an example. With the honourable exception of Britain, the leading EU states have cut, not increased, their aid to poor countries and have not made good on their promise to help fund education in the poorest nations.
Well... You see... It's such a complicated issue... And it's easier to spend somebody else's money or complaining and whining about their reluctance to do so, than it is to actually start pulling out your own wallet... And it has to go through committee, you understand, we have to see the whole picture, examine root causes...
So the easy posture later this month will be to denounce the Americans for staying away from Johannesburg. A better move might be to ask whether the Europeans did enough while they were there.
Actually, Jon, I can only say the following to that:
By Jove! I think he got it!
UPDATE: My most deepfelt thanks go out to the Timekeeper of Horologium who fact checked my ass and found an erm... "minor" (my ass, talk about BIG error!) error in the above... I don't claim to be perfect, occasionally (or more often than that), I'll eff up and burp out something that I should've checked up on before posting it. Brain Farts'R Us. But I am sincerely grateful for the help. Fact Checking™, Not Just For Major Media Anymore!
Coincidentally, that blog of his is friggin' dynamite! Go read it if you haven't already!
Dubya Flips the Bird at Greenies...and The (al-)Guardian of course has something to say about that:
George Bush will not attend this month's Johannesburg earth summit, the White House confirmed yesterday: a decision environmentalists said illustrated the administration's contempt for green issues.
More precisely: His contempt for Idiotarian Policies aimed clearly at damaging the US to benefit countries like China...
It did not come as a surprise. Mr Bush abandoned the Kyoto protocol on global warming last year, and later proposed an alternative with far less ambitious goals.
"far less ambitious" = "slightly less idiotic"
"The fact that President Bush will be on vacation in Crawford speaks volumes for how little he cares about environmental issues," said Gary Cook, a Greenpeace spokesman in Washington. "He's turning his back on the world."
No. He's turning his back on you and your Idiotarian ilk, Gary
Time to Whip Out the World's Smallest Violin Again...Seems converts to common sense are beginning to appear in Zimbabwe, according to The Independent (...of cerebral activity):
Charles Mushambati had always regarded Thom Martin as being among those "devil" Zimbabwean white farmers who grossly underpaid their workers and kept them in squalor. With hindsight, he now believes he was wrong.
...ahhh... Those 20/20 glasses are neat, aren't they?
Mr Mushambati had often quarrelled with Mr Martin over his wages, and was elated when he attended a rally before the 2000 parliamentary elections at which Mr Mugabe promised "land to my people".
...swallowed it raw, so to speak.
The labourer applied for a piece of land, but officials asked him for a Zanu-PF card, demonstrating membership of Mr Mugabe's ruling party, to attach to the application. He didn't have one.
"They made it clear that no one would get land without a party card," he said.
...bummer, dude. And he'd just about gotten ready to get a free farm... Oh well...
Mr Mushambati returned to work for Mr Martin, who paid him 4,000 Zimbabwe dollars (£50) a month. His wife also worked for the white farmer and they received free produce from Mr Martin, and sent their children to a school he built for his employees.
...the evil bastard...
As the collapse of agriculture threatens half of Zimbabwe's 13 million people with starvation, displaced farm workers and failed subsistence farmers are drifting to the towns and cities, where there is 65 per cent unemployment. Crime levels have rocketed. Carjackings and armed robberies, almost unheard of a few years ago, are becoming commonplace. Tim Neil, executive director of the Zimbabwe Community Development Trust, expects the number of children living on the streets to start increasing in the next six weeks.
This is the future now facing Mr Mushambati
...cue world's smallest violin...
– a plight often forgotten in the international attention devoted to thewhite farmers.
Another example of why "The Independent" is one of the Bastions of Idiotarianism. First the farmworkers steal the farms away from the farmers, and now we're supposed to feel sorry for them because they're unemployed? And it took quite a bit for anybody to show any "attention" to the farmers in the first place...
Mr Martin told his workers last week he had given up the fight for his land and was emigrating to New Zealand. Mr Mushambati asked his employer to take him too.
"Unfortunately, the boss said he will not own a farm any more. He is going to work in a hotel in New Zealand," said his employee of 20 years. He broke down. "I am finished. I have no future."
Support for Mugabe = No Future.
It's really too bad that it took so long for his supporters to realize that...
Poor Little PhillySeems to be reduced to howling "fuckin nazi fascist moron" over and over again until he turns blue in the face... Well, to each his own, I guess... I had hoped that somehow he could come up with something remotely resembling an argument, but I realize now that that's like looking to find a clean napkin in a sewer...
A few points need to be clarified before I move on and leave Phil-boy under his bridge, screaming "Nazi" at everyone who disagrees with him, and one of 'em is that it seems that little Phil is so convinced that somebody is going to beat him over his inane screen-spew that he feels the urge to post how big and studly he is:
Just for the record, and it's obvious that you don't know me very well, I'm 6 5, weigh 280, can bench 300 and dead lift 400 pounds. I'm not afraid of any ten warbloggers physically.
I'm sure you're not. Your meticulous description of your physical aptitude, oh Almighty Stud of Blogdom, proves just how unafraid you are... Or maybe it doesn't, you be the judge...
At any rate, Philly, get that thorned crown off your head, it looks stupid...
I must clarify, once again, that it is not now, has never been, and will never be my policy to physically hurt anybody, no matter how offensive, because of words on a friggin' screen, so kindly stop embarrassing yourself with your delusional fantasies about how everybody wants to "git ya", because I honestly don't believe that anyone harbors any fantasies about touching you with a ten foot cattle prod, I certainly don't, so there's absolutely no need for you to tell us all that you're the online Schwarzenegger unless you're projecting, which might very well be the case.
If you are, and I'm only hypothesizing here, I strongly suggest you get that idea out of your mind because your physical attributes won't do you much good at 300 yards, not even in a crosswind.
And, with this clarification, we leave Philly frothing and foaming at the mouth as he shrieks pathetically:
Please insult me some more...You keep the site hummin with hits you fuckin nazi fascist moron...!
No, Philly, you're not worth it. I don't kick invalids.
If you'd produce something other than base- and clueless shrieks of "fuckin nazi fascist moron", if you'd at least provide me with some material to whack, I might be bothered, but you're clearly incapable of doing anything worthwhile. As I told you earlier, you guys couldn't flame your way out of a gasoline doused paperbag if you were equipped with blowtorches. That claim still stands.
And if you feel that "any hit is a good hit" and you'd rather have a thousand hits from people who mock you and jeer at you than no hits at all, then enjoy. The sound you hear is people laughing at you, not with you.
If that's an achievement in your world, then I predict that you'll go very far indeed...
But I kinda feel sorry for you, Stud-Boy...
Friday, August 16, 2002
Oh Dear, I Upset the WarPansies...Philip Shropshire apparently forgot to take his drugs and ended up puking all over his website, twice in the comments and once on the site, in one of the most amusing, frothing rants I've yet seen in that Dark Corner of Fiskdom™ that we know as "Warbloggerwatch":
Philip:Arrrrrrhhhh frellin' malfunctioning comments section under Opera...I'll just rebut here. I haven't posted in a while anyway...This is addressed to Mike the Dog...
...that would be yours truly...
Mike: I wouldn't ask you to provide me with an example if it wasn't because I really like to see you suffer, so here it goes: Care to give me a few specific examples [of how we nasty warbloggers are all nazis]?
Philip: Well apart from ignoring the war against civil liberties,
What war against what civil liberties? I haven't yet seen any attacks on your precious "civil liberties" other than the moronic federal airport screeners, who are really more of an embarrassment to themselves than a threat to my civil liberties, so what is it I'm "ignoring"?
Philip: the demonization of the Islamic race in general and the Palestinians in specific
Kindly define the "Islamic race" for me. I know of white moslems, black moslems, brown moslems, EUropean moslems, US moslems, African moslems, Asian moslems etc., yet I have never once heard anyone, other than you, speak of an "Islamic race". One heck of a diverse race, if you ask me. Then go on to show how we Evil Nazis demonize moslems "in general". I don't have a problem with them worshipping the bloody Easter Bunny, if that is their preference, I have a problem with their thugocratic regimes, their blatant disregard of even the most fundamental of human rights and, most of all, with the Fundamentalists' tendency to blow up innocent civilians on purpose. If you feel that "demonizing" these things is disgusting, then I suggest that you go get your head examined.
Philip: or that your commander in chief can’t pronounce
He happens to be your C-in-C too, whether you like it or not, mheh... But, apart from that, his speech impediment means that I'm a Nazi? OK... Whatever, Philly...
Philip: or the complete sellout to corporate interests ( a definition of fascism by the way)
What dreamworld do you live in? Correct that: What friggin' dimension do you live in? Your claim that Bush has "sold out to corporate interests" means that I'm a Nazi?... Sure, my friend... Have a cookie...
Philip: or ignoring the Harken scandals
The "ignoring" of the Harken "scandals" could presumably have something to do with there not being much of a "scandal" in the first place, or perhaps you'd care to illuminate us "Nazis" on that point? You do one heck of a song and dance later in your post when it comes to protecting terrorists apprehended in a combat zone bearing arms against US forces, because "how can we know they're guilty of anything?", yet when it comes to your own President, you're ready to bind, gag and shackle him at the drop of one of Maureen Dowd's earrings... And that makes me a Nazi? Of course it does...
Philip: or seriously considering war against a country that hasn’t attacked us
You know that they're completely innocent, Philip? How do you know this? And how do you know that they're not going to use their weapons of mass destruction against us in the future? Because if you don't know this, I'd consider it damn foolish to sit down with our hands in our laps and wait to find out. But perhaps you'd volunteer to be among the ones killed by Saddam in case he attacks (again)? I mean, he's not dangerous at all, according to you, so there'd be precious little risk involved in it...
Philip: and that even Republicans don’t favor
I didn't realize the high regard that you held Republicans' opinions in... They're "Nazis" after all... Ohhh... I see... Of course...
Philip: and that could bring about nuclear exchanges that would not only wipe out the Palestianians but the Israelies as well
...wait, wait, wait... Saddam would never do such a thing! If he would, then that would clearly be a reason to attack him before he attacks us, right? And that would make you a "Nazi" too...
Philip: and about several thousand posts on this board I guess we’re just all grasping at straws here…! You punk!
Mike: Why on Earth would I be dismayed at locking up enemy combatants? Are you on drugs? Considering the very nature of these murderous genocidal maniacs, I'd not only like to lock 'em up, I much favor putting them in front of a firing squad, tout suite.
Philip: Really? You must be in the loop there Mike because we don’t what they’re charged with!
...and why, pray tell, should you know?
Philip: We don’t even know who they are.
...and why, pray tell, should you know?
Philip: I mean, if you can prove that they’re genocidal maniacs, hey, perhaps some punishment would be warranted.
That goes without saying. Until they've been proven guilty, however, I'd much prefer for enemy combatants to be locked away where we can see 'em, rather than having them running around potentially blowing up planes and kindergartens.
"Some punishment"... Like, say, a slap on the wrist and a "bad Taliban, now go home and sin no more"?
Philip: The government has yet to make a case that any of them are involved with terrorists. This isn’t good police work to me.
How do you know? You were just done whining about not knowing anything and now you know that there's no case against them?
Philip: Call me naïve.
Why on Earth would I call somebody who claims that Iraq and Islamic Fundamentalism isn't a threat to us "naïve"?
That would be far too kind.
Philip: You want to shoot them without trial, without evidence and without proof? And you have the fuckin’ nerve to call us Nazis, jeez Louise
And where exactly did I say that we should forego the trial? I must have missed it...
Mike: Anybody who, with a straight face, will tell you that blowing up a kindergarten is no more repugnant than targeting the hideouts of those who do
Philip: I look at the Palestinians as an oppressed people who are using whatever means necessary to win the war.
I know you do, dearest Philip. You'd probably have looked the same way at the little boys that Hitler sent out to defend the Reich with next to no weapons. But I forget, I'm the "Nazi"...
Philip: Frankly, I wish they would give nonviolent tactics a shot.
You can wish in one hand and spit in the other. Guess which one runs full first? The short and long of the matter is that as long as they don't, the Israelis are fully justified in using any tactics, up to and including the ones used against them (which they haven't yet and I doubt that they ever will, they're too good for that), against the perpetrators.
As it is, the Israelis are a shining example of restraint faced with maniacal, genocidal mass murderers and that explains exactly why my sympathies lie where they do.
Philip: But nonviolence didn’t work everywhere. Please remember that South Africa threw Gandhi out of their country.
I would, if they ever had. But they didn't. Gandhi left the country on his own free will after having fought and won several battles as a lawyer in South Africa. His passion was always India, South Africa was merely a stop on the way. And his non-violence worked just fine in India and might have worked in South Africa too, if the ANC had ever given it a chance.
Philip: South Africa , of course, helped the Israelis become a nuclear power…
Wow! If I ever need a non sequitur, I'll ask you to make one up for me!
Philip: And yes when the Israelis kill twice as many Palestianians I find them to be at least morally equivalent
...and that, my friend, is why you're an Idiotarian. You have no interest in the circumstances under which these people were killed, you have no interest in the percentages of combatants vs. non-combatants killed on either side, all you care about is the body count.
Philip: and you could probably make the case, especially under Sharon, that they’re the more ruthless party…
Only if you had half your brain removed and dipped the other half in lighter fluid...
But I want to make this clear: neither side represents sainthood.
Holy Moly! Clear the friggin' press!
"Neither Side are Saints, Declares Philip Shropshire Boldly Shortly Before the Vatican Gets Ready for Canonization..."
"erm... who is this Shropshire?", asks confused parties to the conflict
...and now that you've belabored the bloody obvious, you'll go ahead and say that, "logically", since neither side is a saint, both sides are equal devils?
I'm stunned by your blatant Idiotarianism... Most Idiotarians at least try to hide it...
Philip: And the reason why you should recognize that as a reality is that you can’t get peace until you look at both sides with an objective eye.
I do, Philip. The Paleostinians deliberately targets innocent civilians, the Israeli deliberately try to avoid this.
Guess who's the good cop here?
Mike: anybody who'll insist that the best response to an attack is to have a meeting and discuss root causes and then go ask everybody if it's OK for us to strike back..
Philip: The reason you discuss root causes, you frothy mouthed moron, is that you want them to stop attacking us in the future.
...and discussing why they're angry is more effective at stopping them from attacking us in the future than to teach them that if they do, they're dead? We've been discussing up and down for I don't know how many years why the Fundies are mad at us and it didn't stop them from flying four planes into buildings and/or the ground, did it? Some track record your "discussions" have.
Oh, I forget, by "discussion" you mean "...and after that give them all they ask for and hope that they stop asking". Did you get beat up a lot in school over your lunch money? If you did (and I'm by no means saying that you did), then you might have found that if you'd punched the bully in the solar plexus instead of handing over your hard earned cash, you might have put an end to the problem, right there.
Philip: And the reason you don’t strike back, at least not without thinking through the consequences, is that you escalate the violence and everybody dies.
I have thought through the consequences: If we continue to do what we've done, that is: Sitting on our hands and discussing "Why They Hate Us™", then another 9/11, or worse, is most likely just around the corner and I'm not willing to take that chance. And no, not "everybody" dies, just the weaker party which, in this case, is certainly not us. And if I'm a "frothy mouthed moron" for thinking "better them than us", then yes, I'm a "frothy mouthed moron". And quite proud of it too.
Philip: I know you’re a fascist
...no you don't... I'd go as far to say that it'd be my best guess that you don't know much of anything at all, and it's driving you crazy...
Philip: and you’re all prepared to blog away the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians but some of us aren’t as deluded as you are…
I dearly hope that the Iraqis clear out Saddam and his retarded son before we have to, but I'm not willing to sacrifice millions of Americans (or Israeli, for that matter) waiting for it.
Mike: anybody who believes that if you raise taxes, the economy thrives..
Actually, partisan republicans believe that Bush the elder’s responsible tax hike brought on the Long Boom. Also, I think the argument is that we don’t want a tax giveaway to the richest Americans who don’t need it
Thank you for telling us all who "needs" what. My point of view is a little more "simplisme" than that: Who earned it? Welfare queens? I'm willing to bet dollars against doughnuts that if you and I went to a restaurant and you had a bowl of soup and a glass of water and I had lobster with Chardonnay, you'd be bitching like Hell if I suggested that we split the bill evenly, and rightly so.
Once again: The reason that the "evil" rich folks get more dollars on a fair refund is that they put more in the treasury to start with. Get it? Of course you don't. Your basis for doling out money isn't who contributed, but who you feel "deserve" it more.
Philip: and plus, we can spend the money here, say for PDAs for every kid or even the war effort. We are in a war, right? Shouldn’t everyone be asked to sacriface? Even rich people Mike the dog?
Of course. And we will. My problem is that you tend to believe that it is more "fair" to let the rich pick up the entire tab, not to mention the fact that there are alternatives to raising taxes when it comes to balancing a deficit. And why do you invoke the war as a reason all of a sudden? I thought you didn't believe in that?
Mike: anybody who believes that dissenting is good and brave in itself, no matter how idiotic the dissent, anybody who will make statements that are in clear defiance of any logic and argue that his point is as valid as yours nevertheless...
Philip: Look, you’re the fucking idiots not us,
...that would be another example of Idiotarian Debate Technique 101™.
Philip: always pointing a gun at your problems.
...especially when the problem is pointing a gun (or worse) at me.
Philip: Not only are we not the Nazis,
...no, you just share some of their beliefs...
Philip: but I personally think that we’re in Nazi Germany and we’re the dissenters.
I'm sure that Hans and Sophie Scholl, among others, who both gave their lives fighting Naziism during the war, would have a thing or two to say to you about that, were they alive today. I'm not quite sure that they'd be flattered by the comparison, though. It's not like publishing inane drivel on a website in the US in 2002 is quite as dangerous as distributing illegal pamphlets in Nazi Germany during WWII, after all...
Your policies will kill millions and you’ll just rationalize it away, pretend it never happened and oh my they blew up a building where did that come from….Fuckin morons.
...and your policy of appeasement has, as of now (counting only the US) resulted in the obliteration of the WTC, serious damage to the Pentagon and more than 3,000 of our countrymen killed. And you're the ones rationalizing it away and trying your damndest to pretend it never happened!
And you have the nerve to call us "Fuckin morons"?
Ladies and Gents: A Live Idiotarian. Please don't feed him, he's got a very tender little tummy...
UPDATE: Something I forgot to mention: Philip, if you ever as much as think about comparing your illiterate rants on a website in a country that protects and believes in free speech, if you ever dare comparing yourself to people fighting Nazi occupation, I'll personally make sure that you can't utter a friggin' word on the web ever again without having me snapping at your heels. I owe this to my grandparents who, unlike you, you carping little suckweasel, actually experienced the jack-booted thugs roaming the streets, doing as they damn well pleased, and, thankfully (although you probably regret that, you pathetic little blob of whining slime), my grandparents lived to tell the tale.
So take your comparisons and shove 'em so deep that it'll take extensive surgery to remove them, for if you ever dig 'em out and display 'em again, I'll tell you a thing or two about what real oppression is like.
Tech Support is Here to Help...Just make sure not to be drinking anything while reading what I'm about to link to...
Our friendly Amish Tech Support guy has noted that the NY Council is urging that the Paleostinian UN Office be shut down.
As always, the Amish agent is on the case and has found the Sooper Sekrit reasons for this request and it makes for good reading too. So go read it now and thank your Maker that we have Amish Agents looking out for us...
And More IdiotariansThanks to Scott "Indepundit" Koenig for bringing up this interesting quote from a EUrowanker:
The Washington Times reports today that politicians in Europe are fixing blame for this summer's torrential rains and resultant floods on the Bush Administration.
Gallus Cadonau, the managing director of the Swiss Greina Foundation for the preservation of Alpine rivers and streams, urged that a punitive tariff on imports from the United States be imposed to force cooperation on greenhouse gas emissions.The power of the American hegemon has now reached levels unprecedented in the history of mankind -- now the President of the United States can bring pestilence, drought, famine and floods merely by refusing to ratify a treaty.
Oh My! Let's go over that again:
1. War, (Ashcanistan and soon Iraq), check.
2. Famine, (why of course, for refusing to feed everyone for free), check.
3. Pestilence, (see the floods above, for refusing to sign the
4. Death, (lots of former terrorists could attest to this, if they weren't so... well... dead), check.
My God! I thought Dubya was merely one of the Four Bikers of the Apocalypse, but now I realize that he's actually the Leader of the Pack™!!!
Shoot! Now I have to avert my eyes and stuff every time he, erm... "He" appears on TV...
(One of these days, the combined gross ignorance and stupidity of the EUnuchs is going to reach critical mass, implode and create an Idiotarian Singularity™, just you wait and see...)
Thursday, August 15, 2002
And Now... Idiotarians...Since Amir Butler of WarPansy "fame" apparently has decided to go into hiding after his latest Fisking™ at that site, it is with no small amount of gratitude towards Scott Wickstein, who provided me with the link, that I turn my nose towards said Amir's home on the web for some gratuitous Idiotarian Harassment. And I strike gold at the very first post:
The LA Times reports on John Ashcroft, constitutional menace.
Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants. [link]
...of course, the "menace" would have to first somehow establish that said citizen was an enemy combatant, but let's not talk about that...
And later on, "The Ayatollah of Cyberspace" declares:
In his latest piece, Daniel "Psychic Network" Pipes, says the future of Islam is Turkey. If that's the future, then I'd prefer the past.
...undoubtedly, but what's your point?
Let's take just one dimenstion of Pipe's Islamic-utopia: women who wear scarves are forbidden from graduating from universities.
I agree, that's wrong... But it's one heck of a huge step forward from, for instance, the Taliban, where "an elderly woman was brutally beaten with a metal cable until her leg was broken because her ankle was accidentally showing from underneath her burqa." [link]. But I forget, you prefer the "good ol' days", dontcha?
Whilst the West bleats and howls about the Taliban or Saudi Arabia forcing women to cover,
...not to mention the beatings and stonings of women who don't...
they are always deadly silent when it comes to the issue of governments forcing their women to uncover.
Could be that the consequences for not obeying an admittedly stupid rule were somewhat less brutal than the alternative? Just a suggestion.
Pipes is happy that now some Turkish Imams have refuted the Prophet (saw) they claim to follow and allowed women to pray alongside men and for menstruating women to enter the mosque (as if that is some great victory),
...it's certainly something that would have led to a painful death in the "enlightened" old-fashioned Islamofascist regimes, so I'd be as bold as to claim that the fact that they can do such a thing is a step forward, rather than backwards...
yet he doesn't say one word about the institutionalised bigotry in the country when that bigotry is directed against Muslims.
I may be completely off the mark here, but last I checked Turkey was Muslim. Must be damned hard to be institutionalizedly bigoted against your entire population and get away with it.
Almost as hard as to speak with your head so far up your ass that you can look out your navel, but you'd know all about that, Amir, wouldn't you?
It's a Double Whammy!!Charles Austin of "Sine Qua Non Pundit" takes on not one, but two of Richard Cohen's malodorous (if print ever had a smell, this would be it) gushings and the result is, as always and in both cases, a thorough Fisking™ of that particular candidate for "Idiotarian of the Century".
The link is for the first one, the second is just below, and I urge you to go read it right now. If you don't, you'll go blind and you'll miss out on a masterful deconstruction of an Idiotarian Nitwit to boot. Your choice as to which is the worse of the consequences.
And Now... A Man With Three Buttocks...and speaking out through both the cracks simultaneously in today's Dallas Morning News' letters section:
Does war feed our economic beast?
The United States did not recover from the 1929 Depression until World War II. It has been suggested by students of the period that the United States entry into World War II was "helped" by Franklin Roosevelt's hold-up of information on the Pearl Harbor attack. After that we prospered.
The Vietnam conflict was provoked by the United States. It is difficult to see an acceptable reason for attacking Iraq. The stated reason – that Iraq has advanced weapons – would apply to Israel and China and South Africa apart from some of our European allies. We, ourselves, spend more on weapons (per head) than any nation.
Could it be that our economy needs a shot in the arm every few years? A radical new technology, e.g., computers, will do it – otherwise, we may need a war.
John O'M. Bockris, Idiotarian, College Station, Texas
Although I do fully realize that the obvious lack of oxygen flow to your cerebral matter is a serious impediment to normal thinking, I must take issue with your comments in the above (I also suggest that the pressure from the tin foil hat may be what restricts the oxygen flow).
Whereas your theory vis-a-vis the interdependence of war and economic prosperity is certainly interesting and should be submitted to "The National Inquirer" immediately, there is precious little by way of actual evidence to support the case that present or former presidents should have initiated wars to help the economy.
For instance, and I'll go slowly here while you fire up the few remaining synapses inside your skull, Franklin Delano Roosevelt would almost certainly not have held up this brilliant plan for two years if it had, indeed, been his plan all along. Even more less likely is the theory that he somehow orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor just to give the weapons industry a kick in the rear, not to mention the unlikely nature of it being kept secret for 60 long years. But I forget, it's not a secret anymore, is it? You just revealed the gory truth for all of us to see. A humble nation thanks you.
But if we accept your theory for a second, the sad absence of any economic recovery in the period of '41-'45 kinda sorta shoots your idea right between the eyes, if you'll pardon my crass language.
Moving on, it is equally unlikely that the present President orchestrated the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon to revive the economy. It is also somewhat baffling that the only reason you can see for attacking a genocidal maniac with obvious ill intentions towards this country would be to revive the economy. There's not much use in an economy, revived or otherwise, if the population that was supposed to benefit from it is buried under layers of radioactive ashes, or perhaps you think otherwise?
No, you don't think at all, and that seems to be the source of your malady. But don't worry, there's always room for Idiotarians out there. If for no other good reason, then to remind the rest of us how important it is not to inhale large amounts of lighter gas.
Grasping at Straws, Iraqi StyleFrom the Independent (...of Common Sense) comes this latest attempt of Sammy's to stave off the Mother of all Ass-Whuppings™:
Iraq will agree to the return of UN arms inspectors provided they are accompanied by "neutral observers" including British religious leaders, union officials and the media, senior diplomatic sources said yesterday
...religious leaders, union officials and The Media™, huh? Yup, don't come any more "neutral" than that.
Baghdad is sending a letter to the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan,
Please help save my worthless ass from the Evil Merkins.
which is likely to demand that any observers ensure the inspections are not spying missions
You can touch, but you cannot look... Actually, you can't touch either...
and that "doctored findings of weapons of mass destruction" are not used to justify a US attack, the sources said.
And who exactly again was it that was going to "ensure" that the Evil Merkins aren't planting evidence and decide if it's planted or not? The aforementioned "neutral" observers? I can see it now:
[Evil Merkin pulls up in big truck]
"Hey, Joe! Can you help me unload this ICBM and plant it in that babymilk factory over yonder?"
"Shit, Bob! The Archbishop of Canterbury heard you!"
Iraq will also insist that a large proportion of the delegation comes from Europe, and that the UN does not let the Bush administration veto its composition.
This endorsement from Iraq speaks volumes about the EUroweenies and the UN. Good luck keeping us from vetoing anything, f*cknuts...
The conditions will be seen as an attempt to split the Western allies.
...just a dumb question: Wouldn't we need to be actually unified on something before we can be "split"?
Iraq believes public opinion in Europe is now solidly against military action.
...thanks to the EUnuch politicians and their wholly owned subsidiaries, the EUrowanker "media"...
But sources close to Mr Annan reacted warily to the offer, predicting it would not sit well with some on the Security Council.
...You get two guesses as to who "some" might be, and the first one don't count. Hint: They have something called a "veto" and they're not afraid to use it.
Diplomats also warned that no official word had come from Iraq.
Must be that newly imposed ingenious radio silence that Sammy's come up with to thwart US comms interceptions. Maybe the Iraqi runner hasn't arrived yet? Give him some time, it's a long run from Baghdad.
Is it just me, or are Sammy's attempts at pushing off the inevitable more than usually pathetic?
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
Shoddy Arabia Digs Its Own Grave...and good riddance too...
Once again, I must thank Christopher Johnson of Midwest Conservative Journal for bringing this little tidbit of information to my attention. If you ever come to Dallas, Chris, a beer will only be the beginning of what I'm gonna treat you to.
RELATIONS between the United States and Saudi Arabia have deteriorated so far that the Saudi Arabians are no longer considered allies, senior diplomatic sources said yesterday.
Whoa... That's sad... I'm gonna cry...
Saudi Arabia, once the indispensable cornerstone of US policy in the Arab world,
has refused to co-operate with the war on terrorism or support President Bush’s plans to overthrow President Saddam Hussein. According to the sources, it has handed over no Intelligence of any value...
That goes pretty much for their entire thugocracy... "Nothing of Any Value", of course.
about the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation, which has roots in Saudi Arabia.
...it came to your attention, did it?
The final “stab in the back” for Washington was the decision to ban American bombers from attacking Iraq from Saudi airbases.
Yes, we were so surprised to hear that. So surprised, in fact, that we started building an alternative base in Qatar several months ago. We're shocked, shocked I tell you!
That has soured relations to such an extent that the country from which America launched its 1991 invasion of Iraq is now being excluded from discussions about a post-Saddam era.
...and one can only wonder why... 15 of 19 and all that...
Even Syria, which in public is opposed to an attack on Iraq and has been engaged in trade and arms deals with Baghdad, is talking secretly to the Americans and the British about the role that Damascus may play in the region if Saddam is overthrown. A Syrian delegation is understood to have had discussions with British officials in London this week.
Ohhh... The plot thickens... The Syrians are interested, not for the first time...
British diplomatic sources said that the Saudi ruling elite was immersed in a “dynastic battle” and was so concerned about survival that the key figures were afraid of taking any decision that would be interpreted by the people as being pro-Western and anti-Arab. It had become increasingly difficult to find anyone with sufficient clout and influence in Riyadh “to talk about anything”.
Yeah, we've been noticing that an interesting number of "heir apparents" have turned up... dead... lately...
General Tommy Franks, the US Central Command chief who is planning the campaign against Iraq, is understood to have removed from his list of potential launch pads the huge Prince Sultan airbase, 50 miles south of Riyadh, which the allies used as their combined air operations centre in the Gulf War. Development work at General Franks’s alternative “war base” — the al-Udeid site in Qatar — was now so far advanced that it would soon be a “totally self-sufficient” American facility, the sources said.
I suppose I'd be "simplistic" and "unilateralist" if I was to utter a quiet "mheheheheh" here, so I will...
“There may be no political decision yet, but militarily the US has made enough preparations to attack Iraq any time, without using any facilities in Saudi Arabia, other than Saudi airspace. It is assumed that the Saudis would not go as far as denying over-flight rights,” the sources said.
They could of course try, but that would be... stupider than usual... Even for the Shoddies...
Saudi Arabia’s failure to reveal any useful Intelligence about al-Qaeda has been in marked contrast to the co- operation of countries such as Yemen.
Despite arresting 13 al-Qaeda suspects several months ago, the Saudi authorities have not divulged to the Americans any material that could help Western intelligence agencies to unravel the network, the sources said.
Our friends the Soddies, indeed... Considering that 15 of the 19 came from Shoddy Arabia, I'm not exactly surprised, but they could at least have tried.
Sixteen Saudi al-Qaeda suspects detained by Iran after crossing from Afghanistan had also been handed over to Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has promised that any Intelligence gleaned from the suspects would be passed to the US.
...as long as it doesn't implicate the Shoddies, of course, but that goes without saying...
However, the sources said: “All the Saudis are interested in is getting information from suspect al-Qaeda terrorists which relates only to Saudi Arabia’s security. They have not been at all co-operative in seeking answers from suspects which might have some bearing on the international threat posed by al-Qaeda.”
The hierarchy in Saudi Arabia had been “taken by surprise” by the September 11 attacks in America, carried out by 19 hijackers of whom 15 were believed to have been Saudi citizens.
...they were, but don't let facts get in the way... I'm sure they were shocked, shocked... I'm equally sure that I don't give a flip...
Many of the al-Qaeda suspects arrested in Afghanistan and taken to the American interrogation camp at Guantanamo Bay were also Saudis.
How'd that happen, one wonders...
Saudi Arabia had also been “deeply involved” with Pakistan in funding the Taleban in Afghanistan, and had financed the “Salafi” Islamic ideological schools in Pakistan at which many Taleban and al-Qaeda fundamentalists had developed their hatred of the West.
Relations with Saudi Arabia were now so poor that there was at present only one issue that could be seen in a positive light, and that was oil. The Saudis supply 17 per cent of America’s oil needs.
...and they may very well continue to, for a while. The only difference is that we may not feel obligated to pay for it anymore, once we're done with them.
“In all other key areas, the Saudis are not being obliging, so in planning for Iraq the Americans have turned to Gulf states they see as real allies, such as Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain,” the sources said. Britain’s relations with Saudi Arabia have been complicated by the detention of five Britons, found guilty of mounting a bombing campaign in a bootlegging war. The British prisoners allege that they were tortured to make false confessions.
Two emissaries have been sent this year to Riyadh to raise the case with the Saudis. However, the Saudis have shown little interest in discussing what is seen in the Foreign Office as a case of trumped-up charges.
Goodbye, Shoddy Arabia. It was a displeasure knowing you.
Bush is Adolf?If you ask the ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the answer is a resounding "yes", but then again, who'd bother to ask a repressive theocratic nutcase?
"The US president uses the same language as Hitler," Khamenei said during talks here with Iranian cultural diplomats.
as Fred Pruitt, from whom I shamelessly stole the link, already said: Bush speaks German? With a thick Austrian accent? News to me. Over here the Donks are busy claiming that he should be impeached simply because he doesn't speak English well enough.
Last month, Bush angered Iran's ruling conservative clerics when he accused them of ignoring their citizens' demands for greater freedom and urged Tehran to abandon its "uncompromising" and "destructive policies."
Truth hurts, doesn't it? Then again, who gives a hopping fart what "angers Iran's ruling conservative clerics"? I know I don't.
The speech sparked demonstrations across Iran and denunciations from the powerful Khamenei.
Yep, we (There Is No "We") noticed. Despite the best efforts of our press to ignore the fact. We also noticed that the "powerful Khamenei" is about as "powerful" as a two week old kitten in a Dobermann kennel. Otherwise, why would he need to rely on Hezbollah mercenaries to keep the "peace" in Iran?
In January, Bush identified Iran, along with North Korea and Iraq, as part of "an axis of evil" bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism.
...and he hasn't been proven wrong since...
The Midwest Conservative Journal...does it again.
In a Fisking™ adventure that you simply cannot afford to miss, Christopher Johnson makes short work of a USA Today cover story in which we ignorant Merkins are supposedly taught how reasonable it is for EUnuchs to look down upon us and our "simplisme". They liked us just fine, after all, when all we did was lobbing a few cruise missiles at camels' butts, but this whole unilateralism thing has gotten them real upset, yanno, and we should really listen to them... And stuff...
Well gee... The Horror! The Humanity™!!! I suppose that if I tried really really hard, I could give a sh*t about what the EUnuchs think vis-a-vis our self defense against terror, but I'm not handing out any guarantees here.
Chris reaches the same conclusion, it would appear:
Listen up. We're going to take care of this attack against us and do our best to see that it doesn't happen again. If you want to help out, fine. If not, stay the hell out of our way. But kindly hold the we-used-to-like-you-but-you-got-nasty garbage. If the choice is between the safety of our citizens and your opinion of us, guess which of those two horses doesn't finish the race?
...to which I couldn't agree more.
It further reminds me why I never miss out on a day of Christopher's writings. Neither should you.
Another Permalink Goes UpWhile surfing through my permalinks, I came across a reference over at the Blogatrice, pointing to a solid Fisking of Brian Whitaker of the (al-)Guardian by mean ol' anti-Idiotarian Pejman Yousefzadeh.
I honestly don't know how the Hell I've gotten away with delaying putting up a permalink for Pejman, seeing as he's one of my daily reads, but I wouldn't be in the least offended if Pejman, as a retribution, was to hit me upside the head repeatedly with an "Independent"-column wrapped around a month-old red herring.
Anyways. To those three of you who haven't yet read it, I suggest you go do so now. Your life will be better for it and you'll get a free lesson in Fisking™ from one of The Best.
UPDATE: Reader Scott Wickstein sends a mail complimenting me on my "bite". Of course, I'm a sucker for that kinda stuff and Scott's blog from Down Under is well worth a visit too (not to mention that I found, via Scott, that Idiotarian Amir Butler has a website, which will be great for those boring nights when I can find nothing to Fisk), so he goes on the permalinks as well (I really need to get my act together and fix up that list... This weekend... Maybe...)
Please Don't Hit UsAmir Butler over at Kumbaya HQ makes such a persistent case for reading the drivel contained in How Can We Coexist? that I decided to go where anti-Idiotarians fear to tread (mainly because you can read only so much of that kind of thing without losing your breakfast all over your keyboard) and see what the 150+ Islamic "Intellectuals" had to say... I'm nothing if not a masochist...So what did I find?
We are firmly convinced that it is necessary for people of knowledge and probity to enjoy a far-reaching depth of vision. Thit will not permit them to pursue choices made by individuals and circles, under the pressure of circumstances, that fail to take ethics and human rights into consideration. Such are the choices that lead societies to perpetual anxiety, deprivation, and inhuman conflict.It also tends to assure that we win in the end, seeing as the Islamofascist interpretation of "power" is how many innocent civilians you can kill in a day and still deny that you're violent. Our version of "power", however, translates into boots on the ground, planes in the air and ships on the seas.
At this important juncture in history, we call upon unbiased thinkers to engage in earnest dialogue to try and bring about better understanding for both sides...In a word: "Nope".
Your side has already shown numerous times what you stand for and that is incompatible with our safety as well as the safety of our friends. Now it's payback time.
that will keep our peoples away from the domain of conflict and prepare the way for a better future for the generations to come who are expecting a lot from us.Which translates roughly into: "Please don't hit us, you big, rude bully".
You should have thought about that before you killed more than 3,000 of our citizens, shouldn't you?
We must invite everyone to the process of dialogue that we present to our world, and do so under the umbrella of justice, morality, and human rights, so we can give glad tidings to the world of a process that will bring about for it peace and tremendous good.To hear a bunch of hand chopping, woman beating and censorship loving Islamic "intellectuals" talk about "justice, morality and human rights" is just about as gag-inducing as anything I've ever read. I'm surprised that Charles of Little Green Footballs managed to read past this point. But if he can, so can I...
To the extent that dialogue is necessary and effective, it must maintain a tone of respect, clarity, and frankness. These are the prerequisites for its success. Dialogue itself can only be built upon such a foundation, and those participating in it must be willing to accept criticism and correction unflinchingly.OK. On that note: "Your oppressive regimes and the societies that they perpetuate are a bunch of medieval, cruel, fanatic, murdering cess pools that the world wouldn't miss much if they were completely obliterated".
Don't flinch now, y'hear?
Therefore we say clearly and in total frankness that we are prepared to discuss any issue raised by the West,How very generous of you...
Has it occurred to you that you don't have a choice? Of course it has. Otherwise you wouldn't be writing this drivel. Your turbans are caught in the wringer now and you know it.
realizing that there are a number of concepts, moral values, rights, and ideas that we share with the West and that can be nurtured to bring about what is best for all of us. This means that we have common objectives. Nevertheless, we, just like you, possess our own governing principles and priorities and our own cultural assumptions.We all know your governing "principles and priorities", not to mention your "cultural assumptions". And we ain't buying, sorry.
There are a number of basic principles and moral values that govern our dealings with other nations. These were set forth fourteen centuries ago by the messenger of Islam, Muhammad. This was before human rights organizations existed and before there was a United Nations with its international charters....as exemplified in 9/11 and every suicide bomb against Israeli men, women and children. Maybe you should start practicing as you preach?
2. It is forbidden to kill a human soul unjustly. Killing a single person is to God as heinous as killing all of humanity, just as saving a single person from death is as weighty as saving the lives of all humanity. The Qur'ân says: "If anyone killed a person except as recompense for murder or spreading havoc in the land, then it would be as if he killed all of humanity. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the lives of all humanity." [5:32]Very nice.
The only problem seems to be your interpretation of when a killing is "just". As it stands, your interpretation is incompatible with civilization. Deal with it.
3. It is forbidden to impose a religious faith upon a person. The Qur'ân says: "There is no compulsion in religion." [2:256] A person will not even be considered a Muslim if he or she accepted Islam under duress.That certainly explains the floggings and shooting up of Pakistani churches... Not...
4. The message of Islam asserts that human relationships must be established on the highest moral standards. Muhammad said: "I was only sent to perfect good conduct."And now we're sending iron, and lots of it, to benefit mankind by dumping said iron on the top of your turbans until you realize that terror attacks are not based on the "highest moral standards".
But let's skip ahead a little before I puke...
It is completely unreasonable to turn the tragic events of September 11 into a means of categorizing our world's ideologies, civilizations, and societies. Those attacks were unwelcome to many people in the Muslim world due to the values and moral teachings of Islam that they violated.It's a crying shame then that you were so reluctant to condemn them openly and totally, seeing as how they were "unwelcome" to you. Seems to me that they only became really unwelcome when Uncle Sam began unscrewing the lid of that giant jar of whupass that you see coming now.
At the same time, we find strange the hasty conclusions made about the motivations of the attackers, restricting them to an attack on American society and its universal human values.It may have to do with the attacks being made on US soil against US citizens...
Without going into a lengthy argument about the matter,...that you would lose anyway
...we see it as our right and the right of all impartial thinkers, as well as the right of all Americans, to inquire as to why the attackers did not choose some other country that adheres to the same Western values? Why did they not turn their attention to other nations and societies in Asia and Africa that subscribe to idolatrous religions, for they would have been more deserving of attack if the issue with the attackers was to fight against those who disagreed with their values....well, you can ponder that all you want. In the meantime, we've got a war to win against the people that attacked us. If you really want to know why they flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon rather than crashing them into a couple of mud huts in the Sudan, you're in a unique position to find out, seeing as how you sponsor and house the terrorists responsible for it. Just go ask, why dontcha?.
when one faction prefers to create a conflict with the Muslims or to ignore their rights, then Islam responds by resistance and self defense, which are among the objectives of jihad....and when Islam responds by blowing up civilians in their thousands, the West responds along the lines of "kick ass and take names". You started it, we didn't.
It is unreasonable to assume that those who attacked the United States on September 11 did not feel in some way justified for what they did because of the decisions made by the United States in numerous places throughout the world.Blah, blah, blah... Moral equivalence rears its turbaned head again. We're quite familiar with Binny bin Has-Beens incoherent "justifications" for his attack... The crusades, the troops in Saudi that the Shoddies themselves have asked us to put there, the fact that Osamas mother was once bit by an American moose while trying to brush its teeth etc. etc. etc. The problem is, none of these "arguments" hold water and, even if they did it's still no excuse for murdering 3,000 civilians. Period.
We by no means hold the view that they were justified in striking civilian targets, but it is necessary to recognize that some sort of causative relationship exists between American policy and what happened.And we by no means deny that Binny might have thought there was some "causative relationship" there, nor do we deny that a lot of you people actually buy it, the problem you're facing is that we don't give a flying fuck! You made your beds, now you get to lay in them.
From another angle, if we were to assume that the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks against the United States were the work of some special faction from within Europe, China, or Japan, or even a religious faction of the Jews, would America's decision then have been to subject them and their nations to the type of aggression that they are now confronting the Muslims with? This policy only supplies more evidence to the alleged perpetrators and their sympathizers for their claim that America is oppressing and aggressing against the Muslim world.Oh beautiful. And if my grandma was a Greyhound bus, I could ride for free. So now you're using the aggression towards the "Muslim world" brought about by 9/11 as justification for 9/11? Talk about twisted logic.
The events of September 11 should be an impetus for establishing a new assemblage of international institutions to establish justice and secure people's rights.And you bet your last burkha it will be. You just might not like the results.
They are needed to supplant institutions like the United Nations General Assembly and the UN Security Council that were established after the two World Wars to defuse the war between imperious nations. Those institutions failed to realize justice and security for the weaker peoples or protect their countries.There is no point in securing justice only based on who is the weakest, unless you happen to be the weak one. Justice is based on what is right and who's got the biggest guns to enforce it.
But I do like the idea of "supplanting the UN". Just not in a way that you'd like, but that doesn't really disturb me.
Institutions are needed that will not act merely as a theatre for extending the reach of the great powers. How many peoples have become wretched and had their resources stripped away from them by force for the benefit those overbearing powers....and how many peoples have become wretched due to their oppressive regimes and their complete and abject failure to establish free, democratic societies with free trade and open markets? You get three guesses and the first two don't count.
Likewise, those events should make us turn our attention to the fact that exaggerated strength, no matter how many ways it might manifest itself, is never a sufficient guarantee of security. A small group, if they have the will, can cause massive harm and injury to their opponents, no matter how strong those opponents might be.Is that a threat?
It sure sounds like a threat to me. Bring it on, then enjoy The Glow™
If the Americans view what happened on September 11 as a turning point for them in how they define their relationship with the Muslims generally, not merely with the group of people that actually carried it out, then can we be blamed when we see that the presence of the Jewish state of Israel on Palestinian land and the control they hold over it through the support of the major powers was and still is a decisive factor in defining and shaping our relationship with the West, as well as with its values and institutions?The democratic state of Israel is going to exist until you wrest it from our dead, cold fingers. DEAL WITH IT!!!
I skip ahead, 'coz now my breakfast is really beginning to feel unstable.
If the United States sought to withdraw from the world outside its borders and removed its hand from inflammatory issues, then the Muslims would not be bothered whether or not it is a progressive, democratic, or secular nation.In other words: If the US just left the world to you guys and let you obliterate Israel, among others, at will, then you wouldn't have a problem with us and you wouldn't fly planes into our office buildings. My, that's mighty generous of y'all! Now get off that pipe and return to reality before reality returns to you. I assure you it's for your own good.
At this point I couldn't take it anymore, I'm sorry... Maybe I'll go read the rest later, but 'till then, you can read the whole screed here.
I gotta go puke now...
New PermalinkIt has been brought to my attention (thanks to the unpaid hard work of my referral thingummajig, I'm an Evil American Imperialist™, after all) that there's another anti-Idiotarian 'blog out there that deserves mention. They've even put up a permalink for yours truly, which only goes to show how sensible they are, not to mention their immaculate taste. (I was gonna bitch that they call me the "anti-Idolatarian Rottweiler", but then I realized that I'm that too, so just leave it that way, guys, please)
So welcome to the permalinks, Common Sense and Wonder and, before you or anybody else thinks that this is merely a "quid-pro-quo", I'd like to add that you're only there because your team writes some damn good stuff that everybody ought to check out once in a while, not for any other reason.
Keep up the good work!
Another Idiotarian ExposedThanks to Daily Pundit Bill Quick. This one, one Elijah Gosier of St. Pete FL, seems to be running with the "Americans are Nazis" crowd and, just like any other bona fide Idiotarian, fails to make the point in any shape, form or fashion.
I would like to add to Bill's complete take-down of Elijah's drivel, but there's nothing I can add, so I ask you instead to go read it... Right now...
Tuesday, August 13, 2002
CNN is on the ball, more or lessRemember my prediction that the Bunny Boinkers (thanks to Bill Quick for spreading this expression s'more, now maybe one day I'll be truly famous... Or not...) would be doing their damndest to not talk about this, seeing as how their exempt friends China and India are, among others, responsible for the problem in the first place?
Well, thanks to alert reader Sasha Castel (and if you don't go read her right now, I'm gonna sic the chihuahuas on ya), it has been brough to my attention that the Clinton News Network have heard about this Brown Cloud That Is Killing Millions. Of course, par for the aforementioned course, the CNN is ever so careful not to mention who's responsible, but we can change that, can't we? Of course we can...
HONG KONG, China -- A dense blanket of pollution, dubbed the "Asian Brown Cloud," is hovering over South Asia, with scientists warning it could kill millions of people in the region, and pose a global threat.
...it wouldn't have to do with the fact that, among others, China and India are among the worst polluters in the world? No, of course it wouldn't. If we said that, it would mean that the Kyoto Treaty, from which China and India, among others, are exempt was nothing more than a bad excuse for trying to impose impossible restrictions on the economy of the USA, to benefit third world countries... But surely CNN will reach the point where they have to name those responsible, right? Yeah right...
By slashing the sunlight that reaches the ground by 10 to 15 percent, the choking smog has also altered the region's climate, cooling the ground while heating the atmosphere, scientists said on Monday.Hmmm... Cooling the ground and heating the atmosphere... So what's it gonna be? Ice Age™ or Infernal Heat™... But I'm digressing, I know.
The potent haze lying over the entire Indian subcontinent -- from Sri Lanka to Afghanistan -- has led to some erratic weather, sparking flooding in Bangladesh, Nepal and northeastern India, but drought in Pakistan and northwestern India.So what we gonna do about it? Now that it's a Global Threat™, does that mean that we're free to criticize China unless they cut their pollution? We're talking about The Children™, after all
While haze hovers over other parts of the world, including America and Europe, what surprised scientists was just how far the cloud extended, and how much black carbon was in it, according to A P Mitra from India's National Physical Laboratory.I bet that came as a huge surprise to them, seeing as they're all falling over each other's asses to blame any worldly evil on the US.
A cocktail of aerosols, ash, soot and other particles, the haze's reach extends far beyond the study zone of the Indian subcontinent, and towards East and Southeast Asia.I may be a complete idiot, but wasn't it not too long ago that the US was blamed for the hole in the ozone layer because of our "excessive" use of Freon? And isn't Freon a gas, spread from spray cans in the form of an aerosol? And this was naturally a "global" problem? And now they're "surprised" that aerosol clouds can travel across the Earth? Remember Mount Krakatoa back in 1815? That sucker changed the world's climate for years and those particles were one heck of a lot bigger than "aerosol". And now, 187 years later, "scientists" are surprised? But still, we need some name-calling here, CNN. Surely you're not going to end the article without naming some possible perps, such as China or India? Of course you are...
"Biomass burning" from forest fires, vegetation clearing and fossil fuel was just as much to blame for the shrouding haze as dirty industries from Asia's great cities, the study found.I'm sure... It's all to blame on those damn inefficient camp fires that the Chinese use to cook their rice because we evil American Imperialists™ refuse to give them all gas stoves for free...
Using data from ships, planes and satellites to study Asia's haze during the northern winter months of 1995 to 2000, scientists were able to track its journey to pristine parts of the world, such as the Maldives, to see how it affected climate.Well excuse me, Mr. CNN Science Person™, but the smog cutting out sunlight doesn't exactly heat the atmosphere, it would cool it down. It's called the "albedo effect" and is known even to illiterate members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™ such as myself. What you're referring to is the inability of infra-red radiation (also known as heat) to escape from the Earth. Your point is still there, but it would help your credibility immensely if you at least had your third grade science facts straight.
but also that it created acid rain, a serious threat to crops and trees, as well as contaminating oceans and hurting agriculture.Oh my effing GOD! They "discovered" that burning coal created acid rain! Clear the friggin' press!!!!
"It was much larger than we thought," said Mitra. The report suggested the pollution could be cutting India's winter rice harvest by as much as 10 percent.This is what is known as "what goes around, comes around". You made the mess, now you get to sleep in a sewer. But let's not expect the CNN to notice this glaring fact that is staring them right in their myopic eyes.
The report calculated that the cloud -- 80 percent of which was made by people -- could cut rainfall over northwest Pakistan, Afghanistan, western China and western central Asia by up to 40 percent.So this is something we have to deal with, clearly. Naturally, this is going to be one of the main subjects of "Rio Plus Ten" in Johannesburg, right? The globe is being devastated by third world dictatorships and it has to stop, right? We're talking, after all, about The Children™, right? Sure... I also have high hopes for the future of Porcine Aviation™.
Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen -- one of the first scientists to identify the causes of the hole in the ozone layer and also involved in the U.N. report -- said up to two million people in India alone were dying each year from atmospheric pollution.Which is true and pertinent... I just don't believe for a friggin' nanosecond that the conference in Johannesburg will be able to find the time out from heckling the Evil Merkins™ long enough to actually address the problem.
This is sad... It's sad for the thousands of people who are going to die unnecessarily because of the UN's infamous blind eye when it comes to the third world, and it's sad for whatever credibility the UN might have left on this planet...
Monday, August 12, 2002
Betcha They Won't Be Mentioning THIS at "Rio Plus 10":Thanks to John Hawkins who got the scoop on this little gem from Reuters:
LONDON (Reuters) - A two-mile-thick cloud of pollution shrouding southern Asia is threatening the lives of millions of people in the region and could have an impact much further afield, according to a U.N.-sponsored study.Well... I'll be a poodle's uncle! How the Heck did we in the imperialistic, polluting and evil US of A manage to do that?
We didn't, of course, which is why my prediction is that the envirowhackos will be busily avoiding the issue completely in the months to come. The "cloud of death" is caused by such notables as China and India, two of the world's worst polluters and also, notably, two of the countries not required to abide by the scam to destroy the US economy also known as "The Kyoto Treaty".
He [U.N Environment Program chief Klaus Toepfer - ed.] said the U.N.'s preliminary report into what it dubbed the "Asian Brown Cloud" was a timely reminder to the upcoming Earth Summit in Johannesburg that action, not words, was vital to the future of the planet.To be sure, but I'm not holding my breath while waiting for the tree huggers to descend on China like a swarm of locusts, demanding that they cut their pollution levels.
"We have the initial findings and the technological and financial resources available. Let's now develop the science and find the political and moral will to achieve this for the sake of Asia, for the sake of the world," he added....but what about The Children™?
"The concern is that the regional and global impacts of the haze are set to intensify over the next 30 years as the population of the Asian region rises to an estimated five billion people," the report said....and I suggest that the spokeswoman and her friends waste no time in doing so... Next Stop Beijing! Tianmen Square, here we come!
I can't wait to see the Bunny Boinkers try and wiggle their way out of this one. If it ever gets any publicity, which I somehow doubt...
Three One Way Tickets to Gitmo, Please...Seems our boys have been hunting a little in Afghanistan over the weekend:
BAGRAM, Afghanistan - American special forces captured three suspected al-Qaeda fighters in eastern Afghanistan over the weekend, a U.S. military spokesman said Monday.
This would be good news, 'cept for the fact that now we have to feed Larry, Curly and Moe at Gitmo for the unforseeable future while we make sure that all of their "rights" are properly seen to. Interrogate the little fucks "real nice" until they can't squeal no mo', then dump them over the Atlantic, please!
Authorities in eastern Afghanistan also arrested one Yemeni man who admitted being an al-Qaeda member
Seems kinda dumb to admit it, until you start thinking about it. Put yourselves in his shoes for a second: "What am I doing in shitty Ashcanistan, when I could be laying in the sun on Cuba with three squares a day and my own prayer mat until some sleazy self-hating Merkin lawyer gets me out on a technicality?"
This ain't how you fight a war, you limp-wristed ninkompoops! You gotta make the enemy fear us and fear falling into our hands even more! As it is, the Marines might as well set up soup kitchens and hand out free meals to everyone who can say "I member of al-Qaeda!"... Hmm... That'll probably be the next step in the "War" on Terrorism™...
"Anonyblogging"Good or bad...?
Since everybody else is throwing around their 2 pennies, I felt like contributing mine to the storm of metal flying through the air as well.
Steven "Clueless" (and if there's anything he's not, that would be it) den Beste has a long and thought-provoking post on the pros and cons of "blogging anonymously". It's one of those rare posts where I find myself more or less in agreement with the entire post (which everyone with thoughts on the issue should read), yet I find myself unmoved as to where I stand on the subject. There are a few points, however, where I have to disagree with Steven, which is most likely why I remain unmoved.
He says (about blogger Demosthenes) that:
By refusing to reveal his identity he indicates that he's not actually as committed to what he says as he pretends to be, and more importantly that he is not as committed as he wants others to be.
Sorry, Steven, but that doesn't cut it with me. I don't know what Demosthenes' motivations for anonyblogging are, but I certainly don't take any reluctance on Demosthenes', or any other blogger/poster's, part to reveal their true identities as an indication of whether they're as "committed to what they say as they pretend to be".
Before blogging I was a USENetizen for quite some time, a UPA'er if that means anything to any of you (if it does, "meow"), and I saw quite a few horrible examples as to what "outing" (revealing people's real life data) could do to people and their families, usually because some idiot couldn't relate to mere words on a screen. In one instance, the nitwit with the thin skin tried to get the person fired from his job by making up lies about him.
In another, an entire family, including children, were haunted and harassed with the most libellous invented accusations thinkable, phone calls in the middle of the night, threats to their lives and the lives of their kids, to the point that they had to move several states away to get some peace and quiet and even then it did not stop entirely, all because some pointy-headed nitwit with an axe to grind couldn't take the "heat" from words on a friggin' screen.
You see, Steve, there's quite a difference about introducing yourself when you debate with a few people at the local bar over a drink and posting your real life data on the 'Net for all to see. 99.9999999999% of you who read this I most likely wouldn't mind sharing my personal details with, as a matter of fact I generally do, once I get to know people better.
And that's the whole point: Once I get to know you better.
Because that last 0.0000000001% just might be a raving lunatic who got so mortally offended by some remark I made around here that he'd see nothing wrong in calling my wife at 4 am and threaten her with killing our kids. And I'm just not willing to take the chance, no matter how small it may seem, of having her go through that, just so I can satisfy somebody's curiosity as to what my shoe size and mailing address might be. Sorry.
Does that make me a coward? Your mileage may vary, but I don't think so. Personally I think that if I were to do the opposite and post my personal info, exposing the rest of my family to God-knows-what just because I like to have a blog where I can vent about stuff that bothers me, I'd be an irresponsible, selfish prick, and I'd take "coward" over that any day of the week.
Or, alternatively, I could go pick up the phone book, pick a name at random and use that as my "real name" and nobody, including Steve, would ever know. Hey, presto! I'm no longer an "anonyblogger", 'coz I'm using a "real" name.
But that would be dishonest, which I despise just as much as being a selfish irresponsible prick. So by using a nick that's so obscure that even Cynthia McKinney should be able to figure out that it's not a real name, I'm not lying to anybody and I'm protecting my privacy.
To be sure, there might be those that would respect my opinions less because they're posted under a pseudonym, rather than a "real" name (that nobody would know whether was real anyways), to which I can only say: "Tough shit"... I'm just an ordinary Joe with very vocal opinions on a lot of stuff... If you come here for a laugh, great, that's part of the reason I started this. If you come here for some opinion on various and sundry issues, equally great, that's another part of the reason. If you come here to start a heated discussion with a true blue "warblogger" and convince me of the error of my Evil Capitalist Ways™, fine, we'll both have fun, have at it...
But if you come here for moral guidance and expect me to be your point of light in the jungle of opinion out there, you've got some serious personal issues you need to deal with, 'coz I ain't all that. And therefore you do not have any "claim" to my personal data, other than what I choose to share with you once we get to know one another a little better, just like in real life. Do not expect me to present myself online with name, SSN, home address, height, color of hair and eyes and phone number, 'coz this is just a website, I'm just me and these are just my views, take 'em or leave 'em. If my choice to post under a pseudonym doesn't meet your high standards and if that means you won't respect me in the morning... Oh well...
As Glenn Reynolds says in his initial take on the matter:
If you want to blog anonymously, fine. That's your privilege. Responding to your anonymity differently than they would respond to your True Name is other people's privilege. You pays your money, and you takes your choice.
UPDATE:Demosthenes weighs in as well with a lengthy and rather good post in defense of "pseudonym blogging".
UPDATE the 2nd: Laurence Simon has a thing or two to say too, all of which I wish I'd said. Amen, brother!
Moslem Standup Comedy?Fred Pruitt lets his imagination work with this concept for a while and comes up with the following example of what that might sound like:
"Salaam aleikum, ladies and germs. I just flew in from the Gulf and, boy, are my arms tired... My feet are tired, too. I had to cross the Iraqi no-fly zone... My third wife was stopped on the way home from the beauty parlor by the religious police because she dropped her veil. They flogged the staff of the beauty shop... My cousin, Hassan? The one who couldn't get a job? He finally found work. He plays the antiaircraft gun in an Afghan wedding band... We had my cousin Ahmed over the other night. He ate all the goat we had. He leans back and he sez, 'Boy! If I eat another bite, I'm gonna explode.' We called out for more goat and sent him to a disco in Tel Aviv... I know you're out there, I can hear you breathing. Maybe I can't. Is it a gas attack?..."Dammit, Fred, you're killing me!!!
Falling Asleep at the WheelIt's been a constant subject on pretty much every blog I read on a daily basis, and this article really goes to the core of it
even in the case of Iraq, the voices of appeasement or indifference continue to chip away at our resolve. Allies need to be consulted and brought on board, Congress must be mollified, money must be considered, dysfunctional Middle-Eastern states must be appeased, and a thousand other contingencies are endlessly dredged up to excuse inaction. And all the while I wonder, what if our fathers had done the same thing in 1942? How much greater then were the risks of declaring war on Germany and fighting two enemies simultaneously! Yet that generation understood the gravity of the threat and accepted the price that had to be paid to meet it.The rest of Bruce S Thornton's article is right on the money too, at least if you want my 2 cents (whether you want'em or not, you got 'em), so go read it... Please...
Is our administration waffling? Are we losing our resolve? Have the deaths of more than 3,000 of our countrymen, wives, husbands, children, brothers and sisters already become so distant a memory that they're secondary to Medicare, Social Security, making friends with the world and keeping gas prices low?
I hope not... I PRAY not...
For if that is the case, then the terrorists have truly won (the only time I've ever used that phrase without trying to be funny).
If that is the case, then we deserve what we'll inevitably get at the hands of those who hate us. If that is the case, then our cause is a lost one, our "15 minutes" are definitely up and we're ready to go to the dustbin of history... All because we cared more about how much we pay at the pump than we did about what this country really and truly stands for, what our forefathers died for and what we ended up being admired (as well as hated) for:
One nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for all...
Think about it... Are you ready to let that ideal, that burning flame of freedom that millions have flocked to in the course of 226 years, that last, best hope for Humanity that is the United States of America die, just because fighting a war with all that we've got is too "inconvenient", because fighting it totally, determinedly and to the finish, no matter what the cost might mean privations and losses to you? Are you willing to let that light in the world go out just because you're horrified at the thought of a long, drawn-out war?
I don't think for a second that most people who come here are, but I'd like for you to keep this in the back of your minds. Every day, whether at work or at home or in a public setting. We are carrying the torch now. If we fail, then the bright ideal that is the United States fails. If we falter, generations to come will pay the price and, with good reason, spit on our graves for failing to do what was right because "it wasn't all that bad", because of convenience, because of lack of courage.
Keep it in mind and remember to do what is right, every day, every hour, every minute. Fly a flag, write your congressman, write the newspaper, join the armed forces, start a blog. Do whatever you can and if ever faced with a hard choice ask yourselves: "Am I doing this for me or am I doing this for my nation, for my children, for my grandchildren?"
Keep the home fires burning...