I was going to spend a few hours composing my thoughts before I responded to Joshua's comment on my post last night:

do educate yourself on the occupation of palestine before you paint them as terrorists.

In 1948 the state of Israel was created by the US and Euro powers to form an area for the displaced jewish population after the World Wars. They re-captured and re-constituted the land of the Palestinians and begain to occupy the land stealing it from the natives. All supposed "terror" groups are fighting for the right of self-determination. This was done with backing by the US, which gives more in aid to Israel then the entire continent of Africa, even the helicopters used in the attack on Yassin are funded and sold by the US govt. America sends aid and retains allied with Israel to have a foothold in the politics of the Middle East. Israel attacks refugee camps, destroys homes and bulldozes farmlands. They are setting up an apartheid wall. www.palsolidarity.com to learn more about peace making in palestine.

feel free to email me about further discussion.

honestly, retry to grok this one.

So I got to work and saw that Oda Mae had already done most of the work for me:

There is no such group as "Palestineans" - the Romans changed the name from Judea to wipe out memory of the Jewish homeland. The British re-named the region that as a joke after WWI. The peoples who lived in that region were the gypsy nomads of the mideast that no other country would accept - see Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and so forth. Basically, the third world squatters of the Arab region. No culture, no nothing. NEVER an established government of "Palestine."

When the Jewish state was formed, the Jewish peoples did their best to co-exist. After all, many Jews already lived in Tel Aviv and had been coming for years back to THEIR homeland. The "Palestineans" would have none of that, with the help of their now-friendly neighbors in Lebanon and Jordan. With their backing and support, the Middle East Arabs tried to drive the Jews to the sea as part of a war against their "occupation" of THEIR OWN ANCIENT (Jewish - see Jerusalem and other Jewish towns mentioned in sections of the Bible) homeland. The Pallys lost. The Israelis defended themselves and in the process kicked Arab ass.

Did they then drive the Pallys into the sea? Send them into the desert to wander for 40 years? Did they, fuck. No, they continued to try to co-exist with the blighted buggers, to behave in a civilized manner until FORCED by the Pallys to take more extreme action to protect their country and interests. Good on them. Upset by chekcpoints, those inconvenient pesky searches? Here's an idea - stop telling the entire world your one goal is to kill all Israelis and destroy their country and MAYBE Israel will play nice. But, you know, when you keep blowing up buses and restaurants and synagogues and such, you shouldn't be too surprised when you're then searched for bombs whenever you come across the border.

Maybe you should read a bit of history NOT written by the PLO. No need to re-grok this baby! There's lots out there if you're looking for something other than propaganda.

Well, good gosh, when you think about it, the old Third Reich was an ancient civilization. I mean, it was based on ancient German legends, right? And the fact that they were trying to remove the Jews because they weren't part of that original First Reich - well, yeah, it's all making sense to me now! You Neo-Nazis, brothers under the skin with those poor oppressed Pallys. Go at it and GET those Jews this time around. Hurry, the Pallys need you!

They've created their own misery - now they're having to live with it. The Arab countries flooded peoples into "Palestine" where the right of return must be given if the Arabs had lived in 'their' homeland for two years. TWO - well, that makes an ancient civilization, don't you think? Check those figures in the third link to see the real picture.

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/%7Epeters/mythology.html

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/%7Epeters/mixed.html

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/return.html

You will note that the articles, albeit some by Jewish authors, are extensively footnoted with sources. The Palestinean cause is a poorly disguised Anti-Semitism. Would there be this hoopla if the country was still "Southern Syria"? Nah, I don't think so. Nor would there be much of a Gross National Product.

Sarah, in spite of the misleading hairstyle, I think Saruman was a bit complimentary. The guy was just a crippled Orc.

When I was in college, my views on Israel were of the fingers-in-ears variety. (I wrote about this back in November.) I didn't want to even think about it, even despite my fiance's urging. Without doing a single piece of research, it seemed to me that both sides had merit: you can't just give away land that already belongs to someone else, but you can't just kill people because they've been given some land. Seemed like they were both in the wrong to me back then.

But I daresay a week of reading LGF is enough to realize that something lopsided is going on. Just look at this photo again:

Where are the parallel photos of Israelis? Where are the Israeli prisoners released from Palestinian jails who vow to kill again? Where are the Israeli children with ski masks and machine gun toys?

So I have tried to grok a lot of info on Israel over the past two years, and I respectfully decline the offer to re-grok my position. For more on this topic, I defer to Nelson Ascher, the definitive voice on this issue, and point out this post of his. And if we're going to come down on Israel, then I agree with Vincent Ferrari (via Bunker): Let's remove all fences in the world.

MORE TO GROK:

Continued in Israel post.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:25 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 999 words, total size 7 kb.

But before I get in bed...got this joke in an email from a relative...

Little David was in his 5th grade class when the teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up -- fireman, policeman, salesman, doctor, lawyer, etc. David was being uncharacteristically quiet and so the teacher asked him about his father.
"My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he'll go out to the alley with some guy and make love with him for money."
The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little David aside to ask him, "Is that really true about your father?"
"No," said David, "He works for the Kerry campaign, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids."

Posted by: Sarah at 04:29 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Hi. Sorry, wore myself out yesterday.

Big news, eh? Saruman is dead. Good riddance. If you think I'm going to feel any solidarity or sadness for these people, you've got another think coming.

What does that expression mean, anyway?

You know, I don't really feel like blogging tonight. I feel like chillin', watching a movie and then reading some 1984 before bed. I think I will.

More tomorrow.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

Like I've said before, I'm no good at fisking. I don't really like to do it; it goes back to my post about being rude. But I also said that the published are fair game, so when I found this old article from Sept 2003 called The Terrible Truth About Iraq and started inwardly grumbling, I decided a fisk was in order. I won't copy the whole article here -- it's really long -- but I'll pull out some things that made me grumble. And swear. Sorry. The more I read, the more angry I felt.

According to polls last week, some 60 to 70% of Americans still think we were justified in invading Iraq. Apparently, the majority of Americans still agree with Paul Bremer, who recently referred to the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a "great and noble thing."

Can you feel the contempt for the majority of Americans? This is indicative of how the "educated" on the Left feel about us. We're dumb and need their guidance to understand how peace is the answer. If 70% of us see something as "great and noble", it's because we've been duped, hoodwinked, or lied to. Really we just need smart people like Freeman instead of morons like Bremer to show us the way.

The terrible truth that America cannot face is that the whole thing was never justified in the first place and is thus certainly not a "great and noble thing." If the invasion of Iraq was not justified, then our continued occupation of Iraq can only make things worse. Of course it is a terrible, terrible thing to subject the Iraqi people to the horror they have been subjected to if the war was never justified to begin with. Of course it is a truly terrible thing (and thus a mockery of the slogan--"support the troops") to send our troops into this nightmare if the war was never justified to begin with. Certainly the majority of Americans can recognize what a terrible thing this war and occupation are if the whole thing was never justified to begin with.

Is it just me, or does this paragraph say nothing at all? Seriously. I'm planning my syllabus for teaching ENGL 101, and I swear I'd mark Freeman down for wordiness. Freeman's trying to prove his point in a circular way, using something that 70% of Americans don't see as truth at all. If people don't accept that the war was unjustified, then none of this other junk in this paragraph matters.

Despite ample evidence that the Administration's whole case for war proved to be based on lies and distortions and never amounted in the first place to anything more than a fig leaf for the neo-con agenda, Americans have not been able to face the terrible truth. America can never hope to even begin to try to set things right until she faces the terrible truth. As a nation we can never begin to really confront the problem of terrorism until we face the truth about America and this war and occupation of Iraq.

Minus five points: using the phrase "face the truth" WAY TOO MANY TIMES. And, by the way, does this guy know anything about, to quote Ace Ventura, a little something we like to call evidence? Please point out to me how we "never adequately examined the case for war." I was under the impression that I had to watch a billion speeches in front of the UN last winter.

What is it that would justify war, if indeed anything ever justifies it?

Ah, there we go. That's what he's really saying. The "terrible truth" is that nothing ever justifies war.

If there really was any evidence at all that Saddam Hussein had indeed masterminded or provided assistance to the hijackers there would have been an obvious case for self defense and there is little doubt the United States would have gotten UN authorization for a military response. Only the most dedicated pacifist would have not found just cause to attack Iraq.

Oh please. I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that one. I seem to remember France saying they'd vote no on the resolution no matter what we said. Freeman is just making things up to advance his point, fabricating a what-if scenario that he can't possibly prove would have happened. I maintain the UN still would've wussed out and there still would've been protestors. And I'll back it up with the same evidence Freeman provides: because I say so.

The other major deception the Administration used to provide a just cause was the idea that Iraq was indeed an imminent threat to the United States.

No no no no no. Haven't we been over this a million times? I'm skipping this paragraph because it's worthless.

But now we know that it is all a moot point anyway, for as Hans Blix, the former UN disarmament chief in Iraq, has recently commented: "I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991 may well be the truth." It turns out that Iraq may well have been in compliance with the UN resolution all along.

If Hans Blix says so, it's truth; if George Bush says so, it's lies. I don't give one good goddam what Blix is "inclined to think."

Freedman goes on to say that the last justification the Administration provided was latecoming and grounds for Bush to be "hauled off right then and there to the nearest insane asylum":

...we need to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, at a cost of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, not to mention the lives of many good young Americans, all just to--get this--bring democracy to the Middle East...

I personally don't care one flip about WMDs or yellowcake or imminent anything because I saw the big picture long ago. The Arab world is a freaking mess, and some of that mess has now started interfering with our lives i.e. the WTC. The big picture is that we most certainly do need to bring democracy to the Middle East to protect us all down the line. The fact that Freeman ridicules this notion proves to me that he doesn't grok and that we have no common ground whatsoever.

However, I will say that I personally wish the President would've addressed this before the war. I saw the big picture because I read USS Clueless and LGF and I already knew how important this antediluvian idea of jihad is to certain wackos. I wish the President had laid out the big picture for everyone to see. That's my one complaint.

Nevertheless, as so many Americans think the war was justified just to get rid of the evil Saddam Hussein, it might perhaps be worthwhile to pause and consider for a moment, purely as a philosophical question, whether it would make sense to extend the notion of just cause for war to include the idea of removing a brutal dictator in order to install a democracy.

Yep, I'm fer it. What's that, Freedman? You were just being rhetorical? You didn't really mean for me to answer yes. Oh.

In the case of Saddam Hussein, there is no question that he was a brutal dictator. However, most of that brutality, which the American people have been constantly reminded of over the last few years--that he gassed his own people for example--happened while he was supported by our government. Without that support, and with the presence of the UN and the focus of international attention, it was becoming increasingly difficult for Saddam Hussein to act as he pleased.

I'm sorry, I seem to remember jails full of children being opened during the war, a man who lived underground hiding from Saddam for like 30 years, and a poor Iraqi named Adnan Abdul Karim Enad who tried to reach freedom by climbing into Hans Blix's car only to be drug out and never heard from again. "Increasingly difficult" my ass.

Two years after 911, billions of dollars later, thousands of lives lost, and Americans are not really any safer--but we do now have a pipeline across Afghanistan and control of that vast resource beneath the sands of Iraq.

Not worth my time.

Let's not forget the military establishment. One thing this war proves is that the nation with the most powerful military in the world cannot be trusted with that power. What has to be questioned now is the whole military culture that has had such a pervasive influence in shaping American culture. The military knows plenty about the value of courage in war but apparently nothing about moral courage. One simply has to follow orders--the call of conscience, the voice of dissent is just forbidden. This undoubtedly has had a powerful impact on the shallow patriotism that blinded America to the terrible truth about this war. Support the troops? I feel so badly for those brave young men and women who had no idea what they were signing up for, who never imagined their country would send them into an unjust war and force them to kill innocent men, women and children. Those that don't come back in body bags, horribly wounded, or sick from depleted uranium, will still be scarred for life when they find out the terrible truth about the war. This war will turn out to be some recruitment poster. For the military establishment and culture it may turn out to be worse than Vietnam.

To quote James Lileks: Fuck you.

What do you know about moral courage, Freeman? Have you watched your battle buddy explode next to you? Have you gotten letters saying that what you do for a living is wrong, as LT Smash did? Have you talked to one single servicemember since 9/11 and heard the determination in his voice and seen the pride in his eyes? Moral courage is an 19-year-old Marine volunteering for his second tour in Iraq so he can make a difference in this world. Moral courage is going back into the WTC to help other out like Rick Rescorla did. You know nothing about courage, Freeman.

That so many Americans were so easily misled by lies and distortions is surely an indictment of our entire educational system. It has long been recognized that education is the key to democracy, but rarely if ever has it dawned upon Americans just what sort of education is that key. ... It's only an education that stresses the development of philosophical questioning and critical thinking skills that can be the best hope of saving democracy from the dustbin of history.

The key to our future is therefore not my husband's job, but Freeman's job. Ah, I see now. The Adjunct Professor of Philosophy thinks he's the one to lead us all to salvation. And how? By educating a generation of moral relativists who discuss the zen of multilateralism while sequining NO WAR onto their baby t's.

It seems to me there is no solution to the problem of Iraq without first facing the terrible truth that we should never have initiated this war of aggression in the first place.

Read: Now that I've wasted two hours of Sarah's time setting up what we should have done, I offer no solution for the present or future other than we never should've done it in the first place. Oh, and "at the very least, no American company should be allowed to profit from Iraq, especially one with close ties to the Bush Administration." I don't know how to fix Iraq, but I sure don't want American corporations to try. I just want to pontificate; someone else can deal with the pesky details.

See I'm a philosophy teacher. My job is to think about deep stuff while drinking a latte or smoking a pipe or something. I just write about what should have been or what could have been if another latte-drinker had been in the White House. The hard stuff, like pulling bodies out of the wreckage at the WTC or charging into the 6 of Diamond's house, can be done by people who aren't "educated" enough to be insulated by a university's walls. I'll prophesy about "moral courage" and "terrible truths", but I'll never grasp the philosophy of making the split-second decision to waste a terrorist who comes running at me with an RPG.

Thanks for that article from your ivory tower, Professor Freeman. Now I'm going to post this and go back to wondering when my husband will have water and electricity to make his 14 months a little more comfortable while he risks his life to protect your way of living.

Freeman. What an oxymoron of a name.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:28 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 2136 words, total size 13 kb.

1 Yep...you need a place like The Dinner Table to just chill out and have fun. Welcome aboard.

Posted by: Tim at March 21, 2004 10:59 AM (R1GA8)

2 I read your blog daily and enjoy it so much! Thanks for such a wonderful blog. I actually got a boost from this entry. My dream is to be a professional writer one day. I tend to be too verbose and ramble though. Compared to this guy's thoughts, my writing has promise lol! If he used "terrible" one more time I was going to fall out of my chair. And he's a professor? Maybe he should take your class for a refresher!! When even a novice like myself can pick out the problems in his writing - he has serious issues . And did anyone notice this: "Those that don't come back in body bags, horribly wounded, or sick from depleted uranium,..." What is he referring to in regards to the uranium? Certainly there are no WMDs. Hans Blix says so. How would our soldiers be sick from something that is not there? When Israel bombed their nuke plant (provided by France no less), it was before it was ever opened, to ensure the safety of innocent civilians. What am I missing? Admittedly I did not read the entire thing. The few quotes you shared were enough for me. Perhaps I missed that the crooks and liars in Washington were going to contaminate our OWN troops?? Sheesh.

Posted by: Shannon at March 21, 2004 12:16 PM (p9h+4)

3 Outstanding fisking of a total moron!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at March 21, 2004 12:50 PM (tnftl)

4 You Rock! Outstanding! My blood pressure went up just reading the quotes your brought out. To say that jerk is clueless doesn't begin to cover it.

Posted by: Tammi at March 21, 2004 01:15 PM (qg4Lf)

5 Freeman, how about Fartman? As in Gasbagman. What a joke, and the taxpayers are supporting this moral furball.

Posted by: Infidel at March 21, 2004 02:22 PM (WUNym)

6 uuuhmm...all i can say is...wow!

Posted by: annika at March 21, 2004 06:58 PM (zAOEU)

7 Whoa Sarah - I'm just glad you didn't watch Tim Russert or Fox News Sunday this morning or errr whatever time it would be for you. You should hear me mumbling and grumbling to myself as I put myself through torture listening to Teddy Kennedy and John McCain and Joe Lieberman - I think they call it sadomasochistic tendencies. LOL Toni

Posted by: Toni at March 21, 2004 07:36 PM (NXf1N)

8 Thank you for exposing Freeman. There are a whole clique of his type organized as the "Global hope Club" at UH-Hilo. Here are some quotes from them: “There is probable cause to investigate just what connection the Israeli spying operation had with 9-11…. US Government classified the evidence that links the arrested Israeli spies to 9-11.” -- Previously posted on Global Hope’s website "The attacks on New York and Washington were an Israeli-engineered attempt at a coup against the government of the United States*" -- currently posted on website of longtime Global Hope member, BZ Evans. “There is no way any group could have carried out such a complex incursion without assistance from US agencies. It’s likely a terrorist cell could hijack a plane and crash it, yes, but a second plane, a third and fourth plane, and then crash one into the Pentagon? No way. Can’t happen without a go-ahead from shadowy US sectors.” -- “Longtime Global Hope member” B Z Evans’ website 9/11 a big Conspiracy of the FBI, CIA & U.S. Government? Kathy Dorn reports a new book that she says is compelling. The thesis of the book is that "... our intelligence agencies were reined in, air interceptors grounded - and the attacks exploited to launch a devastating war on Afghanistan. -- Global Hope website Was there really a plane crash at the Pentagon on 9/11? Pentagon Plane Crash a hoax? Here's an excerpt with photos of a best-selling book in France that has NOT hit the mainline media in this country but is widely discussed all over Europe. -- Currently posted on Global Hope website “It (9-11) ties into the root causes of terrorism about people in poverty that don’t have any hope. (An airplane) is the poor man’s bomb. As I watched the pictures of the airplane crashing into the building, I thought those people (al-Qaeda) must have felt so powerless to do that.... If Osama had as much money as the United States military...it would probably be a whole different world.” -- Global Hope community supporter Cory Hardin “The American population is ignorant. They (al-Qaeda) have a passion to develop their culture.” -- Global Hope supporter, Dr. Manulani Meyer

Posted by: Andrew Walden at March 22, 2004 07:51 AM (mrIlD)

9 And here's a piece I did for the UH Hilo student paper attacking the ARROGANT left: American Intelligence By Andrew Walden Bitterness and brittle conceit are on display when opponents of Iraqi liberation question the intelligence of the American people. Insults such as “the American public is ignorant” or “America is a nation of sheep” are so commonplace in anti-liberation rhetoric they pass almost without notice. Democrat Presidential candidate, Howard Dean, urged Wisconsin voters not to be “a rubber stamp”--implying that voters who oppose him are but tools. A common anti-liberation bumper sticker, “Think--it’s patriotic”, implies we are not thinking. In the previous issue of Ke Kalahea there are examples both subtle and gross. One writer makes an unfavorable comparison between the intelligence of a US Navy sailor and that of whales. Another, who ascribes intelligence to trees, promises to dedicate herself to, “enhance the minds of the uninspired.” A third wonders, “Where a nation worth of minds have been dumped.” Finally, my debate opponent opines, “…since the American people seem to be more concerned about whether Janet and Justin planned ‘breastgate,’ I think it is…doubtful that they will hold the government accountable….” America is the product of nearly 300 million people from the four corners of the globe assembled together under conditions of democracy, individual and political liberty, and free enterprise. America is not the representation of a race or nationality--we are the avant-garde of a revolution, based on these ideals, started with the European renaissance. Americans are the most prosperous people on Earth because we are most productive workers on Earth. By their millions, people emigrate from their homes; travel thousands of miles, risking their lives to become Americans. We are not an ignorant people. Opponents of Iraqi liberation, who have trouble making it to their own demonstrations, routinely attack the intellect of George Bush, a man who makes it all the way to the Presidency. They see evidence of ignorance in that we don’t buy their accusation that Bush “lied” about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). They are wrong about us. Americans remember that President Clinton and the first President Bush also warned of the dangers of Iraqi WMD. We know life is more complex than the simplistic equation: “no WMD” equals “lie”. Anti-liberation activists bemoan many Americans’ belief in a connection between Iraq and 9-11. Did it occur that the connection Americans make is: terrorists in caves on the far side of the globe can attack us therefore we can no longer consider ourselves safe from an anti-American dictator who gasses his own people? Do those who call us “ignorant” think this kind of connection too difficult for us? Where they see apathy, I see people who are confident things are on track. “Breastgate” was a minor media frenzy no one in the real world cared about. Television is less a reflection of the American people than of the Hollywood elite, many of whom are…opposed to the liberation of Iraq. Ascribing ignorance to your political opponents is a sign of terminal paradigmatic collapse. Opponents of the liberation of Iraq are not “ignorant”, they are just responding to different real or perceived interests and values than Americans. For instance, Saddam’s erstwhile protectors, France, Germany, and Russia made billions of dollars from oil and munitions deals in Iraq. Anti-liberation spokesman and former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, interviewed on September 13, 2002, by CNN’s Paula Zahn, admitted receiving $400,000 from an Iraqi businessman with connections to Saddam Hussein. The April 22, 2003, Daily Telegraph, reports British Member of Parliament and anti-liberation spokesman, “Gorgeous” George Galloway, “received money from Saddam Hussein's regime, taking a slice of oil earnings worth at least £375,000 a year….” MSNBC reporter, Peter Arnett, on March 31, 2003, explained network Iraq coverage policy, “…reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war, when you challenge the policy, to develop their arguments.” Apparently he hoped by explaining this, to land an exclusive, and profitable, interview with Saddam Hussein. And finally, according to the findings of Britain’s Hutton Inquiry, BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan lied about “sexed up WMD intelligence.” When he invented those lies, I’m sure he too thought he was making a profitable career move. These folks are not ignorant; they just value money and career advancement over the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. This November, American voters will select between President Bush and liberal Massachusetts Senator John Kerry in large part based on accountability for their respective records in the war on terror. I expect American voters, in our wisdom, will vote to reelect Bush. Kerry, who voted against just about every weapons system used in liberating Iraq, is not “ignorant”--just wrong. “Intelligence” is an artificial conceit useful to those who cannot make much claim of actual accomplishments. We Americans have many great accomplishments to be proud of--the liberation of Iraq is one of them.

Posted by: Andrew Walden at March 22, 2004 08:01 AM (mrIlD)

10 Here's my favorite from Timid Unfreeman: "That so many Americans were so easily misled by lies and distortions is surely an indictment of our entire educational system. It has long been recognized that education is the key to democracy, but rarely if ever has it dawned upon Americans just what sort of education is that key. When the politicians and pundits go on and on about education it's clear that they think the underlying purpose of education is simply to gain some scientific or technical knowledge and the skills to find a job and make money. That's all fine and good, but it's not the key to democracy. All the success in business and scientific and technological advancement cannot save democracy when its crumbling from within. "Perhaps democracy is a foolish idea to begin with. Certainly there have been great philosophers, beginning with Plato, who thought so. "Plato thought it no better than mob rule to trust the ignorant masses. "That Bush is even President—that the Republicans have had such power and influence at all—seems to be a confirmation of Plato's indictment. "The only defense of democracy against Plato's indictment has always only rested upon the hope that the people can become in some measure wise. "It's only an education that stresses the development of philosophical questioning and critical thinking skills that can be the best hope of saving democracy from the dustbin of history." Yep...sign up for A Junk Professor Freeeman's Philo 101 class or democracy is doomed!!!

Posted by: A UH Hilo Student at March 24, 2004 03:20 AM (mrIlD)

11 Like all cheap propaganda, Freeman's piece may be transformed into its opposite simply by changing a few words. (Poor syntax in the original.) The Terrible Truth About Anti-Americans It seems most anti-Americans are still having a hard time facing the truth about the liberation of Iraq. The situation in Iraq today is clearly a far cry from that portrayed by the chief anti-American mouthpieces, CNN and BBC. Instead of a resented occupation, it’s now looking more like Iraqi civilians are fed up with the activities of Saddam’s unemployed torturers and al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, the anti-Americans insist that this is a “war for oil” and we have to “get the troops out now.” Perhaps it would be worth considering some relevant details about their proposed course of action. With the deadly toll from this last weekend, some 376 of our troops have now given the ultimate sacrifice, 238 since the end of major combat operations was declared. More have come home wounded. The number of Iraqi casualties is, of course, far harder to determine, though anti-Americans regularly play propaganda games with this figure. Though CNN hypes the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, David Kay’s report shows clear evidence of Saddam’s effort to sustain both chemical and biological weapons programs—a clear violation of several UN resolutions. Recent reports of up to 300,000 mass graves show it’s clear now that Saddam’s regime was a continuing threat to the Iraqi people. Keep in mind also that Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda group, was fighting against Saddam’s Kurdish enemies in Northern Iraq. As part of the anti-Americans continuing campaign to depict the American people as ignorant sheep, liberal pollsters with deceptively worded questionnaires have worked diligently to pretend that we cannot tell the difference between the secular terrorists typified by the Baathist regime in Iraq and “Islamic” terrorists such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, or Islamic Jihad. It might still be a surprise to many anti-Americans, but the truth is that we can see right through your con game. We know that you want to replace American democracy with a totalitarian dictatorship—with you as Dictator! We know now that the anti-Americans ignored the conclusions of the Iraqi people and greatly downplayed the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. We now know that in many cases the anti-Americans spread lies such as the claim that 9-11 was an Israeli conspiracy, a CIA conspiracy, or our government had foreknowledge. They have also lied about Presidential statements to make it seem that Bush blamed Saddam for the 9-11 attacks. The Bush Administration has correctly pointed out that the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein is a “great and noble thing”. It is hard to imagine the anti-Americans ever supporting any war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, since his regime was their paradigm. It is painfully obvious by now that our troops are not there to “occupy” Iraq, but rather to liberate the Iraqi people. Our troops are clearly perceived by Iraqis who were not part of the old regime, as liberators. The terrorists are showing their hand by attacks on targets like the UN Iraq Headquarters, Red Cross/Red Crescent, the Jordanian Embassy, the Tomb of Ali, and Arab residences in Saudi Arabia. Where are the anti-Americans when these civilian casualties are counted? Their real reasons for opposition to the war are spelled out in numerous conspiracy-oriented websites. The left wing conspiracy “theorists” call 9-11 a CIA operation. The right wing conspiracy theorists call it an Israeli one. The anti-Americans drug-addled brains are satisfied with both claims. If one really wants to know the course the anti-Americans ask us to follow, one really should read these articles. These articles chart a reckless course toward surrender to al-Qaeda that promises many more wars to come. The truth about the anti-Americans is that they hate us so much that that eagerly embrace anyone who stands against America. Anti-Americans use the tragic events of 9-11 to push a plan that would lead to America’s destruction and usher in a new dark age for humanity. After years and years of failed UN sanctions, undercut by greedy French, German, and Russian arms merchants and oil profiteers, war was the absolute last resort. It is now quite clear that there was no more time; there remained no peaceful means of dealing with Saddam. The anti-Americans would lead this country into war by misleading the people about the source of the threat posed by terrorism. The terrible truth is that they blame us for the terrorists’ atrocities. A typical claim is that the war on Iraq has only poured gasoline on the fire that is the problem of terrorism and thus made the world a much more dangerous place. Obviously the reverse is the truth—the Iraq war has eliminated one of the world’s great terrorist sponsor states and our troops have killed hundreds if not thousands of terrorists who foolishly entered Iraq to fight us. Now that all their lies and distortions have been exposed, the only thing the anti-Americans have left to try and spin this liberation as a evil and imperialistic thing is simply an appeal to the blind anti-American hatred. The terrible truth about the anti-war “movement” is that anti-Americans have been manipulated by a shallow and mindless hatred and a constant message of fear, and basically conned into opposing a war that was really an act of liberation. It was, all along, a war to end Saddam’s genocide, and genocide is the supreme crime condemned at Nuremberg. This liberation of Iraq is thus certainly a great and noble thing. It is certainly not supporting our troops to call them criminals and killers as anti-Americans have. To oppose the war on such false pretenses has to be the very worst thing to do to those who have so bravely put their lives on the line in the service of their country. The truth about the liberation of Iraq is that we should have finished the job the first time. Those who protested against the war, who sat in vigils for peace, were wrong. The Iraqis slaughtered after the end of Gulf War I paid the price for other peoples’ pacifism.

Posted by: A UH Hilo Student at March 27, 2004 03:10 PM (mrIlD)

12 Sarah, You'd make the point better if you were less angry. Pulling out quotes and saying you disagree with them doesn't advance the argument, and as for the "f*** you" comment, how does this compare to the bad mannered comments you've recently complained about? "he's the one to lead us all to salvation. And how? By educating a generation of moral relativists who discuss the zen of multilateralism while sequining NO WAR onto their baby t's." He never says anything like this. If you have to invent ridiculous things like this for him to say, you must be short on arguments against what he actually does say, no?

Posted by: Martin Poulter at June 19, 2004 03:25 PM (fO3mc)

13 Extreme-Right Republicans' "Global Endangerment Project": Bush Regime MUST Join International Criminal Court (On the Docket!) Editorial via Metamagic Media Network 10-10-2004 B.Z.B. Burning Bush "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." --George Orwell The world approaches what is arguably the most crucial "election" in the history of humankind, one which will decide the direction of America's immense military and nuclear arsenal, as well as the ideals of the European colonial (ie. Roman) "Republican" political agenda. Some find in the Bush regime a frightening premonition of Hitler's Third Reich, but being brutally honest-- the Bush regime is more dangerous in the extreme. While the Third Reich perfected political propaganda, their ends always justifying horrific means, keep in mind they didn't have a global television network, 24 hour right-wing smear-mongers, or billionaires like Rupert Murdoch pounding their message into millions of minds-- they had newsreels and posters. While Hitler had at his disposal a vast military force, with ruthless special forces and death camps, he didn't have a global satellite survelliance network, a nuclear arsenal capable of incinerating entire countries, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, or Trident submarines. If he had, we would all be living in a much more ruthless world, pledging allegiance to the superior white race. George W. Bush and Richard Cheney have taken us halfway around the world once again into Hitler's nightmare. This time, however, they are playing a global game of corporate Monopoly¨. The millions of citizens are but pawns in struggle between two factions of extremely wealthy and powerful elite for control of the last resources on the planet. The far-right ideologues known as "Project for a New American Century" are the reactionary revolutionaries whose motto was carved by Karl Rove into the oily political landscape: "Win at any cost." This "Cabal" has a secret army of operatives at its disposal, deploying "destabilization" around the world and hatred at home, keeping pace with another of their mottos "Order out of Chaos." Meanwhile, the Republican extremists' appeal to American "democratic" ideals is a monstrously ludicrous exercise in cognitive dissonance. Their seizing power through a corrupted election in 2000, with a biased Supreme Court appointing the son of their benefactors, was as far from a democratic process as having a King declare himself ruler. Though they lost the popular vote, at every step the Bush regime has deployed an expoitative agenda, shredding our hard-won civil rights, environmental protections, and economic prosperity. Make no mistake, the fate of the Earth is in the balance here, and these far-right "chickenhawks" have extended the American warfront to the point where nuclear launching is on the table as an inevitable option. Dr. Strangelove is chuckling with George Jr. in a secure underground missile base while Dick Cheney counts his Swiss accounts... Wise up, America! The media has been squashed beneath the boots of these criminals! We aren't being told the truth about the most critical evidence of the time-- regarding the 9-11 attacks, the Saudi-corporate connections, the Bush-CIA history of drugs and corruption, or even the FACT that a former attorney general of the country (Ramsey Clark) has launched impeachment proceedings as well as war crimes indictments against the Bush regime. He can't get even 60 seconds of recognition by the corporate media! How can a society have any chance of "election" when the citizens are overwhelmingly ignorant of the most crucial factors at stake, terrorized by a political spin-masters and corporate criminals, and decieved to an extent that can only be considered tyrannical? Meanwhile, fellow Earthlings, the planet is reminding us that greater issues of survival are pressing on us. Our immune systems, our atmosphere, our oceans, what's left of our wildlands and forests, are all caught up in the most rapid and radical extinction since the fall of the dinosaurs. Is it possible that the Bush regime's far-right reactionary revolution is all a carefully-scripted distraction from the needs of a suffering planet? If so, they've succeeded beyond their most arrogant ambitions. "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." --H. G. Wells B.Z.B. Burning Bush

Posted by: B.Z.B. at October 10, 2004 09:05 PM (FVcxu)

14 Sara you're up: http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman10122004.html

Posted by: Bob bobson at October 12, 2004 01:36 PM (vVsL3)

15 To Shannon, who wondered about depleted uranium: Washington's secret nuclear war By Shaheen Chughtai Tuesday 14 September 2004, 22:17 Makka Time, 19:17 GMT The US has dropped tonnes of depleted uranium on Iraq Related: US secretly removed Iraqi uranium The ABC of WMD Iraq's real WMD crime Tools: Email Article Print Article Send Your Feedback Illegal weapons of mass destruction have not only been found in Iraq but have been used against Iraqis and have even killed US troops. But Washington and its allies have tried to cover up this outrage because the chief culprit is the US itself, argue American and other experts trying to expose what they say is a war crime. The WMD in question is depleted uranium (DU). A radioactive by-product of uranium enrichment, DU is used to coat ammunition such as tank shells and "bunker busting" missiles because its density makes it ideal for piercing armour. Thousands of DU shells and bombs have been used in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and - both during the 1990-91 Gulf war and the ongoing conflict - in Iraq. "They're using it in Falluja, Baghdad is chock-a-block with DU - it's all over the place" Major Doug Rokke, ex-head of US army DU project "They're using it now, they're using it in Falluja, Baghdad is chock-a-block with DU - it's all over the place," says Major Doug Rokke, director of the US army's DU project in 1994-95. Scientists say even a tiny particle can have disastrous results once ingested, including various cancers and degenerative diseases, paralysis, birth deformities and death. And as tiny DU particles are blown across the Middle East and beyond like a radioactive poison gas, the long-term implications for the world are deeply disturbing. DU has a "half-life" of 4.5 billion years, meaning it takes that long for just half of its atoms to decay. Sick soldiers Only 467 US soldiers were officially wounded during the 1990-91 Gulf war. But according to Terry Jemison at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), of the more than 592,560 discharged personnel who served there, at least 179,310 - one third - are receiving disability compensation and over 24,760 cases were pending by in September 2004. A sixth of the Iraq war veterans have already sought treatment This does not include personnel still active and receiving care from the military, or those who have died. And among 168,528 veterans of the current conflict in Iraq who have left active duty, 16% (27,571) had already sought treatment from the VA by July 2004. "That's astronomical," says Rokke, whose team studied how to provide medical care for victims, how to clean contaminated sites, and how to train those using DU weapons. Rokke admits the exact cause for these casualties cannot be confirmed. But he insists the evidence pointing to DU is compelling. "There were no chemical or biological weapons there, no big oil well fires," he says. "So what's left?" Cradle to grave Dr Jenan Ali, a senior Iraqi doctor at Basra hospital's College of Medicine, says her studies show a 100% rise in child leukaemia in the region in the decade after the first Gulf war, with a 242% increase in all types of malignancies. The director of the Afghan DU and Recovery Fund, Dr Daud Miraki, says his field researchers found evidence of DU's effect on civilians in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan in 2003 although local conditions make rigorous statistical analysis difficult. Iraqi and Afghan doctors have seen a rise in deformed foetuses "Many children are born with no eyes, no limbs, or tumours protruding from their mouths and eyes," Miraki told Aljazeera.net. Some newborns are barely recognisable as human, he says. Many do not survive. Afghan and Iraqi children continue to play amid radioactive debris. But the US army will not even label contaminated equipment or sites because doing so would be an admission that DU is hazardous. This "deceitful failure", says Rokke, contradicts the US army's own rules, such as regulation AR 700-48, which stipulates its responsibilities to isolate, label and decontaminate radioactive equipment and sites as well as to render prompt and effective medical care for all exposed individuals. "This is a war crime," Rokke says. "The president is obliged to ensure the army complies with these regulations but they're deliberately violating the law. It's that simple." No remedy But these blatant violations are practically irrelevant because Rokke's Iraq mission found that DU cannot be cleaned up and there is no known medical remedy. US President George Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair used Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of illegal weapons to justify invading Iraq. But several prominent jurists hold Bush and Blair guilty of war crimes for waging DU warfare. The vice-president of the Indian Lawyers Association, Niloufer Bhagwat, sat on an international panel of judges for the unofficial International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan. Bhagwat and her fellow judges ruled that the US had used "weapons of extermination of present and future generations, genocidal in properties". Friendly fire And not just against defenceless Afghan civilians. Critics say George Bush (R) and Tony Blair are 'war criminals' "Bush was guilty of knowingly using DU weaponry against his own troops," Bhagwat told Aljazeera.net, "because the president knew the effects of DU could not be controlled". A prominent US international human-rights lawyer, Karen Parker, says there are four rules derived from humanitarian laws and conventions regarding weapons: weapons may only be used against legal enemy military targets and must not have an adverse effect elsewhere (the territorial rule) weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict and must not be used or continue to act afterwards (the temporal rule) weapons may not be unduly inhumane (the "humaneness" rule). The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 speak of "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" in this regard weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural environment (the "environmental" rule). Illegal weapons "DU weaponry fails all four tests," Parker told Aljazeera.net. First, DU cannot be limited to legal military targets. Second, it cannot be "turned off" when the war is over but keeps killing. Third, DU can kill through painful conditions such as cancers and organ damage and can also cause birth defects such as facial deformities and missing limbs. "Use of DU weaponry violates the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions" Karen Parker, human rights lawyer Lastly, DU cannot be used without unduly damaging the natural environment. "In my view, use of DU weaponry violates the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions," says Parker. "And so its use constitutes a war crime, or crime against humanity." Parker and others took the DU issue before the UN in 1995, and in 1996, the UN Human Rights Commission described DU munitions as weapons of mass destruction that should be banned. Deceit Despite the evidence, Rokke says Pentagon and Energy Department officials have campaigned against him and others trying to expose the horrors of DU. That charge is echoed by Leuren Moret, a geoscientist who has worked at the Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons research laboratories in California. White House denials are part of a long-standing cover-up policy that has been exposed before, she says. President Bush insists warnings about DU are merely propaganda "For example, the US denied using DU bombs and missiles against Yugoslavia in 1999," she told Aljazeera.net. "But scientists in Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria measured elevated levels of gamma radiation in the first three days of grid and carpet bombing by the US." Moret said: "A missile landed in Bulgaria that didn't explode and scientists identified a DU warhead. Then, Lord [George] Robertson, the head of NATO, admitted in public that DU had been used." Even the US army expressed concern about the use of DU in July 1990, some six months before the outbreak of the first Gulf war. Those concerns were later echoed by Iraqi officials. Denial But brushing his own army's report aside - now said to be "outdated" - US President George Bush has dismissed such warnings as "propaganda". "In recent years, the Iraqi regime made false claim that the depleted uranium rounds fired by coalition forces have caused cancers and birth defects in Iraq," says Bush on his White House website. "But scientists working for the World Health Organisation, the UN Environmental Programme and the European Union could find no health effects linked to exposure to depleted uranium," he said. Bush can point to a World Health Organisation (WHO) report in 2001 that said there was no significant risk of inhaling radioactive particles where DU weapons had been used. It said the level of radiation associated with DU debris was not particularly hazardous, but it accepted that high exposure could pose a health risk. Scientific studies WHO also commissioned a scientific study shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that warned of the dangers of US and British use of DU - but refused to publish its findings. The study's main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, told Aljazeera.net that "the report was deliberately suppressed" because WHO was pressed by a more powerful, pro-nuclear UN body - the International Atomic Energy Agency. WHO has rejected his claims as "totally unfounded". "[WHO's] report was deliberately suppressed" Dr Keith Baverstock, co-author of WHO report on DU The study found DU particles were likely to be blown around and inhaled by Iraqi civilians for years to come. Once inside a human body, the radioactive particles can trigger the growth of malignant tumours. Bush's claim that the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) gives DU pollution a clean bill of health is also disingenuous. UNEP experts have yet to be allowed into Iraq, its spokesman in Geneva Michael Williams told Aljazeera.net, citing security concerns. And a scientific body set up in 1997 by Green EU parliamentarians - the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) - found that DU posed serious health risks. An eminent Canadian scientist involved with the ECRR, Dr Rosalie Bertell, says the deadliness of DU derived not just from its radioactivity but from the durability of particles formed in the 3000-6000C heat produced when a DU weapon is fired. "The particles produced are like ceramic: not soluble in body fluid, non-biodegradable and highly toxic," she told Aljazeera.net. "They tend to concentrate in the lymph nodes, which is the source of lymphomas and leukaemia". Known killer The US military and political establishment cannot plead ignorance. As early as October 1943, Manhattan Project scientists Arthur Compton, James Connant and Harold Urey sent a memo to their director, General Leslie Groves, saying DU could be used to create a "radioactive gas". DU targets human DNA and may thus affect future generations In 1961, two nuclear experts, Briton HE Huxley and American Geoffrey Zubay, informed the scientific community that DU targeted human DNA and "the Master Code, which controls the expression of DNA", Moret said. In September 2000, Dr Asaf Durakovic, professor of nuclear medicine at Washington's Georgetown University, told a Paris conference of prominent scientists that "tens of thousands" of US and UK troops were dying of DU. Death sentence "There has to be a moratorium on the manufacture, sales, use and storage of DU," geoscientist Moret says, warning that this will not happen unless more Americans realise what is happening. The Middle East has been severely contaminated, warns Moret. "That region is radioactive forever," she says, but worse is yet to come. Moret says the air carrying DU particles takes about a year to mix with the rest of the earth's atmosphere. Radioactive sites continue to kill and contaminate Iraqi children The radiation released by DU nuclear warfare is believed to be more than 10 times the amount dispersed by atmospheric testing. As a result, DU particles have engulfed the world in a radioactive poison gas that promises illness and death for millions. Rokke went to Iraq a fit and healthy soldier, but the major is now beset with a variety of illnesses and each day is a struggle. He suffers from respiratory problems and cataracts while his teeth - weakened by DU radiation - are crumbling. At least 20 of the 100 primary personnel he worked with on the US army's DU project have died. Most of the rest are ill. Meanwhile, WHO says cancer rates worldwide are set to rise by 50% by 2020, although it does not link this publicly to DU. "They would never say that - they offered various strange explanations," said Moret. "But DU is the key factor. People will slowly die."

Posted by: J.J. King at October 12, 2004 02:58 PM (YOTzl)

16 By WALTER A. DAVIS The US CODE, TITLE 50,CHAPTER 40 Sec. 2302 defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction as follows: "The term 'weapon of mass destruction" means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, (B) a disease organism, or (C) radiation or radioactivity." Depleted uranium (DU) is a waste product of the uranium enrichment process that fuels both our nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power programs. In fact, over 99% of the uranium enrichment process results in this waste product, which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. DU is both a toxic heavy metal and a radiological poison. The U.S. currently has over 10 million tons of DU. As we all know, the disposal of nuclear waste is one of the unintended consequences or blowback of the development of nuclear power. A solution to the problem of DU has, however, been found. DU is now used in virtually every weapon employed by the U.S. in Iraq (and in Afghanistan and in Kosovo). To cite the most conspicuous example: every penetrator rod in the shell shot from an Abrams tank contains 10 pounds of DU. DU is selected for weapons for three reasons: it's cheap (was made available to arms manufacturers free of charge and is easy to develop); it's heavy, 1.7 times the density of lead and thus most effective at killing because it penetrates anything it hits; it's pyrophoric, igniting and burning on contact with air and breaking up on contact with its target into extremely small particles of radioactive dust dispersed into the atmosphere. The result: permanent contamination of air, water, and soil. [1] DU was first used by the U.S. in Desert Storm. The amount used was between 315-350 tons. Five times as much was used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Over a third of the U.S. soldiers who served in the first Gulf War are now permanently disabled. VA reports indicate 27,571 U.S. soldiers already disabled from the current war and occupation.. The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense of course continue to deny that DU has any harmful effects. A U.N. sub-commission on Human Rights has ruled that DU, which fits the definition of a "dirty bomb," is an illegal weapon. [2] Huge chunks of radioactive debris full of DU now litter the cities and countryside of Iraq. Fine radioactive dust permeates the entire country. The problem of clean-up is insoluble. The entire ecosystem of Iraq is permanently contaminated. The Iraq people are the new hibakusha. Their fate, like that of the "survivors" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is a condition of death-in-life. The long term health effects of DU on the Iraqui people (and on our own troops) are incalculable. There is no mask or protective clothing that can be devised to prevent radioactive dust from entering the lungs or penetrating the skin. Moreover, DU targets the DNA and the Master Code (histone), altering the genetic future of exposed populations. Because it is the perfect weapon for delivering nanoparticles of poison, radiation, and nano-pollution directly into living cells, DU is the perfect weapon for extinguishing entire populations. The Iraqi's are not alone. Vast regions of the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Balkans have been permanently contaminated with radioactive dust and debris [3] These facts are worth bearing in mind the next time we are told what has now become a bipartisan article of faith: the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam Hussein gone. Or as Bill Maher put it on his show of Sept. 24th "Eventually they're better off." ******** ALSO Signing up to be a soldier has different motivations for different people as does not signing up. Courage from the latin for heart(fulness) is expressed in different ways. It is not courageous in my book to denigrate those who are lacking in heart.

Posted by: j Grub at October 12, 2004 05:42 PM (feRUm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Chaplain Yee is going back to work. If I understand correctly, the charges against him couldn't be proven because of the "national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence" and not because they didn't have the proof. So this bastard is heading back to work instead of to 14 years in jail. Please excuse me while I smash something.

A quote from the AP article: "Some Asian-American activists supporters of Yee, a 35-year-old Chinese-American, have accused the government of racial and religious profiling." Religious profiling I'll give you. I think the military needs to do even more religious profiling because we seem to have had a string of shady Muslims getting into trouble in the past year. Profile away, I say. But racial profiling? Not in this case, bud. I hardly think anyone said, "Keep an eye on that Chinese fellow; they're known for passing secrets to the brown guys." Doubt it. But in our world, if you're non-white, you've got an excuse for everything.

Feeling bitter today, Sarah? Just a tad.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

I know a German girl here whose parents are Syrian; she's friends with some of the wives I know. One of them last night said that this girl was offered $500,000 to go work as a contracter in Iraq "because she speaks...whatever language it is that they speak there."

Big neon reminder:
Very few people have a freaking clue what goes on in the world.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

The husband asked me last year if I had thought 1984 or Brave New World was scarier. He was appalled when I said Brave New World. But I read them in high school, and I didn't grok anything when I was 18, so I'm reading both again to see if I feel differently about them.

I started 1984 last night and had a little chuckle in chapter one: I imagined Lefties reacting to the new Bush campaign ads much like the Two Minutes Hate. Ha.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:21 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Holy crap, I'm a jerk. I just got an email from a reader who said that my comments section thought he was spam and started swearing at him! And he's an Italian anti-idiotarian; I certainly have no intention of chasing him away! Come back, please!

So he gets his own plug here on my blog for being a good sport, reporting the error message, and saying "It is truly inspiring to read about how you cope with your husband's absence. I can only tell you that my heartfelt best wishes are with both of you. At least some of us old Europeans appreciate what you and he are doing!"

Go visit serenade...the coolest European ever.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:39 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Why are you a jerk? Sounds like MT has some rude anti-spam deterrent built in. I know how serenade feels. One blog's software went berserk on me and told me to **** off. Worse yet, it signed that nastiness with the blogger's name without his knowledge. The program had seemingly taken on a life of its own and even started to complicate things for the blogger himself, who switched to MT in the end.

Posted by: Amritas at March 20, 2004 09:42 AM (pZDGV)

2 Hmm. I have the latest version of MT and as far as I know it's not cussing at people in the comments. If it does have such capability, I wonder if it's at all customizable? I'd rather write my own antispammy curses.

Posted by: topdawg at March 20, 2004 10:12 AM (JMaAr)

3 Um, no, that's my fault. I'm not sure exactly how Serenade got into the Blacklist, but the logs say it was me. Apologies to Serenade and to Sarah.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 20, 2004 12:10 PM (+S1Ft)

4 I visited his blog, and he is indeed cool.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 20, 2004 12:20 PM (+S1Ft)

5 This is a really big moment for me now - I can enter my URL in the comments form... :-) Ah, Pixy - I think I know what happened, and needless to say it was my fault. I e-mailed you about it - let me know if I was right. And Sarah - "coolest European ever"? I must be at least number 2! :-D But seriously, thanks for the plug, and don't worry - I never considered not coming back!

Posted by: Dominic at March 21, 2004 06:35 AM (vbCpl)

6 Well, I know...there's Nelson Ascher and the Frogman and David...but you're right up there on the cool list!

Posted by: Sarah at March 21, 2004 07:48 AM (c6EYL)

7 Dominic - that might have been it. I'm not entirely sure. In any case, I'll try to be a little less trigger-happy from now on. Though at least I didn't blacklist the word "none".

Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 22, 2004 01:43 AM (+S1Ft)

8 Pocket Bike with 47CC/49CC 2Stroke Pocket Bike   MP01 ? Packing:1pc/carton  Size of carton:100x33x60cm  N.W.:19KGS,G.W.:21KGS  140pcs/1x20',310pcs/1x40',340pcs/1X40'HQ  Material:plastic  Mini Pocket race motorcycle with gasoline/fuel engine  Single cylinder with air cooling  49cc 2 stroke (mixing 1:25)  Top speed >55KM/hours  Manual pull start  Fuel tank of 1 liter. Reach distance 60KM  Rear air race tyre 10"  Front air race tyre 10"  Front disc brake and rear disc brake  Engine with chain drive  Deluxe muffler pipe  Max weight capacity (persons weight) 90KG  Dimensions 990L x 350W x 560H mm.  Color: Blue ,YELLOW,SILVER,BLACK  http://www.minipocketdirtbike.com

Posted by: pocket bike at July 04, 2005 12:54 AM (Zlipb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hahahahahahaha!
Morons.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:20 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 4 words, total size 1 kb.

DGCI explores why we blog.

I think I'd add another reason as to why I personally blog. It's because I have the same weakness as our President. Remember when Peggy Noonan wrote that article about why Bush is bad at interviews? She praised him for his scripted speeches but admits that he's bad at "talking points." I'm the same way. I blog because I'm horrible at extemporaneous debate. Someone like the conflicted Reservist or my co-worker catches me off guard and I stutter and grasp for an argument. It's one of the reasons I don't enjoy talking about politics in public: I never say things the way I want to and I always come away knowing I didn't represent my side very well. I spend hours every day reading the news, but when someone confronts me, I am absolutely horrible at defending my cause.

But blogging is sort of a "rough draft" for these moments. If I blog about something and get my thoughts in order, then when someone catches me off guard, perhaps I will remember my post on the subject and hopefully make a good showing. Cavalier X told me the other day that he's converted his officemates to the Right simply by discussing politics with them. I envy him, for this is simply not one of my talents. I hope that in time the blogging will help me improve on this weakness.

By the way, the conflicted Reservist will be joining me in my German class this term. Oh whoopie.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

Ed's birthday was Thursday, and his children wrote him a blog post that made me smile. My favorite bit:

Dad, I am trying to be the Man of the House while you are gone and it is hard. Mom will not listen to me. I am trying to grow up and do your job and do not want it any more. Come home and take your job back, please. I love you. Happy Birthday.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

I am a horrible person.
I found that out today, and it's been eating at me all evening.

There's something about the uniform that makes all soldiers look upstanding and dignified. The uniform is the great equalizer, and all soldiers who come in my office are treated the same. But on a training holiday, like today was, we often help soldiers in civilian clothes.

A soldier came in the office today dressed straight out of 8 Mile who wanted to sign up for my English class. My gut reaction as he said this was that he was never going to pass the grammar placement test to make it into the class. I handed him the test, and he brought it back to me with a nice side order of humble pie.

He got the highest score I've ever seen. And he wanted to look back over the ones he'd missed and try to figure out why he missed them. He shocked the hell out of me. We had a great discussion about grammar as we corrected his mistakes, and I told him I'd be incredibly happy to have him in my class. He shook my hand as he left, and I felt like a complete jerk on the inside.

I consider myself an open person. I actually loved 8 Mile. I even went through a stage when I was 18 where I dressed a bit "alternative", so I should be the last person to judge someone based on how he's dressed. But I did it without thinking today, and I'm ashamed of myself, especially since I was so obviously wrong about this soldier. I really don't feel good about my gut reaction today, but how do you change your instinct?

Posted by: Sarah at 05:02 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

I said yesterday that I believe in the a priori goodness of people. I have to amend that statement. I regret to admit that I don't necessarily believe in the a priori goodness of many Muslims in this world. I wish I didn't have to say that, but it's true. However, it appears that some Muslims in London assume all Muslims are peaceful and good.

Zeiad, 56, an Egyptian who has lived in Britain for 25 years, told AFP: "It's not al-Qaeda. Why would they do that? The Koran condemns such activities."

"How could a Muslim, praying five times a day, do such a thing?" asked Rovshan Kharim, a 25-year-old Azerbaijani, who arrived in Britain just two weeks ago.

I hate the fact that these claims make me want to laugh, but they do. I have a really hard time believing in the inherent goodness of people who are devoted to Islam. I wish it weren't so, but it's true. It makes me sad to know that I've built up that prejudice in my mind, but it has grown out of two years of reading LGF and learning about the horrific deeds carried out in the name of Islam.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:43 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

See, this I can respect. Poland says that they're disappointed they were misled by the WMD intelligence, but they still maintain that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. They also don't blame the USA for the bad intelligence; they only lament the fact that it happened. I think some informed criticism is legitimate and I applaud Poland for remaining a strong ally.

"We will be in Iraq as long as needed to achieve the intended goals, plus one day longer," Kwasniewski told Bush, according to Siwiec.

I knew there was a reason I'm dying to visit Poland.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, this is rich. Germany wants our help getting a seat on the UN Security Council.

As Schröder himself said, "Es gibt Fälle, in denen die bewusste Nicht-Beteiligung auch Ausdruck verantwortlicher Politikgestaltung ist."

Posted by: Sarah at 04:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

Tonight was Bingo night for the wives from our Battalion. I haven't played Bingo since high school French class, so I wasn't sure if I was going to go. I decided to at the last minute, and it was a good decision: I won the last game (blackout) and got a $50 gift certificate to the PX. Sweet.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

Today is the one year anniversary of the shock and awe campaign. At the time, I was visiting my grandparents in New York while my husband stayed behind at Fort Knox. During that showdown 48 hours, my husband and I would talk on the phone and wonder what would happen. At 48 hours on the nose, he called, and we said, "Huh, I guess nothing is happening." We hung up, and that's when it started.

One year later, things have turned out better than I imagined that night last year. Enlistment into the Army has remained steady. They've darn near caught the whole deck of cards, including the father and sons who represented decades of Iraqi misery. We've rotated the entire Army in and out of Iraq; in the future it will be a shock to see someone who doesn't have a combat patch on his right shoulder. And it seems that slowly but surely the war on terror is working. Our take-it-to-the-enemy strategy has prevented another attack on American soil and scared the pants off of Libya. We've shown we're in this for the long haul, and we're not going to be distracted by weasels or donkeys.

A while back Glenn Reynolds said, "I realized after the second anniversary of September 11 that this is a marathon, not a sprint, and pacing is required."

Wise words.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 1 kb.

OK, I'm not normally a fisker, but the bias in this Reuters article really ticked me off.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush sought on Thursday to paint Democratic White House candidate John Kerry as indecisive, in a new television advertisement that features a clip of the Massachusetts senator talking about Iraq just two days earlier.

"Sought...to paint" him this way. Wasn't successful though. But poor Dubya tried really hard.

In a new example of the early rhetorical brawling that has marked this year's campaign, the Bush camp pounced on Kerry's explanation of a vote against Bush's request last year for $87 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The commercial is slated to run on cable stations across the country. It includes a clip of Kerry telling an audience on Tuesday, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

The ad closes with the words: "John Kerry: Wrong on Defense."

Cowboy Bush has "pounced" on poor little Kerry. All this shameful "brawling" over something so minor as voting for something and then opposing it. Why should this matter to the public? It's not like anyone pays attention to voting records anyway, right?

The broader context of Kerry's remark -- made in response to an earlier Bush ad -- was his explanation that he supported a version of the $87 billion funding proposal for Iraq that would have paid for it by repealing of Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy. But when that amendment failed, Kerry voted against the bill.

The Republican president has been hammering Kerry for opposing that money, despite his 2002 vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, in an effort to portray him as dangerously weak and inconsistent on security issues.

Reuters jumps to Kerry's defense to explain the context of his ridiculous quote, and then says Bush is "hammering" him, trying to make him look weak. Not succeeding, though. Poor Dubya.

Both candidates are trying to tout their credentials on national security and defense, amid the continuing U.S. war on global terrorism and instability in post-war Iraq.

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, campaigned this week among fellow veterans and Bush on Thursday visited troops at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

Ooo, look! A chance to throw in that he's "a decorated Vietnam veteran"!

"John Kerry opposed a red-inked, blank check on Bush's failed Iraq policy," Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said in a statement responding to the ad, which he called "misleading."

Kerry has said that one of his concerns about the funding bill was that the Bush administration had not done enough to enlist international help with the Iraq operation.

The Kerry quotation is the same one ridiculed by Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) Wednesday in aggressively attacking the four-term Massachusetts senator's voting record.

Mean old Cheney is picking on Kerry. Those measly voting records. Who cares about those anyway? It's not like it's on the importance level of, say, National Guard sign-in sheets.

With the exception of the new quote, the rest of the nationwide advertisement is the similar (sic) to one released in West Virginia this week in which a narrator listed such things as body armor and health care for soldiers and suggested Kerry had voted against those when he opposed the $87 billion.

"The same misleading ads that the Bush/Cheney campaign dumped on the people of West Virginia, they are now dumping on the Nation," Meehan said. "The three weeks in a row of Bush misleading TV ads, and millions in cash, can't hide George Bush's record of broken promises and misleading America."

Couldn't find anyone from the White House to interview? Bush has nothing to say in defense of his commercials?

Can you not feel this dripping with bias? It's really disgusting. I know this isn't even the worst of these articles; I've seen much worse in the handling of Israel. But for whatever reason, this one ticked me off today.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:28 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 662 words, total size 4 kb.

Victor Davis Hanson is awesome. I'll read anything he writes, but I have been especially impressed with this interview with him. I'm even printing it and mailing it to the husband.

Good bit:

A final example: the President has raised domestic spending by 8% per annum, lavished funds on health care and education, offered near amnesty to illegal immigrants from Mexico, appointed a plethora of minority judges, cabinet officials, and administrators, and committed more AIDs relief funds than all prior administrations put together-and is still hated by our Left, simply because his demeanor, accent, religion, and even appearance don't validate the aristocratic Left's rhetoric about sex, class, gender, and the other. It really is a make-believe world in which a Barbra Streisand, Gore Vidal, or Arianna Huffington cheaply sound off from their estates about some purported cosmic evil fostered by poor deluded Americans hooked on K-Mart and NASCAR.

That's what I was trying to say yesterday. Naturally Hanson says it better.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Amritas I found a run-down of life in the Netherlands. It sounds almost identical to Germany, except for a few minor details.

-- Here, Americans are the only ones who ask for tap water in restaurants. The Germans I know think this is disgusting, and a waiter in an area that doesn't have many Americans will stare at you incredulously when you ask for it. "Why don't you get bottled water?" they ask. Uh, because it costs nearly four bucks -- more than the beer -- and the tap water tastes fine to me.

-- In Germany, you are responsible for celebrating your own birthday. You provide the cake and the party and you pick up the bill. My co-worker says she often has to take 10 people out to dinner on her birthday. I made her a cake this year, and she said it was the first time she could remember where she didn't have to make her own cake. I don't like that tradition at all. I laughed when I tried to imagine what would happen in an American company back home if an employee brought in a huge cake for his own birthday! Ha.

-- Recycling is equally serious here. I am required to recycle since I live on post, but I completely agree with the policy. Not because I'm some tree hugger, but because the American government has to pay the German government for every pound of refuse they dump in Germany. This amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, which is another good reason why our military should get the heck out of dodge. I try to be meticulous about recycling so I'm not wasting taxpayer dollars, but sometimes I get annoyed: separating glass by color is just busywork.

-- You can also pay your bills at the German bank here, but they charge you a three-Euro fee. Added up monthly over three years, that comes to an extra hundred bucks you're forking over for nothing, but most people just go ahead and do it. I set up a special account here just for our German phone bill so we don't have to pay the three Euros. I'll keep that for myself, thank you.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:26 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.