Wednesday, August 31, 2005

The Power of Pride

This bumper sticker came out not too long after 9/11... I think Lowe's was handing them out. I snippet of American flag and the words "The Power of Pride" on it. I see it everywhere. I even got one with a purchase once, but after I looked at it, I thought "I can't put this on my car."

Now y'all know me. I'm a patriotic guy. I make no secret about the fact that I voted for Bush (more AGAINST Kerry than FOR Bush -- but given the choice between the two it was a no-brainer)... I put the flag out on Flag holidays. I have a "Support Our Troops" magnet-o-ribbon on my car, and a step-son on his way to Iraq. I believe there are merits to this war.

But what the hell does "The Power of Pride" mean? I mean, Hitler was proud, too. It's a morally meaningless statement. What about the Power of Pride? Is the Power of Pride a good thing? Just excactly what IS the Power of Pride?

Now I shop at Lowe's all the time. I like Lowe's just fine. But this is, I'm afraid, just a sadly misguided marketing ploy. I can see the big meeting where they came up with this....

"Folks, we need to have something to hand out to people after 9/11 to make them feel good about shopping at Lowe's... something that looks and sounds patriotic, but something that doesn't actually say anything so we don't offend any section of the political spectrum... now put on your thinking caps!"

The Power of Pride!


Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Two Great Quotes, one article

"Consider the international community and it mouthpiece, world opinion; they do not exist. They are concepts without manifestations, phrases used in lieu of logic, evidence, and law by people who in real life have no idea how their next-door neighbors voted in the last election, yet will confidently summarize the opinions and desires of the other three billion on the planet. "

"Muddy the water enough, and collectivists will try to walk on it."

- Terry Graves

Good points, both.

What they typically mean is "most of the people in the world we consider important" (this leaves out anybody with a conservative opinion, as the word "conservative" in those circles is used as a label signifying presumed irrelavence.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Will the Circle Be Unbroken?

from a story on the New Iraq on the BBC:

George Bush, meanwhile, is faced with some unpalatable choices.

He is determined to stick to a tight political timetable which would enable him to start withdrawing US troops from Iraq next year.

But will his rush to come up with an "exit strategy" force him to abandon the aspiration to create a modern secular democracy out of the ashes of the Saddam dictatorship?

(emphasis mine)


I mean, need I REALLY say more? Don't RUSH to WAR!!!! You didn't prepare enough for the invasion!!!! You don't have an exit strategy!!!! Pull the troops out!!!! You're rushing an exit strategy!!!!

And the Man from Gallilee pedals off into the sunset.

Friday, August 19, 2005

Terrorism & Casualties of War

I've said this in other words before, but I love it when the crux of a problem is distilled down to something succinct and accurate. It is especially useful when people have the attention span of the MTV generation.

Intent is a word I used, but not as well as this guy did.

from a post on Daniel-in-Brookline's blog

Terrorism, [] is a specific decision not to abide by any rules of combat -- and, in fact, to use any and all aspects of civilization against the victims, while simultaneously claiming the protections of civiliation for itself. []

That's why terrorists use tactics that no self-respecting professional military organization would use. That's why terrorists fight under the cover of ambulances, places of worship, and the white flag of surrender... yet scream bloody murder if any of those sanctuaries are harmed in the slightest, even by accident. That's why terrorists deliberately target civilians, while soldiers understand that their purpose is to fight other soldiers in order to protect the civilians of both sides.

He also points to Bill Whittle's essay on Sanctuary, which I read when he posted it. It is an excellent essay.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Sheenhan's bile

Let's see, do we want a serious discussion about the merits and demerits of the Iraq war, or are we using our "grief" as a shield from behind which the whole Leftist enterege can hurl filthy language and scream out names in shrill voices?

  • "that filth-spewer and warmonger."
  • "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started"
  • [that] "killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years."
  • "This country is not worth dying for."
  • "The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"
  • "They’re [the Bush Administration] a bunch of fucking hypocrites!"
  • "...this lying bastard, George Bush..."
  • "...your dishonest campaign stole another election…"
Karl Rove, stole the election, mandate from God, illegal, imoral, America Sucks, we're the terrorists, and it's all about the Joooooos.

Our peace activist goes on to say..

"...if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead."


Freedom Ain't Free

No, I'm not talking specifically about ours. I'm talking about freedom in general, and I'm talking about Iraqi freedom today.

After yesterday's triple car bomb attack in Bahgdad, you have an Al Sadr spokesman saying:

"We put responsibility on the occupation forces." Then he went on to say that U.S.-led forces of failed to turn over full intelligence responsibility to Iraqi forces and for allowed detained insurgents to go free.

Wait a minute -- weren't we just being criticized a minute ago for not preparing the Iraqi troops enough and for illegally detaining combatants? Come on, which is it?

Call me crazy, but I put the responsibility on the people who packed the cars with explosives and drove them to the site and detonated them. But maybe that's just me.

Comments from Iraqi citizens:

"This is the most cowardly attack anywhere ... Do they call this holy war, killing civilians in a bus terminal? They are simply criminals."

"When will Iraqi blood stop being spilled?"

"These men that kill 100, 50 and 70 men a day -- have they been put to death?" a caller who identified himself as Abu Abbas asked. "How many have been put to death? How many? The National Assembly is supposed to represent the Iraqi people. All I hear is we will do this and we will do that."

"But how can we stop these attacks? ... We have a saying in Arabic: 'It's hard to catch the thief if he is a member of the family.' That's our predicament."

And there you have your answer. Iraqi blood will stop being spilled when everyday Iraqis get pissed off enough at the people doing it to take matters in to their own hands and out them, give them no sanctuary -- even kill them.

They should be joining the army & police force in droves. Stop blaming America and calling her an occupier -- take matters into your own hands, and the problem will be solved.

Oh, and the "occupiers" will leave, too.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Namecalling and sloganeering

Namecalling and sloganeering are evidence of a bankrupt philosophy.

Not that slogans are bad, or namecalling is never called for -- but... oddly, the shrillness and sheer preponderence of the namecalling and sloganeering from the Left makes one kind of wonder....

Saw a bumpersticker on the way home.

"I'm tired of this BUSHIT"

It occurs to me that the worst anti-Kerry bumpersticker I ever saw during the campaign was "Kerry/Fonda 2004". Which really isn't namecalling or sloganeering. And I'm not sure Kerry, now that he's not running anymore, would object to it.

Just look at the bile coming through Cindy Sheenhan's mouth (brought to you by et. al)

Rude, shrill brattiness.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

The Precautionary Principle

At the end of any argument I have with anyone on antrhopogenic global warming, the environmentalist invariably brings up the Precautionary Principle:

"But shouldn't we err on the side of caution?"

On the other hand....

Basing enormously consequential energy and health policies on demonstrably seriously flawed "science" is both irresponsible and harmful.

Interesting interviews with a Basra woman

Interesting interviews with a Basra woman:

"Queen Amidela" Reporting from Basra
Interview With Fair Lady

"Intensifying" violence

I'll tell you, the violence in Iraq has apparently been intensifying since Saddam Hussein was toppled. I mean, I keep hearing about it on the news.

30 killed one day. 7 killed another. 14 another day.

Why, only weeks ago it was more like 0.5 people here, 0.25 there.

Not to take away from the folks that are dying, but come on, people. In WWII we'd lose 6,000 in one battle sometimes. Now THAT's intense violence.

When I hear it repeated that "insurgents", al-Queda, and the Taliban are showing themselves to be "capable" -- capable of what, excatly? Hit and run attacks or suicide bombings that kill or injure a few people at a time? This is not a potent military force. And judging by its preferred tactic of killing citizens and blaming it on the citizens or the US/Brits (and having the Western Left buy it) makes them far from even a respectable, if less capable force.

You'd think they were quite the military force if you listen to the news. What they are is a PR force. The intent is not to militarily defeat the liberating forces -- it is to turn public opinion -- especially here at home -- against them. A little at a time.

With salivating news reporters waving their microphones at every bombing -- and there are few enough of them that they can be reported on individually -- the "insurgents" have the mouthpiece they need right where they want them to be. The language of the news reports is one of a country's general population rising up against an occupying force, romanticizing and legitimizing the killing of civillians (as that is one of their main tactics). By giving a soap box to a "grieving" mother with an obvious political vendetta ... it is clear which side the press is on.

So next time you hear about "intensifying" violence, ask yourself just what constitutes "intense", and why that word keeps being chosen.

If the violence has been intensifying for so long, we should have huge, full blown battles by now.

Monday, August 15, 2005

Pullin' Out

So the Israelis are pulling out of Gaza in the continuing saga of the cluster-fizzle at the end of WWII.

Here's what I think --

In hindsight, Israel probably shouldn't have been created.

However... it was.

And that's what we have to start with today. Things that have happened since then impact what should be done now.

The powers that won WWII, like powers who had won wars in the past divvied up the land as they saw fit (much like when the Muslims conquored northern Africa and Western Europe -- they did as they saw fit). Such is the history of war.

In hindsight, what I think should have happened was there should have been a big state called "Palestine" that had no religious affiliation. Then Jews and Palestinian Arabs could have just lived side by side in one big state and probably have pretty much gotten along.

But again, that's not what happened.

Israel was never given a chance to administer the area the way the British had envisioned, as outlined in the Balfour Declaration, " . . it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...”

Because the day after the Brits gave up their control over their slice of the Ottoman Empire, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq and Jordan attacked the new state. The subsequent repelling by Israel precipitated a large population of refugees -- Palestinians who rose up against their new government before it began with the help of these other Arab states. It was a truly tragic situation. But we can't say that the Palestinians, their leadership, and their actions (tactics) haven't played a very large role in their own collective fate.

Over the years, the Palestinians adopted the tactics we now call "terrorism" to fight Israel. Basically, the idea is to try to make it not worth it for the Jews to stay in Israel, in the hope that the 1947 decision to create the state would somehow be reversed.

Israel as a state had little choice, if it wanted to survive, than to crack down on citizens and others from outside -- especially since those directly involved in the violence took refuge among the citizens. With each attack against terrorist elements, they'd claim to be just ordinary citizens -- oppressed because of their nationality -- and this became the flip side of the terrorist tactics. Go kill people, then go hide among the citizenry and cry "oppression" when reprocussions came.

These tactics won little sympathy with the West -- with the exception of anti-west Leftitsts.

The Palestinians would have won much more sympathy had they just given the new government a chance and, if there was oppression -- engaged in more of a Ghandi-istic approach.

This has gone on for longer than I've been alive -- longer than most Palestinians and Israelis and Arabs have been alive.

That is today's tragedy.

It is true that once one gives into terrorist pressure, one encourages more terrorist behavior in the same way that if you give a screaming child what he wants, you can expect more screaming.

Israel has decided to pull out of the Gaza Strip, a territory it had conquored after being attacked. This is a noble move. Perhaps a bit dubious or misguided -- hopefully not. The bottom line is -- once the Nation of Israel promised to pull out, it must follow through.

If Palestinians and other Arabs continue to attack Israeli citizens and demand more, I have no sympathy for them. If they take this gesture and come to the negotiating table with a sincere intent to compromise, maybe things will work out.

History and current rhetoric are not promising much.

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Friday, August 12, 2005

That pesky fact-checking

NARAL to pull Roberts TV Ad

Welcome to the world of well-connected, free publishing on the net, folks.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Responsible Muslims


Perhaps my faith in my Muslim aquaintances has been boosted. Clear denouncements of terrorism without the typical "but"'s and other qualifiers which I've seen pretty much without exception until now. Thanks to the Rottweiler for this link:

Which seems to be having some problems this morning.

Probably some non-free Muslims doing a DOS attack on the site or something.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Hug This!

Remembering that I love trees and am for as clean and non-polluted environment as is reasonable -- as are most people on the planet .... (as the Washington Times reprints from the London Daily Telegraph:

LONDON -- Millions of dollars in overseas aid are wasted every year planting trees in dry countries in the hope that they will attract rainfall and act as storage for water, a British government-funded study has found.
In fact, forests usually increase evaporation and reduce the amount of water available for human consumption or growing crops, said the four-year study. Research on water catchments on three continents found it is "a myth" that trees always increase the availability of water.

But -- that's anti-environment! It must be wrong!!!! But, Trees! But, Green! But, Mother Gaia!

Facists. Corporate. Halliburton. And stuff.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Judical Activism: This is excactly what we're talking about

Judicial Activism can cut both ways. When the Left talks about curbing judicial activism, they mean they don't want anybody making any judicial decisions, be they correct or not (against the backdrop of the law and constitution) that go against their agenda.

If a judge should decide that a judicial decision was incorrect according to law or constitution and it goes AGAINST a Leftist pillar, that's activism to the Left.

When conservatives talk about judicial activism, they mean the judge skews his or her interpretation of the law and constitution to fit the desired political outcome.

Judge Roberts has shown that he does not do this. In fact, he actively believes in not doing this. This is a threat to people who want to use politically active judges to forward their agendas by bypassing the legeslative process.

Apparently NARAL has an ad out now accusing Roberts of "aiding" an abortion clinic bomber. Apparently this is based on an opinion he wrote on whether or not a certain law applied in the case. He read the law and said that Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 could not technically be applied to abortion protesters.

I don't know about you, but I don't find that idea particularly suprising.

It turned out that the Supreme Court agreed that it would not apply. So it wasn't just him.

That judicial decision was based on reading the law and seeing if it applied in the case. If it did not, regardless of whose argument it helped or hurt, it should not be applied in the case. Period.

To suggest that Judge Roberts is somehow for violence against abortion clinics or that even if he was (which I doubt) that he would decide cases in favor of the Pro-Life fringes is -- slander. But as we saw in the last election, the Left knows no boundaries when it comes to taking a shred of "evidence" and spinning a huge lie around it (Michael Moore is most famous for this -- CBS News made a pretty good run at it, and then there's the Newsweek Koran-flushing story).

Pro-Choice Judicial Activism would be to ignore the technicalies of law and decide that it did apply because the judge wanted it to apply in order to achieve the desired political outcome.

Suppose that a law was cited that did apply in this case.

Pro-Life Judicial Activism would be to ignore the technicalites of the law and decide that it did not apply because the judge wanted it not to apply in order to achieve the desired political outcome.

Judge Roberts opinion had nothing to do with being Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. If you don't like the law, either find another one that does or lobby your congressman/woman to propose and/or vote for a new law that does apply.

See the point?

If you don't, go take a course on the US Constitution.

Saturday, August 06, 2005

The fastest way to drive US troops out of Iraq

Ok, I'm going to help the enemy out here. Here's the fastest way to drive the Americans and Brits from Iraq:

Stop blowing up Iraqis. While you're at it, it would help if you'd stop blowing up Americans and Brits.

But stop blowing up Iraqis, and America will have no reason to stay. And they will leave.

I know that no matter what, when America does leave you, the "resistance", will want to say it was you that drove them out. Fine. We don't care. You're going to claim responsibility either way. But if you want us out fast... all you have to do is cut it out.

Friday, August 05, 2005


I am not proud of the fact that America was the first and only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians.

I don't know any Americans that are.

I've never known any Americans that were. I was never taught by any Americans that I should be.

My culture never told me to be. My religion never told me to be.

I'm not ashamed of it, either.

It is troublesome that I declare that purposely killing civilians as a war tactic is wrong, always wrong. And yet here I sit in a country that did that twice on a significant scale.

I should point out that dispite ample ability, this country has not done it since then, either.

I am not Harry S. Truman, and I don't wish that I was. I'm not sure I'd have made a different decision knowing what he knew then. The man had a lot to weigh.

What I am about to say is not meant to take away from the pain innocent people suffered. It will not bring anyone back. But it is meant to put the bombs in their historical context.

It is well known that when a war reaches a populated area, civilian casualties soar.

The battle of Okinawa ended less than two months before the bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... the nuclear ones, anyway. Plenty of other bombs were falling in cities from planes on both sides, killing thousands of civillians per week throughout the last several months of the war.

On Okinawa, the civilan casualties were on the order of 130,000. This is a small, southern Japanese island.

That's about the same number as directly killed by the bombs. Over time, the toll from radiation sickness was somewhere around 200,000, maybe 230,000. That's an awfully big number. Pre-bomb, nobody believed, including the US that it would be that high. But even with the real numbers in front of us, look again at the number of dead civillians in the battle for the small island of Okinawa and extrapolate that to the main islands. This makes it no less horrifying to the families of those people - on the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands more, perhaps even millions -- who would likely have been killed and who lived on because of it.

There are those who point to research that produced evidence that Japan was "ready to surrender" in January of 1945 -- but that is only a piece of the available evidence and it is taken out of context. Many social leaders were indeed ready to give it up, but they were not in control. The Japanese military was in control, and they were not about to give up. If Japan was ready to surrender in January, why did they fight so fiercely at Okinawa much later in April-June? Why did they not then surrender after the first bomb was dropped? Why did it take 6 days after the second bomb for them to surrender if they were ready so much earlier?

This war had gone on for six years. Millions died. Hundreds of thousands more, at least, would die. The Japanese were particularly barbaric in their killing, and they slaughtered the civilians by the thousands -- somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 in Nanjing alone (more than were killed by both atomic bombs). And they even used plague-infested fleas in field tests agains the Chinese.

Causing death to prevent still more death may just possibly be the only justification for use of weapons against civilians, and even then it is a horrible, horrible decision for anyone to have to make.

It's much easier for us to look back at the horrific spectacle of 40-60,000 people dying in an instant -- twice, and think of the slow deaths that occurred due to aftereffects and wring our hands and shake fingers -- but we were not there to make the decision, and even if we were we would not have had this hindsight at the time.

Again, this brings nobody back, but the Japanese population was also warned by 60 million leaflets dropped over cities and radio broadcasts from American stations on captured nearby islands. (Hey, according to the Koran, that would absolve us of any guilt! Oh, wait, that would only apply if we were Islamic, probably) Here is the text from some of the leaflets.

“Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

I think it is safe to say that America lived up to those promises. And America, too, was so shocked by the awesome power of the weapons that she has never used them again.

On top of that, we have created bombs with eyes to help lessen the horrible impact of warfare on citizens.

Contrast this with Islamic extremist threats to have our blood run in the streets, and how just it is for them to kill us wherever we are, and how such death will surely send the killer to heaven.

The new President of Iran fought for one Ayatolla Khomeni. He wants to bring Iran back in to line with Khomeni's vision. Here is what Khomeni had to say about his vision of Islam:

"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islam Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this man that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this man sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet} urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."

I am not saying all, or even most Moslems in the world believe what Khomeni said, (but they are damned sure slow and reluctant and vague in condemning those who share it). But the point here is, again, the Moral Equivalence argument about nuclear proliferation, and the difference in the visions the United States has for its conquored, and the vision the Iranian president aligns himself with, and decide who you'd rather have the upper hand in the end.

Osama Bin Laden is Dead

That's my opinion. After seeing yet another videotape of al-Zawahri issuing public threats, it's pretty clear that Bin Laden is dead.

If he weren't, he wouldn't be able to resist the spotlight. He would have nothing to gain by not doing these tapes himself, and lots to gain by doing them himself. Why isn't he doing them himself?

Because he is dead.

That's the only logically sustainable explanation.

Well, at least there's slamming going on

Thursday, August 04, 2005

The Gall of George Gallway

BBC News reports that Incessant Terror Apologist George Gallway ("Respect" party, UK) is praising Iraq "martyrs".

Some in the British Government are trying to downplay any influence the man has, presumably over Islamist militants. But they miss the point.

He says:

"It can be said, truly said, that the Iraqi resistance is not just defending Iraq. They are defending all the Arabs and they are defending all the people of the world against American hegemony."

Well, sure, it can be said, because that's excactly what the Islamists want Iraqis and Arabs to think. That is what the Islamists believe.

He goes on in another speech to say

"These poor Iraqis - ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons - are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day, which has made the country ungovernable.

"We don't know who they are, we don't know their names, we never saw their faces, they don't put up photographs of their martyrs, we don't know the names of their leaders."

Clearly openly and drippingly romanticising the Baathist and Islamist resistance and dismissing the other 20 million or so Iraqis who want nothing to do with Ba'athists or Islamist extremists. This is clearly a recruitment speech. Gallway is a mouthpiece for the Islamists. He is working for them. He is a traitor.

Besides, we do know who they are, and they aren't your everyday Iraqis. Your everyday Iraqis would gladly have them go away.

In an interview with Syrian television he waxes even more

"Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners - Jerusalem and Baghdad. "

"The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. "

"The daughters are crying for help and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters."

Now if this is not a rallying cry for uninvolved nationalist Arabs to take up arms against his countrymen and ours, I don't know what is. Look at the language and posturing. It amounts to treason.

The "Respect" party stresses that it denounces suicide bombings -- but these are, in fact, the tools that the "poor Iraqis" in their "sandals" and ancient Russian guns are using in their "resistance". Ptui! They are not valiantly marching against an imperialist force occupying their country. They're slithering around, sneakily blowing up their own countrymen or fellow Arabs in an attempt to turn public opinion away from the only force that stands between them and the general pouplation. If they win, it's back to the brutal minority rule of the Ba'athists, or it's Taliban II. How dare Gallway put his political romanticism ahead of 20+ million people!

To the dismissal that he holds little sway -- sure, he holds little sway in the British Government, but the BBC splashes his quotes all over the front page, and if you don't think that encourages the Islamists (here, a Westerner we HATE, speaking for us in the west -- what could be better?) you're delusional.

This man should be tried for treason.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

The End Game

Just watched this thing on the National Geographic Channel put together by the BBC called "The End Day", dramatizations of disasters that could presumably end the world.

The most insidious of this, is -- and even I was kind of surprised by this, but I guess I shouldn't be considering the source...

a man made, world-ending disaster created by the evil scientists, driven by, the implication is,



In each of the scenarios, the Governments of the world (especially the US and UK governments) are telling the population that there is nothing to worry about, while the glorious and righteous press faithfully reports to the bitter end.

A volcanic explosion causes a giant tsunami which wipes 2 miles inland on the East Coast, killing millions, but clearly not the end of the world. Mother Nature is too kind, I suppose.

A giant meteor is heading for north Berlin. Mankind tries to break it up with an EvilBush=HitlerHalliburtnonCorporateDrivenGovernmentMilitaryIndustriocomplex nuclear warhead -- but of course there are "fears" that (mankind interfering with Mother Nature, tsk-tsk) might only make it worse. The warhead hits the target and breaks it into the feared "cluster bomb" packet, with at least one huge part of the meteorite intact.

Still, in the aftermath under fair skies, they show craters in the Berlin Metro area (hello? what happened to the gigantic explosion that such an impact would cause, obliterating a large part of Germany and throwing an unimaginable amount of earth into the atmosphere causing "meteor" winter? -- Wait, that's right, that would only happen in a EvilHumanManMade disaster.)

Still, the valiant BBC is on the air and news helecopters fly over the city.

Then it is a virus outbreak spreading through the world rapidly (aided by evil human technology such as airplanes and overpopulation). We're left hanging as to the result of that one but it once again does not look like the end of the world.

No, the world ends up ending because of a particle accellerator experiment done by one (fictional) TBM Corp. Valiant protestors tipped off by environmental groups (who are well known for their deep knowledge of science, of course) are trying to stop the experiment with chants and signs. TBM HalliburtonCorporateAmerica sloughs off the possibility of a "strangelet" being created -- essentially a snowballing black hole, scoffing that the remoteness of the possibility of such an event, which they admit is a possibility but ....

The EviArrogantlCorporateScientists go on arrogantly against the highly knowledgable protestors, and you can guess what happens.

Yup, a strangelet is created and the earth begins to be sucked in to it like a bathtub down its own drain.

The underlying psychology of the program, outside of sensational "what if" journalism is...

  • Mankind is worse than any natural disaster could be

  • Don't trust science/technology

  • The Indusrio-Corporate-Controlled Government is lying to you

In short, the Environmental Left's mantra. It was a big leftist "see I told you so" fantasy.

I'm sure they had fun making it.

Now this is really nuts

If I ever see this idiocy approved here in the states, it just might be time for a (very peaceful, of course) revolution :-)

Police in Bedfordshire, England have been issued an 18 point "guide" for dealing with Muslims who are suspected of terrorist or drug offenses:

• Rapid entry needs to be the last resort and raids into Muslim houses are discouraged for a number of religious dignity reasons.

Good, good. That will give them time to sneak out the back and/or hide and destroy evidence.

• Police should seek to avoid looking at unclad Muslim women and allow them an opportunity to dress and cover their heads.

That's right, look at Christian and Hindu women all you want, but not Muslims. They're special.

• For reasons of dignity officers should seek to avoid entering occupied bedrooms and bathrooms even before dawn.

Yup, Ahmed the Bomber need only run to the bathroom and grunt and make farting noises and he's off limits.

• Use of police dogs will be considered serious desecration of the premises and may necessitate extensive cleaning of the house and disposal of household items.

Oh, good. Wouldn't want the police to find any explosives or drugs. Especially if that's what they're there for.

• Advice should be sought before considering the use of cameras and camcorders due to the risk of capturing individuals, especially women, in inappropriate dress.

Well, at least it leaves the door open (no pun inteded, but hey -- I'll take it). Still, it is unequal treatment of Muslims and non-Muslims, amounting to favoritism to ... Muslims. Muslim terrorists (a practically redundant term if you look at the statistics) have a tendency to hide among the innocent to protect themselves. Now they only need to stay in a house with women.

• Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station.

Sure, go ahead. If you actually get to take any prisoners with all these restrictions.

• If people are praying at home officers should stand aside and not disrupt the prayer. They should be allowed the opportunity to finish.

Is "Allah Akbar" considered a prayer? Isn't this pretty much what any self-respecting suicide bomber says right before he pushes the button?

"Dude, he's prayin'. Leave him alone."

"Ok, we'll just stand here silently while he fin-..." BOOM!!

• Officers should not take shoes into the houses, especially in areas that might be kept pure for prayer purposes.

What if Christians were to demand that Police make The Sign of the Cross before entering their homes?

• In the current climate the justification for pre-dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent.

Ok, I'm there with you on this one.

• Non-Muslims are not allowed to touch holy books, Qurans or religious artefacts without permission. Where possible, Muslim officers in a state of 'Wudhu' (preparation before prayer) should be used for this purpose.

Giving Muslim law breakers a perfect place to stash evidence.

"May I look in this book?"

"No, that is the holy Koran and you are forbidden to desecrate it."

"How about this trunk?"

"No, that is the Trunk of Jihad, and you are forbidden to desecrate it."

"How about if Officer Khalil here does it? He is Muslim and is in a state of Wudhu."

"If he were, he would not be here with you infidels. I forbid it."

This is religious favoritism, pure and simple.

Don't get me wrong, I know several Muslims and they seem like pretty nice folks (although -- that is what members of a terrorist cell are supposed to seem like -- so how would I know?). If the police can bust my door down and see my wife in "inappropriate" dress and chase me into the bathroom... they should be able to do it to anyone else, regardless of their religion.

What are you flapping your gums about again?

Democrats are whipped up about Bush appointing Bolton as our representative to the United Nations.

Some Democrats in the senate have been using their favorite tactic of late -- not allowing a vote on a particular candidate -- to keep the Executive Branch of the government from getting anything done.

Basically, it goes like this. If the senate votes on him, he will be approved. Therefore, we can't let the senate DO IT'S JOB and vote.

Now there are whinings from Democrats such as Ted Kennedy (how does this guy keep getting elected?) about the "abuse of power" from the White House.

Ok, if you're so worried about this alleged abuse of power by the President, why don't you take it to the Supreme Court, whose job it is to look at the law and the constitution and see if anything wrong has been done?

Because you know you'd lose, just as you would have lost if you would have let the senate take a vote on this "seriously flawed candidate" -- There aren't enough senators who think he's "seriously flawed" to win a vote.

No, you'll just keep up your Bush=Hitler, Bush is a dictator, Bush thinks he's God, Illegal & Imoral, abuse, abuse, abuse mantra because it plays well with your base.

Well guess who it doesn't play well with?

That's right, the people who voted against Kerry. Keep it up and they'll vote against your next guy, too.