Tuesday, August 30, 2005


Chistopher Hitchens on Iraq

Many who frequent this site may have already read Christopher Hitchen's latest insights into the Iraq conflict. As many may know, Hitchens is one of the few socialists who can honestly address who the "bad guys" really are in the conflict.

I've pasted a few quotations below from his most recent essay which are particularly poignant:

..." 'You said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . . Blah, blah, pants on fire.'

"I have had many opportunities to tire of this mantra. It takes ten seconds to intone the said mantra. It would take me, on my most eloquent C-SPAN day, at the very least five minutes to say that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; that Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; that Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; or that Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz. And these eye-catching examples would by no means exhaust my repertoire, or empty my quiver. Yes, it must be admitted that Bush and Blair made a hash of a good case, largely because they preferred to scare people rather than enlighten them or reason with them. Still, the only real strategy of deception has come from those who believe, or pretend, that Saddam Hussein was no problem..."

"... The peaceniks love to ask: When and where will it all end? The answer is easy: It will end with the surrender or defeat of one of the contending parties. Should I add that I am certain which party that ought to be?..."

"...It is out of the question--plainly and absolutely out of the question--that we should surrender the keystone state of the Middle East to a rotten, murderous alliance between Baathists and bin Ladenists. When they hear the fatuous insinuation that this alliance has only been created by the resistance to it, voters know in their intestines that those who say so are soft on crime and soft on fascism. The more temperate anti-warriors, such as Mark Danner and Harold Meyerson, like to employ the term "a war of choice." One should have no problem in accepting this concept. As they cannot and do not deny, there was going to be another round with Saddam Hussein no matter what. To whom, then, should the "choice" of time and place have fallen? The clear implication of the antichoice faction--if I may so dub them--is that this decision should have been left up to Saddam Hussein. As so often before..."[...]

"...The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the obvious. Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that such coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word or deed that contributed to a defeat..."

Yes, I realize that the choice of words in the essay's heading could have been better but, as in most of Hitchen's writings, he gets to the point with honesty and clarity. By all means read this extremely accurate appraisal in its entirety.


Great Accomplishments in Protest Land

Right or wrong, what exactly are the protests “against the Iraq war” (against confronting the terrorist insurgents) accomplishing? What can they potentially accomplish?

Let’s say the protestors are right. Let’s say it was wrong to have removed Saddam Hussein and his Baath party from power. Let’s go even further and say that Bush and coalition partners just wanted to get oil, help Halliburton, and impose America’s evil system of constitutional government on the happy Iraqis who lived under the Baath party’s national socialist police state (I thought the left didn’t like Nazis?).

At this point, what will happen if America, Britain, et al. just decide to; “bring our troops home?” Duh…

…Anyone who thinks that things after such a scenario would be just wonderful, or at least “better than they are now,” is either really stupid or actively sympathizes with totalitarian ideology and its results (I’m gonna guess both).

Of course it’s nice to say one is “opposed to war” (whether one is actually sincere in such proclamations or not. I'm guessing that protests might not be as fervent if, for example, China invades and imposes an authoritarian communist government on Taiwan) but, the violence occurring in Iraq at present is because several extremely aggressive authoritarian sects do not want Iraq to have a free society. This part of the equation isn’t some debatable opinion; it’s fact, as things now stand. One can whine that Bush started it all (even though the U.S. congress and British parliament agreed to the same course of action), that Saddam should have been given more time to not comply with U.N. resolutions, or that Bush is evil…whatever. The situation in Iraq -- now -- is one of moderate democratic factions trying to establish a -- relatively -- free and open society while confronting non-democratic factions that want to establish (re-establish) cruel oppressive tyranny.

It’s certainly not pleasant when a police officer is placed in a high crime area and risks death at the hands of criminals. Soldiers’ dying in a much larger scale confrontation is certainly no less tragic. None the less, on both scales, there are criminals, and there are, fortunately, people with the will, honor, and discipline to confront them. Those who say, “We shouldn’t have angered criminals. We’re just as bad – or worse – and we should have let them have their way in the first place” are certainly no help to anyone.

Again, realistically...now, what exactly does protesting accomplish for anyone? -- Beyond PR support for the cause of terrorism and violent oppressive authoritarian government?


One of the weirdest phenomena of our time (one which particularly enrages me), is the clear sympathy, support, and alliance of Marxist-Socialists and the minions of Islamic-fascist Jihad – so much for the ideals of “liberation, freedom, and justice” (something socialist extremists never stood for anyway).

An excellent brief summary of the Red/Religious alliance :

“…In the United Kingdom, according to the London Spectator, a steering committee has been organized to coordinate activities of a cooperative effort joining Marxists and other leftists with radical Islamists. The committee consists of 18 from myriad hard-left groups, three from the radical wing of Britain's Labour Party, eight from the ranks of the radical Islamists and four leftist ecologists. ['Looks like Stalin and Hitler have joined up with each other again.]"

"Writes Christopher Chantrill in the American Thinker: ‘The formal coalition between the hard left and the Islamists is a shock. It is difficult to believe that the secular left could really find common cause with religious fundamentalists of any stripe. But we should remember our history. In World War I, progressive souls sympathized with the German effort to humble the capitalist nation of shopkeepers. In World War II, progressives were indifferent to the fate of the European democracies until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. In World War III, they actively cheered for the Soviets although they denied the right of anyone to complain about it…’"

“‘It makes complete sense that the left’s first act in the 21st century should be to form a coalition with a new anti-Western force. The war against democratic capitalism continues.’ ”

...Enough to make a decent person sick...


Has anyone noticed that, while there continues to be widespread perennial complaint about America’s use of natural resources, the massive and dramatically increasing use of natural resources by China doesn’t seem to bother most critics?


A witty but insightful appraisal regarding where one need be on the political spectrum to get a Nobel Peace Prize.

Thursday, August 25, 2005


Chavez, Robertson, and Sheehan -- A Trio of Nonsense

I thought of making a few comments on the Cindy Sheehan carnival and, more recently, Pat Robertson's media-hyped nonsense (Instead of assassination, I only wish Chavez would die of natural causes -- like maybe a lightning storm) but Neal Boortz said it all best:

"So why is all of this attention being paid to Pat Robertson's comment that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be assassinated? Story after story, newscast after newscast, it's being broadcast as if what Pat Robertson says actually means anything. So why all the coverage?"

"Come on, folks. This one is easy. The media takes a crackpot like Pat Robertson and uses him to paint all Republicans and Bush supporters as nut jobs ready to form assassination squads to send out around the world to whack leaders we don't like. This story fits the media template. Robertson is a Bush supporter. The story, therefore, damages Bush. This means the story gets pushed. Never mind that Robertson is not a spokesperson for any of those organizations and has nothing to do with policy. Doesn't matter. It's all about following the Bush-bashing template."

"So now we get to hear about this over and over again, as if it actually matters. Donald Rumsfeld's response was perfect...private citizens say things all the time. Once again, the leftist tilt of the mainstream media rears its ugly head. It's worth noting that when certain fringe wacko liberals were calling for the assassination of George Bush, the press was strangely silent." (Emphasis mine)


"Well, Cindy Sheehan is headed back to Crawford, Texas, and the media is in an absolute frenzy. Remember .. this is the woman who says that Bush is waging a nuclear war in Iraq and that President Bush is the world's biggest terrorist. She hates George Bush ... this means that the media loves Cindy Sheehan."

"Here's another Cindy Sheehan comment to ponder. It's one the mainstream media has ignored. Speaking earlier this month to a reporter for CBS News, she actually called the Islamic terrorists "freedom fighters." That's right. the very ones that killed her son. Why don't we hear more about this? Because it would undermine her credibility."

"So now Cindy is headed back to Crawford, to spew more nonsense for days and days, all of which will be picked up by the mainstream media. I wonder why she came back? Perhaps it was the promise of more Joan Baez concerts. Sheehan has become nothing more than a willing marionette for the left. That makes her a media hero."


Fanatical Islam’s Quagmire

It‘s odd that, from the very beginning of our responses to the Islamic Jihadists’ war against free society, many voices in the media have sought to portray our side (yes, there is an our side) as being in a "quagmire," the implication being that we’re losing (often with some subtle suggestions that we should lose, or at least retreat).

Has it occurred to anyone that the forces of Jihad may actually be in a quagmire?

After decades of successful but isolated attacks against both military personnel and innocent civilians, the forces of Islamic extremism (e.g. Islamo-fascism) have now extended their foolish gambit too far. Their greatest tactical misjudgment, 9/11, has put their main enemy on clear offensive. In fact, Al Qaeda and the forces of Islamic Jihad can be said to have become stuck in a quagmire they can never win, but you won't hear that from "mainstream" commentators. To them the "Q" word can only be used when referring to Bush, the coalition, and the troops of free society. The critical beachheads of the Islamists’ “struggle,” Afghanistan and Iraq have both decisively fallen – their terror friendly governments gone. New freely elected governments now lay the groundwork for open society in the context of moderate Islamic religious practices.

While continuing cowardly strikes to win back their totalitarian authority, the Islamic extremists have lost any claims to legitimacy on all counts (not that they ever had any in the first place).

The quagmire that Islamo-fascists find themselves in can be attributed to a series of blunders, most significant being their attack on two powerful open societies currently led by unwavering and resolute leadership (as opposed to the weak-willed and appeasing non-leaders they had hoped to confront – and still do in places like Spain and France).

While the forces of oppressive Islamic fanaticism can count on the efforts of some in their enemy's camp (e.g. media clowns and assorted “critics” from the left in general) to support their cause, the leadership of America and Britain is ever steadfast in holding the line against the defeated minions of death and tyranny.

Regarding Iraq specifically, some look to (and hype) opinion polls or weaknesses in basic services like infrastructure improvement to deny the successes of the coalition's effort. There are more than a few in the West itself that clearly wish for their own country’s defeat and continue to hope the tables will magically turn to the totalitarians’ favor -- but it just ain't gonna happen.

The fanatics’ weaknesses can be seen in their last-ditch efforts to randomly strike civilians in homicide attacks -- as a war strategy; useless, as well as morally reprehensible.

In World War II, the Japanese military state’s recruitment for suicide missions was a symptom of desperation, something we can expect from a totalitarian cause when it knows it will lose in the end. While the wretched forces of radical Islam daily kill with wanton vengeance (typically, their own women and children) their acts can hardly be seen as the actions of a brave or successful adversary. They've deliberately killed far more Muslims than coalition forces have killed by accident.

It seems that every generation or so, since the advent of free and open democratic society, we have to deal with the recurring phenomena and threats of tyrannical philosophies and their supporters. Though they drape their schemes in high sounding values for mass audiences (“the people”) they’re still no more than kings wanting their thrones back.

Islamic Jihad will no doubt continue tactical strikes on innocents, even as they move deeper into their quagmire phase of defeat. They've lost. The remnants of their “cause,” that so embrace death, should be given their wish, and when they get to heaven – or, more likely, hell -- I hope the seventy-something virgins awaiting them, humiliate him further, not only for their evil, but their blatant stupidity.

To juxtapose Michael Moore's warped thinking into a more sober -- and loyal -- view, “[our forces]… are the Minutemen… and they will win.”


In several prior posts I’ve noted the elitist background of terror’s “masterminds.” Like their supportive far-left brethren they don’t even come close to being representative samples of common people and certainly not examples of the “poor and oppressed.”

Although I’m no fan of The Washington Post, I have to agree with their essay last month by David Ignatius regarding “The Revolt of Privilege, Muslim Style”.



I received the following “test” that was forwarded to me in an e-mail. While it’s not usually my practice to post such things (I have on a few occasions), I think this one gets right to the point regarding the blatant stupidity of political correctness (e.g. contrived and insincere ideological nonsense), particularly in a time of terrorist threat.

As I had once noted before, though I am not Muslim, I fit the visual profile of a Middle Easterner. I don’t like inconvenience any more than anyone else but, anyone who wastes time checking an old Scandinavian woman, while flagging me, and people who look like me, through an airport checkpoint, isn’t doing anyone any favors (myself included). What utter fools! Political correctness used to just be a stupid thing that lukewarm leftists used to do to feel morally superior. Now, it will surely cost innocent lives at some future point – all because of the stupid edicts of bureau-land and the phony left-wing “philosophy” that drives them.

(note: I believe the information used in the following test was likely taken from Ann Coulter’s book, “Treason” where she notes a similar list of facts regarding the history of recent Muslim extremist acts and their typical perpetrators.)

["]History Test["]

["]Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual ones from history. They actually happened!!!["]

["]Do you remember?

1. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Lenno
c. Harry Potter
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7.In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

14. 2004 - Spain Railway bombings.
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

15. 2005 London Railway bombings
Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40["]

["]Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?["]

["]So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone because it would be profiling.["]


To any Muslims that may be reading this: I hope you can see that your religion is being seriously tarnished in the eyes of millions across the world. While a few token statements to the effect that you don't like seeing Muslim children blown up in public squares may ease your conscience somewhat, I'd recommend a more concerted effort to show who's side you're on; Free and open society where people can live as they choose (which of course includes the devout following of one's chosen religion), or the side of ruthless spoiled autocrats who have completely destroyed the image of your religion. Half-hearted denunciations of terror followed by apologetic sympathy for "responses to 'root causes'" just isn't very convincing.


Death, Numbers, and Short Memories

"[Deaths of civilians and police in Iraq are currently...] running at the rate of about 45 dead per 100,000 population per year [...]"

"[...] During Saddam’s long reign, the Iraqi death rate from democide (the government killing its own people) averaged over 100 per 100,000 a year. This does not include the several hundred thousand killed during the war with Iran in the 1980s. There are other parts of the world that are more violent than Iraq. Africa, for example, especially Congo, Sudan and South Africa. Only South Africa has a sufficiently effective government to actually keep track of the death rate, mostly from crime, but it’s over 50 per 100,000. It’s worse in places like Congo and Sudan, but the numbers there are only estimates by peacekeepers and relief workers. In southern Thailand, a terror campaign by Islamic radicals has caused a death rate of over 80 per 100,000 [...]"

"[...] During the 1990s, Saddam used access to food and medical care as a way to keep the Shia Arabs under control, but this process caused at least twenty thousand or more excess deaths a year (from disease and malnutrition). Foreign media, especially in Sunni Moslem nations, played down Saddam’s homicides, just as they play up the current death toll in Iraq (which is still largely the result of violence by Sunni Arabs.) [...]"

Some may not like the military oriented source of the preceding quotations and statistics (found through The Tanuki Ramble) . Military imagery aside, I not only find the information believably accurate but I haven't seen anything from the "anti-war" crowd that would indicate otherwise -- they simply don't address the issue of deaths before Saddam Hussein's removal from power (they really do miss him that much).

Saturday, August 20, 2005



Excuse my right wing "lack of compassion" but, I find the notion of a state ordained "guaranteed vacation" blatantly absurd -- and the economic realities of such a scheme appear to side with me.

Forcing productive forces to pay for extended periods of un-productivity is just plain stupid; the resulting economic stagnation is certainly no surprise.

I've got a better idea, how about following the example of the perpetually successful economies of Australia and the U.S. and leave micro-issues like vacation time to the actual employees and employers who are affected by such agreements. Some people are willing to trade leisure time for income, and visa-versa. Surely the diverse elements and views within a society can handle such decisions without the "aid" of some pathetic bureaucrat.

Built-in state sponsored pampering always results in the same thing; a society of children, captives of their own lack of dynamic vitality.


Marketable Skills and the Frustrated Radical Intellectual

An entire subgroup of frustrated radicals has emerged in our time because they were stupid enough to think that bogus college courses in “woman’s studies,” and “critical theory” etc. would provide them the marketable skills that would maintain the lifestyles of their bourgeois upbringing. Being able to complain about “unfairness” in life is not a marketable skill. The job market has little calling for professional agitators , angry control freaks, or disgruntled spoiled brats.


Deliberately Dying “for a Cause"… and Other Stupid Pet Tricks

I recently heard a common sentiment among the traitor crowd, a sympathy I've heard in so many words before; someone’s "cause" must indeed be "just" if they're willing to kill themselves for it. To this ridiculous defense of Islamic homicide/suicide bombings was added the idea that "they've lost everything... we’ve bombed their homes and killed their families...I’d be mad too..." This is of course a variation on the theme that radicals of any stripe are ultimately victims of poverty, oppression, and injustice. Islamo-fascists are poor and mistreated so they kill themselves and take bunch of random innocents with them – it’s really our fault.

Reality check, idiot:

The homicide/suicide bombers of Iraq and elsewhere are fanatic true believer's. If any of them happen to be poor, their economic status is an incidental factor to the fact that they are fanatical followers of a violent and oppressive cause -- their most basic motivation. The Kamikaze bombers of World War II dedicated themselves with equal fervor and it was hardly because of a sense of being poor or victims of imperialism. The Hitler Youth of Germany’s Nazi middle class possessed an allegiance to violence and “sacrifice” in service of their collectivist ideology as well. I think that it can be argued quit accurately that any self-esteem issues entering this picture are ones of too much self-esteem; Islamo-fascists think their philosophy and their role in it is so grand that, to some, their own self-induced death is a sort of dramatic fireworks display in honor of themselves. The fact that they believe they will arrive in heaven to a thankful god’s sex-fest reward system hardly causes them to ponder the absurdity of their actions. The average suicide bomber is not someone "retaliating for our having bombed their houses and killed their families.” In Iraq, it's pretty common knowledge that most attacks and suicide bombings are by foreign forces (i.e. from Syria and Saudi Arabia, etc.). "Jihad" began years before the Iraq war, before the Taliban in Afganistan was removed from power, and before 9/11. The “brains” behind the Islamo-fascist's tactics, contrary to being poor are, like most radicals, pampered control-freaks from the middle and upper classes.

It is indeed a tragic fact that innocents have been killed in Iraq by carelessness or imprecision during specific strikes by the coalition but, as much as the left tries to paint circumstances otherwise, the coalition’s actions have never been deliberate attacks upon civilians or innocents. To the contrary, never before in the history of warfare has technology been so deliberately used to avoid civilian casualties. Most People's homes in Iraq have not been bombed and most families there have not been killed by coalition forces. One of the more bizarre quirks that regularly occur in this conflict is that, when a crazed homicide bomber kills numerous innocent bystanders; the response by some is to immediately blame George Bush for their deaths -- as if the bombers themselves literally played no part in the violence. Another issue seldom if ever raised by international media and critics is that, in spite of escalating casualties, the current deaths come no where near those from war and oppression in Saddam Hussein's Baathist police state.

At this point in the conflict in Iraq, violence is occurring as a result of Islamic fascist Jihad (as well as some former Baathists), an ideal that has nothing to do with poverty or injustice (the left’s catch-all alibi for any act of violence against free and open society). The homicide/suicide bombers of Islamo-Jihad are fanatics, plain and simple. Their ultimate objective is not to merely repel American troops and destroy the current government so as to "gain their freedom," it’s to establish an oppressive theological tyranny and extinguish all hope of freedom. The fact that this pathetic ideology can convince a few stupid fools to kill themselves in the process doesn't demonstrate justice in their “cause,” it merely shows that any stupid pet can be taught any stupid trick. The fact that some in the west express sympathy and support for them puts them on the same level (stupid left tricks?).

Deliberately blowing oneself up for the purpose of killing others is not an impressive act made out of desperation by “oppressed victims." It's the act of a fool, a fanatical one to be sure, but a fool nonetheless. Those who sympathize with their actions or see them as worthy of “understanding” are certainly no wiser – same stupidity, only without the suicidal drama gesture.

It can be argued by some that there are "things worth dying for," but aiding the imposition of statist or theocratic tyranny is not among them.

Monday, August 15, 2005

40% of Mexicans say they want to move to the U.S.? (from The Drudge Report) How could this be? Why do so many people across the world continue to want to move to and live in an imperialist, capitalist, warmonger nation that won't take enough from evil rich people and give free stuff to others?

Now, if we could only get 40% of left wing journalists and "educators" who hate the U.S. to leave the country.


State Secrets

The Soviet Union is dead, but the ideals it symbolized (collectivism and central "planning") are alive and well and admired in a broad spectrum of venues from Hollywood movies to many public school classrooms.

The images that recently came back from the international space station reminded me of the differences between Russia's space program and America’s during the height of the Cold War.

Space flights are now teamed by diverse multinational crews. Their launch, return, and even failure or destruction, take place openly before the eyes of the world.

America's initial attempt to launch a satellite in the 1950's was a humiliating failure (an explosion on the launch pad), exposed as it occurred, for all the world to see. Soviet achievements were always after-the-fact pronouncements shrouded in secrecy. Failures were simply a "state secret" -- like famines and mass executions.

Elements of secrecy seem to be essential to any power structure. Public exposure of flaws, weaknesses, and failures just isn’t a good selling point in any enterprise. Perhaps no powerful institution can be completely trusted for its openness or honesty. To assume that such institutions are "hiding something" isn't partisan paranoia, its cautious commonsense. Nonetheless, there are some political philosophies more prone to stealth and intrigue and -- surprise! -- the more authoritarian and statist they are, the more shrouded in mystery we will find their motives and actions. The state’s natural tendency toward secrecy, in a system like America’s, is often confounded by the system itself, where private interests across the spectrum poke their noses everywhere the state doesn’t want them to be. Even careless fools who pile naked terrorists up to humiliate them can't escape the wide exposure of pop-political investigation (as we all know).

Free and open access to information is the hallmark of open, pluralistic, and democratic society. It's an ideal that our own government has breached uncountable times but, on the whole, it has maintained a historically remarkable record of non-secrecy when compared to the states dominated by… the state. It’s certainly no coincidence that an increase of attempted secrecy by America’s government has paralleled the increase of its size and authority. We now have 1001 agencies that can hide things from us – if we fail to catch them.

The former Soviet Socialist “Republic” was an enigma wrapped in a secret, acting from a bottomless pit of controlled information. The fact that other countries founded upon the same anti-capitalist, Marxist, ideal (China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea et al.) still define a great deal of their mundane daily operations as; “state secrets” should be a surprise to no one.

While the left in America often justly acts to reveal the scams and dishonest actions of our government, their track record is weak at best in even acknowledging the secrecy that is automatically a part of any extreme socialist system.

The left’s preoccupation with the profit motive that drives a thousand varieties of media, seems to prevent it from seeing the simple and obvious fact that putting all information under the direction of a single political philosophy or institution can only result in a world of secrets. The fact remains; open, free, capitalist society will always be superior – and have far less secrets – than the socialist/collectivist state…and that obvious truth is no secret.


As stated a couple of posts back, I'm not posting as many links to other sites and articles as I once had; just too time consuming and annoying. I need to part from that standard briefly here to note the following interesting sites:

Dr. John Ray at Dissecting Leftism and related other blogs was kind enough to note my previous essay regarding capitalist good times in Ginza, Tokyo. For those who may not have yet accessed his sites, they are extensive and well worth regular visits.

In similar homage to quality -- particularly for items related to Japan -- I remind readers of The Tanuki Ramble. The Tanuki's style is much more professional than my own (not a difficult task) and typically presents esoteric insight into issues involving The Arts, culture, politics, and society.

The Tanuki's was the blog that introduced Professor R.J. Rummel's sites to me. His blog, Democratic Peace offers some important and convincing information regarding the virtues of free and open society. Particularly noteworthy are his stats indicating that democratic countries -- unlike their totalitarian counterparts -- don't go to war with each other, don't have famines, and don't perform mass executions. This should, of course, be obvious but there still remains an entire industry in leftland devoted to the illusion that free open capitalist society is the worst thing going. Sympathy for tyranny, on the other hand, is standard for most intellectuals in America today. It's clear from the information at Rummel's site that "The war to end all wars" will clearly be one that finally eliminates the perennial rebirth of authoritarian governments and the stupid ideologies that feed such institutions.

One more link (I remember why I stopped doing this link stuff as much); A preview of what Hollywood has in store for us in the near future, to remind us that it truly is on the Left coast.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005


The Ginza Section of Tokyo Japan, at Night

This photo, and the small area it covers, hardly begins to convey the scale and impressive dynamism of Japan's Postmodern Sci-fi urban landscape.

I suppose I need to note that my appreciation of contemporary urban commercial culture doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate mountains, rivers, or forests (as the either/or worldview of some may wish to suggest).


Capitalist Imperialism in Ginza

"…2002, the retail industry in this country spent $13.5 billion telling us what to buy, and we must have been listening, because in 2003 we spent nearly $8 trillion on all kinds of crap. That's right trillion. How insane is that? … We buy almost twice as much crap as our nearest competitor, Japan [we also have more than twice the population of Japan so that’s hardly a profound statement]. We spend more on ourselves than the entire gross national product of any nation in the world."

-- Morgan Spurlock, quoted in an essay at Tech Central Station (which I recommend reading in its entirety).

Surprise; it turns out that the creator of Super Size Me is, like Michael Moore, just another garden variety anti-capitalist (e.g. socialist) with the usual gripe regarding other people’s successful lifestyles and purchasing choices. Of course, what our citizens choose to buy is “crap” in his eyes, and I suppose what he consumes is bare necessity (mere subsistence – a socialist favorite). It never occurs to such chip-on-the-shoulder Jacobin jerks that the creation, trade, and use of all that “crap” (which would include tickets to the Opera, books, and purchases of Super Size Me DVD’s) is one of the reasons why the average person’s life in the U.S. and Japan is a historical marvel worth appreciating.



…Walking down streets lined with the ever so fashionable and chic – Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Armani, etc., I eventually, about 10 minutes into my walk, saw the infamous golden arches (after having passed several ramen shops, sushi restaurants, and exclusive Italian and French restaurants). Tucked away on a side street, another villain, Starbucks. Indeed, American imperialism was alive and well in Ginza (Tokyo, Japan).

My reason for being in Tokyo even found elements of cultural (technical) hegemony. I was having laser eye surgery and the latest equipment being used was an innovation of an American company. The doctor in the eye clinic made a point of proudly telling me of his training at the Harvard Medical School.

So now, for a week’s pay, I have near perfect vision, courtesy of the “greed” of some corporation making high-tech medical equipment; if only a team of government bureaucrats had thought of it instead (where’s Fidel Castro when you need him?).

There it all was, on the streets of Ginza; the oppressive triad of multinational corporations, technical advancement, and the use of English, which I spoke a portion of the time. There were mocha lattes being served on some side street to willing buyers who failed to have the good socialist sense to shun the pleasant indulgence of trendy environments with friendly service.

Night or day, the Ginza district of Tokyo is impressive (actually Ginza is just one urban marvel in greater Tokyo), a cacophony of lights and pristine shop windows containing some of the most creative contemporary commercial art I've seen in a long time -- far better in design and aesthetic impact then some of the crap (to use Morgan Spurlock’s word) that the non-commercial art elite tells us to digest (occasionally financed with tax dollars). The architecture and general design scheme around me was something I’d call postmodern sci-fi. The future had finally arrived and capitalism’s mark was something that would have made Ayn Rand proud. I couldn't help but contrast the beauty, life, and dynamism around me with the stale and oppressive conformity and drab ugliness of an anti-capitalist ambience (“art” by bureau decree).

The free people who walked around me were not obedient clones to an ideology “for a better world,” they were manifestations of a better world – bourgeoisie materialism taken to its limits. (Sorry to leftists out there, but bourgeois materialism is not an ideology. Simply wanting a nicer necktie or handbag isn't quite the same as philosopher kings’ polemics to advance their own control over the direction of society).

To be sure, there were probably more than a few rich people around (oh no!), but the street’s crowds were neither comprised of obvious hierarchy nor bland conformity. Colorful diversity of fashion and lifestyle indicated to me that we in the developed / capitalist world, have become closer than ever to a social ideal that could be truly called democratic. One couldn’t guess if those who walked around me were either rich or poor or in between, for all had clearly risen above the pathetic state of drab subsistence that socialism would ultimately wish to confine us all to.

It was/is both tragic and ironic that not far away in the northern half of the Korean peninsula there are people who have been dragged to levels lower than subsistence merely because an ideology is so strongly opposed to the prosperity, success, achievement, and diverse human advancement that I could see around me in Ginza (and one could now see in Seoul, South Korea as well).

While walking the streets in Ginza, I realized that the insignificant golden arches and Starbuck’s logos looked just fine along with all the other logos of global commerce (more than a few from France, ironically). No billboards of Che and Castro, no statues to Lenin or Kim Il Sung, no signs proclaiming the “virtue” of sacrifice “for the common good,” just light, action, and a sea of people -- alive in the postmodern sci-fi world of 21st century freedom –- all fine with me.

Friday, August 05, 2005


Dwindling Pirates and Global Disasters...

I just received an email with a link to a very hilarious commentary on science teaching in the public schools. I found the following comments particularly amusing and noteworthy:

"...You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature..."


Lame Jane Takes Another Stand With Totalitarians – Way ta go, Jane…

The tragi-comic farce of celebrity “anti-war” whining has resurrected an old icon of the genre – Jane Fonda.

As a devout anti-capitalist she has marketed videos and books on banal subjects like aerobics and, at one point, married a billionaire (nice flourish – though it didn’t last).

Jane can’t hold back her feelings on the Iraq invasion, she’s got to get out there again and “speak out” for the same cause she valiantly fought for during the Vietnam War – her own inflated ego.

This time around, to demonstrate some cohesiveness in her politically correct worldview, she’s going to ride around the country in an environmentally friendly vehicle (we’re told that it’s going to run on vegetable oil). Maybe her environmentally-friendly vehicle will make up somewhat for all the private jet flights she’s taken in her life, or all the lavish personal non-environmental friendly accoutrements in her less than humble homes.

What the hell is she thinking? …As if the United States and Britain etc. are going to turn Iraq over to terrorist thugs because some old washed-up Hollywood bitch thinks sympathy for dictatorship overrides common sense as a standard of excellence.

Maybe she can get a photo op posing with Al Zarqawi while he’s cutting someone's head off.

Here are some simple – to the point – facts for Jane and the “anti-war” crowd:

1. The war in Iraq already took place. The coalition won and the former government is no longer in power (though the war with Islamo-fascism continues across the globe).
2. There is currently an insurgency of (actually, largely foreign) terrorists who want to end the possibility of a free Iraq – an Iraq that is friendly with its neighbors and the world, and offers prosperity and progress to its citizens.
3. The citizens of Iraq have a chance of becoming a free, open, and successful society in coming years.
4. “Stop the war” (“pull our troops out now”) and the inevitable result would be a progression from the current numbers of innocents killed in terrorists strikes, to a full scale bloodbath with all hopes of a democratic Middle East down the drain (e.g. the current numbers of victims from terrorist assaults would be nothing compared to the result of handing Iraq over to Islamo-fascists).

Characters like Fonda may not like the fact that the war to remove Saddam Hussein occurred. Of course, she felt no need to “speak out” when Saddam was regularly and deliberately butchering innocents in his police state or when he attacked Kuwait. Now Jane's on a mission; stop the U.S. and the elected Iraqi government from resisting the insurgency. At this point, “stopping the war” (actually, letting a group of authoritarian terrorists restart it) has got to be one of the stupidest things anyone could possibly “recommend” (demand).

The fact that an old arrogant self-absorbed gas bag from Hollywood yester-year adheres to this line of thought actually makes perfect sense considering the delusional line of thinking that has come from the left in general;

Help Ho Chi Minh.
Help Bin-Laden.
Hinder the spread of democracy.

Jane Fonda – a real winner from the clown brigades of left-land.


How Not to Gain a Following for Your Religion

What they (the extremist sect of Islamo-fascism) say :
“There is only one God and Mohammad is his prophet.”

What they mean :
“There is only one god (mine!)…
and he wants us to make bombs, randomly kill innocent non-combatant men, women, and children, and impose a rigid authoritarian government and philosophy on as many people as possible.”

“…My god abhors any display of human interest in sex but will offer you an orgy with over 70 virgins if you kill yourself and a bunch of other people.”

“…My god hates democratic government (he takes an interest in politics) and trusts in the stern rule of old unshaven angry nutcases.”

(Kinda makes ya wonder what their Devil must be like…)

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?