#3
DF - Lol! Now what are you gonna do when he corrects the title? Here you are hanging out the window making faces at - nothing! Oops! Shouldn't tease the Big Guy - he can hurt ya! But it was a funny catch! ;->
#7
I know it was explained, but I'm not sure I get it either ...once more pretty please.
Posted by: B ||
03/25/2004 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Page 1 is going to be all the hardcore WoT posts, page 2 everything else. I was thinking of calling them WoT and Not-WoT eventually, but I'm open to suggestions.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/25/2004 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The Troll-Toll is a bit heavy today. Maybe we need to nuke the trollway (forgive me, Piers!).
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/25/2004 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Fred, the little animated icon's nice, but do you know if there's a way we could cheaply license the image of the troll statue in Fremont as a marker icon?
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
03/25/2004 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I'm just going back to the word TROLL. Boris doesn't have any shame, so it's a waste. And if he gets one, everybody wants one...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/25/2004 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#17
eventually he'll just get tired of spending his time posting into a vacuum. May take a week or so, but how fun is it to talk to yourself?? Of course, he's pretty wacked - so maybe he can't tell the difference.
Posted by: B ||
03/25/2004 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Fred ||
03/25/2004 15:56 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Not-Boris-but-sounds-just-like-him, this is not a public BBS. It's a privately-owned website. I don't think there's any chance of anyone as dense as yourself comprehending the difference, but there is a humongous difference.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
03/25/2004 15:58 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Me! Me! I used Boris' name on this site! Come after me too, dude!
60 years ago, my father went to Europe at government expense to take out a bunch of guys like you. I don't have his old M-1 Garand, but I'd like to take a few shots (metaphorical ones, in the courtroom, of course) at you anyway. It's sort of a family tradition, taking out fascists, that is.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/25/2004 16:02 Comments ||
Top||
#32
RC, this BBS is causing loss of American lives on basis of lies and each of you is just as guilty as Fred Pruitt of Treason against United States -- names and addresses please. BTW,
"!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
"Rantburg: Never forgive, never forget!"
makes this a public BBS officially, and its Zionist propaganda content makes it an enemy of the state.
#36
Fred wrote: I won't tell you how I get most of them... But I do miss some. Can't automate the whole thing, darn it.
I've been nailing a few every day. I check in when I need a break from the clinic/lab/writing, and whenever I find Boris making an ass of himself I gently help him resolve his embarrassment by hitting the Delete key that Fred kindly left for me under the front door mat.
Today I've hit a dozen so far and there's a couple more; perhaps Boris is mutating ala the Andromeda Strain. I certainly didn't turn on the Pulodium Q38 space modulator, so I don't know what happened.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/25/2004 16:42 Comments ||
Top||
#37
Unfortunately, by having the [off-topic or abusive comments deleted] tag showing, idiotarian-friendly websites and users will take a "deleted" comment to mean that Rantburg can't take criticism.
Never mind that it is mindless LLL spewing from a couple of idiots and is hateful to boot. That won't matter to them. LLL sites will make the assumption that "intelligent" comments had been deleted, and use that as "proof" that Rantburg is a closed, right-wing-only forum with no room for debate.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but you'd be hard pressed to convince the LLL asshats.
#39
I'd not characterize Boris as LLL. I think I'd rather spend time with Chomsky... Well, maybe Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/25/2004 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
#40
How about instead of just deleting the comment, delete it and leave a link to the same comment that was posted earlier, since most of it is the same anyway. That way, people can also see what was deleted, and unmutual's point could be taken care of as well.
Posted by: Rafael ||
03/25/2004 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#42
Mainly because I don't care. I've been programming my fingers to little nubbins trying to keep his spam out for the past week. I'm tired of it. He's wasted enough of my time. I'm going to concentrate on posting and commenting for awhile, and just hit the delete button whenever he shows up.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/25/2004 17:40 Comments ||
Top||
#43
Prima Facie Evidence
This is probably irrelevant to the mind that spewed it -- seeing as that mind likely suffers from a psychosis inducing reaction formation (e.g., identification with the Croatian Aggressors/Fascists). Nonetheless, evidence is what has been accepted by a tribunal charged with finding facts and passing judgment -- events or statements are not typically described as prima facie. Prima facie simply means that âon the face of it,â and is descriptive of a burden of production and proof being carried, shifting the evidentiary burden to the opposing party (i.e., what you presented was sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved) . . . AH, HECK, NEVER MIND! WHO CARES! You are simply an IslamoSlav spewing nonsense because you wonât deal with your real issues. Grow up, face your fears, and stop blaming other people for why you feel so unhappy.
#45
Fred, I come from a large, very conservative, long-time American family. We had members on both sides of every war the United States fought up to the Spanish American one (Google "WEATHERFORD"). Both my parents were one of ten children, and I have literally, HUNDREDS of cousins. If you need a few Louisiana hill-country rednecks to keep order, just say the word - I think I can chase up a posse of 30-40 in an hour or two. With or without guns. I'll need another week-ten days for heavy weapons. Oh, and there's a branch of the family out in California - in the Grass Valley/Yuba City area, if you need a West Coast division. Keeping order sometimes requires "employing" a private security firm.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/25/2004 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#46
Fred, I'm hardly a legal expert, and I'm probably not as old as a lot of the guys here, but you might want to consider having some sort of dump where you can archive the guy's "comments" (read: crap), so that you have something to show the authorities, in case it comes to that.
A clear set of rules and etiquette for posting might also be a good idea, so that people who have been blocked can't complain that they were treated unfairly.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
03/25/2004 18:40 Comments ||
Top||
#47
What was that, 41? You want a beer? Come on down!
#49
Wow, what a deluded addled asshole you are.
Acts of Treason?!?
Deleting your posts hardly classify as destruction of Intelectual property, I liken it more to scraping shit off the sidewalk.
#58
Boris, sod off. This site (NOT BBS, you idiot) is not yours to dump your crap onto, and anything Fred wants to delete, he can. There's nothing TREASONous about that; it's perfectly legal.
You clearly have your own sites, Boris. Masturbate on them all you want. We're tired of your wanking here.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
03/25/2004 23:25 Comments ||
Top||
I'm not scared, least of all of you. You're the coward; frightened of boogeymen.
BTW -- if you think we're committing TREASON here, please, send my name along with all the evidence you have "against" me to the DOJ. Seriously, I really, really, really, want you to do that.
Of course, they might want to look at your sending death threats through email. You might also want to read this. Apparently California has a law against sending threats over the internet.
You've posted my home address, and you've made threats against all our lives. Maybe the Simi Valley police deserve a call...
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
03/25/2004 23:59 Comments ||
Top||
#63
RC, grasping at straws won't keep you from drowning -- you are up against the Big League now, the American Defense League, look us up.
At the end of the day, it's the most irritating cliche in the English language. So says the Plain English Campaign which said the abused and overused phrase was first in a poll of most annoying cliches. Second place went to "at this moment in time," and third to the constant use of "like," as if it were a form of punctuation. "With all due respect" came fourth.
Well, I consider the list to be fatally flawed, m'self...
"When readers or listeners come across these tired expressions, they start tuning out and completely miss the message â assuming there is one," said Plain English Campaign spokesman John Lister. "Using these terms in daily business is about as professional as wearing a novelty tie or having a wacky ring-tone on your phone."
Only time will tell if they're correct...
Other terms that received multiple nominations included: 24/7; absolutely; address the issue; around (in place of about); awesome; ballpark figure; basically; basis ("on a weekly basis" in place of "weekly" and so on); bear with me; between a rock and a hard place; bottom line; crack troops; glass half full (or half empty); I hear what you're saying; in terms of; it's not rocket science; literally; move the goal-posts; ongoing; prioritize; pushing the envelope; singing from the same hymn sheet; the fact of the matter is; thinking outside the box; to be honest/to be honest with you/to be perfectly honest and touch base.
If we quit using those cliches, it would certainly level the playing field.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/25/2004 2:06:12 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What about...
Quagmire!
Bush = Hitler!
Bush lied, troops died!
Where's the WMDs?
YEEEEAAAAHHHGGH!!!
#2
I hate it when people say, "You're on deck" to mean wait a minute. I stopped a guy at Home Depot to ask him where something was, and he told me, "You're on deck." No I'm not, asshole, I'm on my way to Sutherlands.
#4
the ones i hate are-
taste like chicken, do you want fry with that, no shirt no shoe no service, no pets allower, like wite on rice, i can understand that but, alla akbar, and anything boris say.
#6
I find the cliches that the author listed to be fairly benign. Sounds like his own personal pet peeves rather than culturally agreed upon abused or overused terms...like Metrosexual. Rantburg posters did better with 2 seconds of thought.
He used "tuning out". Maybe he should put that one on his list. Yawn. What next, he'll start coming up with words he doesn't like? "The" the overused word. "Is", what really is its meaning?
I bet the guy once had a really funny list - several years ago- and now he's struggling to keep his annual list in the headlines. Weak.
Posted by: B ||
03/25/2004 15:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
It's a UK group, so perhaps that affected the choices. They also missed:
Axis of ...
E- (whatever)
I feel your/their pain
As if
Duh
(Baby) boomer
Generation X (etc)
Mother of all of ...
And my absolute favorite,
If elected I will ...
Posted by: Sofia ||
03/25/2004 15:55 Comments ||
Top||
#8
He never mentioned whether or not correcting these speech flaws was 'doable'. Arrgh. I hate that one; particularly when used by journalists, who should know better. Why not just say that it's possible, probable, or likely -- three perfectly good words found in Websters.
#11
The one that always gets me is the company that advertises for "someone who thinks outside the box", then fires anyone who does. Guess that's why I can't find a job - I think outside the UNIVERSE! 8^(
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/25/2004 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#12
O.P. I was once told 'Dont think outside the box. Blow the box up!'.
#13
Some just suck. Some usually okay. I guess it's always the context (assuming there IS one, heh)...
-----------------------------------------------
keep your eye on the ball
keep your hand on the tiller
wrapped around an axle
poppin red flags
all hat, no cattle
dance with who brung ya
waste of space (or spittle)
nothing succeeds like success
no way but up
can't get there from here
learn it, live it, love it
you go girl
throw more people at the problem
re-can a can of worms
just a little white lie
chaos is opportunity
time is money
that dog won't hunt
run with it
go for it
just do it
roll with the punches
make it so
make magic
that's an executive decision
back off and take another run at it
when in doubt, whip it out
that won't wash
square it with the facts
maintain an even strain
work smarter
take your time, quickly
Fred, feel of course free to delete this or move it, if you consider this offtopic, but I thought people might like my posting this even though itâs not a news item.
Itâs a science-fictional online comic (in progress) concerning an AU version of the war on Afghanistan. I found it quite interesting.
First chapter is here: al Jihad
And the overall table of contents is here.
As a sidenote, the pages are large and take a while to load in a slow connection.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris ||
03/25/2004 10:07:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I am impressed by what is being done with the "comic" medium today, whether "graphic novel", online or, for example, with anime.
That being said, one gripe: the weird drug/mind enhancement-side-effect is already a cliche. I actually lose enthusiasm for a story when I run across it. Maybe I'm just too old...
Posted by: Carl in N.H ||
03/25/2004 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
the weird drug/mind enhancement-side-effect is already a cliche.
Yeah, I can't smell the yellow anymore either.
#5
I just love the line "And God HATES these oranges." :-)
I remember it whenever I hear of someone claiming that God despises/finds abominable something or other -- whether that's homosexuality, or women driving, or the Jews having a state, or whatever.
Severely EFL Early humans swapped bite for brain
NewScientist.com news service
Humans owe their big brains like Chomsky? "Big brain" is the same as "fathead," right?
and sophisticated culture like mud wrestling
to a single genetic mutation that weakened our jaw muscles about 2.4 million years ago, a new study suggests. The slack muscles relaxed their hold on the human skull, giving the brain room to grow. Other primates such as the Paleos
remained stuck with mighty muscles that squeezed the skull in a vice-like grip. So that explains why they donât have brains. Or common sense.
But why did this process occur in humans and not in other primates? or Islamofacists, Paleos, and their ilk
According to Hansell Stedman, an expert on muscle disorders at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, it was a simple mutation in a gene found in our jaw muscles. I think there was a large mutation behind the Paleonazisâ jaw muscles, too.
In follow-up work, Stedmanâs team studied the gene in people from all over the world, including natives of Africa, South America, Western Europe, Iceland, Japan and Russia. They also studied seven species of non-human primates, including gorillas and chimpanzees. Every human which leaves out Ara-Rat
had the mutation, whereas none of the animals did. Detailed genetic analysis suggests the human mutation occurred approximately 2.4 million years ago. Shortly after that, the earliest known members of the genus Homo appeared - with smaller jaws, and larger brains. Except for the genus Homo-Islamo, which kept the smaller brains, and the genus Homo-Politico, which grew much larger mouths.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut bskolaut@hotmail.com ||
03/25/2004 12:30:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Close your eyes (metaphorically, of course) and let the voice of William Shatner or John Cleese or Alistair Cook or James Mason or even James Earl Jones, whoever the hell you picture as The Master Storyteller, resonate in your consciousness with this fateful tale...
In the prehistoric mists of Olduvai Gorge, zygote Lucy takes a nutrino hit squarely on the chin the RNA template's molecular bond attaching 2 base pairs on the second twist past her fine genetic tendency for superior honkin' booty and *BAM* - in every subsequent cell division, each DNA strand constructed produces reduced bite muscle / slack-jawed offspring; female sirens with that honkin' booty, pendulous tatas, simply fabulous personalities; and male wankers with a relatively complimentary obsessive fascination for monster trucks, monster burgers, and monster hooters. Oh yeah, they also had larger brain cavities due to the reduced constraining bite muscle. Every descendent from this maternal line has been (in males, at least, happily) reduced to utter bliss helplessness, sucking tit for several months before taking the first bland solids... instead of feasting on wabbit and wattlers basted with KC Masterpiece - as had her ancestors before her. She didn't give it much thought.
And thus cometh Breast Brainy Man: Homo Lactatus Magnificus Cum Erectus Maximus de la Cranius Humongous. From knuckle-dragger to friggin' Letch Genius. A mere Stroke (or Two) of Fate.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/25/2004 2:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
A permanent one? Heh, no tanx, Bro. Been There / Lost That in the Deevorce. When you hit the jackpot on the firt pull, as I did, you are rather spoiled (leery?) thereafter. By jackpot, well let me phrase it this way: She is the Cure for the Man who has Everything. Since I am an honest man, a major flaw, here it is sans all of the incredible BS:
I don't wanna own it, I just wanna borrow it for awhile.
If anyone is interested I don't buy the 'mutation occured 2.4 million years ago', or it caused us to have bigger brains. As I recall Neanderthals who were around 10k to 20k years ago had the big jaws and could crack the bones of large animals with their teeth to get to the marrow.
#5
phil_b - That may be so, but all the bone-crunchin' gave the cranially-compressed female Neanderthals semi-permanent migranes, thus allowing H. sapiens to out-compete through faster breedin'. The lesson? Ditch the missus if she gets 'headaches' - it's bad for your genes.
#14
Evolutionists and their neverending theories have gotten more and more bizarre over the years.
They are contorting themselves and their "ideas" to fit the theory, and ultimately come across as wacked as any Bible-thumper ever has.
(Personally, I think the truth is that evolution exists... but doesn't apply to humans 100%. I believe we were "helped" along the way in some fashion. There is NO explanation under evolution which explains the staggering differences between human intelligence and our nearest intellectual rivals within the animal kingdon.)
#15
Mr Davis - I always heard it as "...rent it." And believe me, there are males (I don't think I'd call them men) like that too - like .com, been there, done that, got the bills to prove it.
As for evolution, well, I remember a few in college who were breathing proof that even if the theory was true, some of us hadn't come very far. In fact, I remember a couple who seemed to have opted for "bite" instead.
Posted by: Sofia ||
03/25/2004 15:59 Comments ||
Top||
Ousted Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide will take permanent asylum in South Africa but not until it holds general elections next month, Jamaican officials said Thursday. The officials said on condition of anonymity that South African President Thabo Mbeki's government demanded the delay in Aristide's arrival because it could be "politically unsettling" before the election. South Africa presidential spokesman Bheki Khumalo said there would be no immediate comment. Opposition leaders have said the government should not support Aristide, once hailed as a champion of democracy but now accused of corruption and violence against his opponents.
But Thabo's got such a soft spot for corrupt dictators!
Mbeki was among few international leaders to attend Haiti's bicentennial independence celebrations this year and is known to have had sex with get along well with Aristide. In the early days of Aristide's exile, South Africa had said it would accept him permanently if he asked for asylum.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/25/2004 12:41:46 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What happened to his kidnapping lawsuit ?
Send him to Gaza.
EFL - They have a short gratuitous slap at Bush
A YEAR AGO Cubaâs Communist government cracked down on nonviolent dissidents..., 75 of them were in prison, sentenced to terms ranging from 6 to 28 years after one-day closed trials. Carried out while the worldâs attention was focused on the war in Iraq, this was President Fidel Castroâs attempt to destroy a pro-democracy civil society that had been peacefully emerging. A year later, the bad news is that those 75 political prisoners are still locked away, in many cases under inhumane conditions. The worse news is that Mr. Castro has gotten away with his crime: He has set back the cause of freedom in Cuba, and suffered few consequences... The European Union adopted some token sanctions. But European trade and tourists continue to provide the hard currency that props up Mr. Castroâs regime. More help has come from Venezuelaâs Hugo Chavez, a Castro wannabe who supplies his mentor with oil on sweetheart terms... [the NYTimes would never use these kinds of words]
One of Cubaâs foremost dissidents, Oswaldo Paya..." Mr. Paya said of the prisoners. "But they have not given up, and we will not give up. . . . From the darkness of their cells, they are proclaiming the Cuban Spring, which is the hope of all people." The failure of the international community to hold Mr. Castro accountable for his crimes against some of Cubaâs best writers, journalists and teachers means that that spring probably will not arrive this year. But even Mr. Castro, feebly clinging to his failed ideology at age 77, must know in his heart that it is coming.
Posted by: mhw ||
03/25/2004 8:10:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Anon, not sure which article you were reading. This one is about a place called Cuba, not much having to do w/Jews. End of lesson, wipe the spittle off your chin, it's time for your nap.
#3
Looks like the Army of Steve has the Serbian Lop-Eared Troll infestation under control (or is that "conTROLL?")
Posted by: Mike ||
03/25/2004 9:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
[Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by: jose ||
03/25/2004 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#5
uh jose, Kennedy's demise prolly had a little more to do w/bro bobby taking on the mob after they helped get jack elected. Highly doubt castro pulled that one off.
#6
B-b-but they say they have a very high rate of literacy and free health care. That should surely outweigh minor things like thousands of political prisoners and executions.
#7
the free health care and high literacy rates are constantly quoted by Castro apologists but the only estimates of these we have are by the govt of Cuba so we don't know what these rates really mean
#8
mhw: That one guy managed to convert a car and a truck into watercraft and drive them to the US, so I'd say that Cuba's mechanical arts levels are pretty good too.
#10
Yeah bh, they keep those old 1950's cars running without parts-they use coat hangers and other home remedies to keep 'em running somebody else tried that again the other day (coverting a car to a boat) the first time was actually a truck
Cuba is protesting UNESCO's decision to award jailed independent reporter Raul Rivero its press freedom prize. Rivero was among 75 Cuban activists sentenced to long prison terms in a crackdown on the opposition a year ago. He was given 20 years on charges of working with U.S. diplomats to undermine Cuba's socialist system - allegations he and Washington deny. "It is delightful deplorable and excellent embarrassing that the Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Award has been used for ends separate from UNESCO's fundamental ideals," read a communique posted this week on Cuba's Foreign Ministry web site. The statement was dated Monday.
Whatever the hell the fundamental ideals of UNESCO are.
The crackdown was condemned by governments and rights groups around the globe. All 75 were convicted and sentenced to terms ranging from six to 28 years. Rivero is among very few independent reporters in Cuba with past professional training and experience. He has published numerous volumes of poetry and news reportage, and is considered by some to be one of the island's best poets. "The Prize is a tribute to Raul Rivero's brave and long-standing commitment to independent reporting, the hallmark of professional journalism," Koichiro Matsuura, director of the Paris-based United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, said in announcing the award last month. "I am deeply concerned about the conditions in which Mr. Rivero, who is reported to be ill, is being held and I call on the authorities to free Mr. Rivero and the other journalists," the UNESCO head added. UNESCO officials couldn't immediately be reached for comment. Rivero's wife, Blanca Reyes, was enraged by the government's statement about her husband. "What is deplorable and embarrassing," Reyes said Wednesday, "is that they talk that way about a man who is a poet, who only writes what he thinks.
Ah, but it's what he thinks.
"He is an honest and decent man," she said.
No doubt.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/25/2004 12:23:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
UNESCO works as a laboratory of ideas and a standard-setter to forge universal agreements on emerging ethical issues. The Organization also serves as a clearinghouse â that disseminates and shares information and knowledge â while helping Member States to build their human and institutional capacities in diverse fields. In short, UNESCO promotes international co-operation among its 190* Member States and six Associate Members in the fields of education, science, culture and communication.
*As of October 2003
UNESCO works to create the conditions for true dialogue, based upon respect for commonly shared values and the dignity of each civilization and culture.
This role is critical, particularly in the face of terrorism, which constitutes an attack against humanity. The world urgently requires global visions of sustainable development based upon observance of human rights, mutual respect and the alleviation of poverty, all of which lie at the heart of UNESCOâs mission and activities.
French police have fired tear gas and water cannon at firemen protesting against cuts in their pensions, three days before a regional election expected to punish the ruling conservatives over reforms. Riot police hid behind shields on Thursday as bottles and other objects thrown by a few hundred firemen wearing helmets and uniforms rained down on them in a square in front of Parisâs ornate 19th century opera house, the Palais Garnier. The confrontations lasted more than two hours but police said there were no serious injuries. The bitter end to a noisy march by several thousand firemen highlighted the depth of feeling over cost-cutting that has made Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarinâs team unpopular. "Itâs a dangerous job and weâre tired of the government not appreciating us," one angry fireman said as his colleagues were hosed down. "Itâs no surprise it turned violent." The firemenâs march was the latest in a wave of protests over reforms, wage demands and unemployment as the government tries to cut its public deficit.
A bitter dispute over election results is bad enough. But Taiwanâs troubles â and ours â may be just beginning. The reason: Our European allies might well approve plans to sell China advanced weaponry at the March 25-26 European Union summit that begins today. The repercussions would be disastrous. Not only could China use new weapons from Europe against Taiwan, but Chinese generals have said theyâre prepared to confront U.S. forces in the Pacific if America tries to help Taiwan.
Why would NATO allies put the United States in this position? Money is one reason. But European commentators suspect that France and China want to build a multipolar alliance to counter American "hegemony." This rings true, if only because the justifications Europeans proffer for renewed arms sales are patently fraudulent. Like the United States, the EU embargoed all arms sales to China after the bloody suppression of pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Since then, Beijing has steadily introduced market reforms for Chinaâs economy, but its political, religious, and labor suppression has, if anything, worsened.
Senior Chinese diplomats recently held talks with EU officials to persuade them to lift the ban. They hint that if the EU lifts the sanctions, China will steer its big-ticket civilian purchases, including aircraft, power stations, and mass transit, away from American vendors to EU firms. Last December, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder announced in Beijing that Germany was amenable to ending the embargo. European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy added his support to Schroederâs proposal. Not to be outdone, French President Jacques Chirac invited Chinese President Hu Jintao to Paris. Ignoring the complaints of French human-rights groups, Chirac designated 2004 the "Year of China" and threw one of the most extravagant receptions France has ever given a foreign leader. One highlight: the Eiffel Tower bathed in red floodlights, a first ever for the Parisian landmark. Perhaps the red lights blinded Chirac to Chinaâs massive missile threat to Taiwan â more than 500 short-range ballistic missiles now aimed at the island, with 75 new missiles deployed each year. He vehemently condemned Taiwanâs plans to hold a referendum to protest the missiles. As for the embargo, it "no longer makes any sense," Chirac announced.
France now calls China "a special partner...playing a key and responsible role in the international system" and declares that the EU "should encourage it in this direction to contribute to international stability and security, especially in Asia." This despite Chinaâs growing missile threat to Taiwan, its support of North Koreaâs right to have nuclear weapons as a "legitimate security concern" against a U.S. threat, and Beijingâs increasingly vitriolic criticisms of Hong Kongâs hugely popular democratic party. Franceâs sudden announcement of joint naval exercises with China the week before Taiwanâs election caught U.S. officials by surprise. As the Asian Wall Street Journal pointed out last week, "politically, France has for years now coveted an alliance with China to further Parisâs goal of a âmultipolar world,â which is really a euphemism for constraining U.S. power."
Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department seems unsure how to approach EU allies. According to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, the United States has "talked with Europeans about the wisdom of lifting the embargo because of our concerns about human rights." A review of the State Departmentâs annual human-rights reports from 1990 to 2003 shows that China either has made no progress from year to year or has grown worse. But the defense ramifications loom even larger. A senior Pentagon official recently warned Congress that "Chinaâs ability to acquire, integrate and thereby multiply its force posture has really increased dramatically." Most worrisome, he said, is the fact that "there are scenarios where we could actually be involved in [the defense of Taiwan], so any contribution to the other side of the equation complicates our position and that is why weâre opposed."
Chinaâs $65 billion defense budget is the second largest in the world after the United States, and China is aggressively modernizing its military. It seeks the most modern military technology available. China still threatens Taiwan with war, and the United States has strategic, moral, and legal obligations to help democratic Taiwan defend itself. An EU decision to proceed with arms sales to the worldâs most powerful dictatorship could strain the Atlantic alliance to the breaking point. If commercial advantage in Chinaâs market is all the Europeans want, perhaps they can be talked out of this. But if theyâre determined to enlist China in an alignment to hem in American "hegemony," then the Atlantic alliance may be on its deathbed. The dots are starting to connect pretty quickly as everybody picks a side in the New World disOrder.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
03/25/2004 6:22:03 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
While I was a squid, I participated in a UNITAS cruise, which involved near continuous naval operations with nearly ten Latin American navies - sometimes with several foreign ships from different countries simultaneously. Depending on what types of exercises are planned these drills can be real white-knuckle experiences. I would recommend that alongside replenishment drills and gun-shoots be avoided.
As for the evolving French position, a Sino-Franco pact is quite possible. We need to make contingencies to dissolving NATO immediately if this goes any farther. IMO participating in alliance with an enemy is extremely ill advised and dangerous.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/25/2004 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#9
An anti-war D-day protest in a free society is delicious. With the German's elimination of the stipend on short leather festive overall, one must inquire, " will giant puppets continue to expect government backing?â
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/25/2004 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I would expect GW to enjoy the D-Day festivities from the deck of the USN Ronald Reagan.
Message: We've done this twice already!
Posted by: john ||
03/25/2004 15:03 Comments ||
Top||
#11
SH.
Don't worry too much about the tall boys, it's the turtle people I fear for. They are taking care of the environment.
U.S. May Halve Forces in Germany
Shift in Europe, Asia Is Aimed at Faster Deployment
The Pentagon has drafted plans to withdraw as many as half of the 71,000 troops based in Germany as part of an extensive realignment of American military forces that moves away from large concentrations in Europe and Asia, according to U.S. officials....
Spain is not mentioned - BLEGH!
Posted by: Anonymous2U ||
03/25/2004 12:05:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A little bit before 3-11,there were stories that the Sixth Fleet was going to be based in Spain.Wonder if that's still under discussion.
Posted by: Stephen ||
03/25/2004 0:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If DoD is bringing home dependants as well as troops,that is going to be a substantial blow to German economy.
TGA,could you let us know how German press will spin this?
Posted by: Stephen ||
03/25/2004 1:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Stephen - I don't see this event helping matters any.
#4
Americans are probably not aware of this but the UK has large naval and air bases on the island of Cyprus, which are British soveriegn territory, i.e. they are legally part of the UK. Seems to me an ideal place to base the 6th fleet.
#6
phil_b - Re. Cyprus - I don't think that'd go down at all well with the British bases' Greek neighbours. Better to have the US conduct a joint operation with the Moroccans to reclaim territory on the Moroccan coast - Ceuta and/or Melilla, and split the gains.
#7
Makes sense to me. Puts us closer to the areas that are going to be turbulent for the near future. EU has been talking about creating its own military capacity anyhow though NATO is supposed to (according to them) maintain primacy.
#8
The Spain base decision has always been pretty schizoid, but the choice to stay has always been on life-support. I thought that we were only considering staying to reward Aznar. I'd guess you can kiss those nice Rota tours adios.
#9
I thought they had a referendum a little whiel ago and the vote was in favor of the Sixth Fleet? Sicily or Crete offer really nice alternatives to Rota. If it were me, ALL of the troops would leave Germany.
Whether Bush believes, or even understands, the economic policies of his administration I have no idea, and it really doesnât matter much. Whatâs important are the policies, not whether Bush understands what his handlers instruct him to say.
The current policies are an extreme version of what has been going on since the late Carter years. According to Congressional Budget office economists, real income of the bottom 90% of taxpayers fell by 7% from the mid-1970s through the Clinton boomlet (largely a bubble), while the income of the top .01% rose 600%. And mobility sharply declined as well. Bushâs policies are much more extreme, but one should have no illusions about what preceded. Robert Pollinâs recent Contours of Descent is one of several excellent and quite readable studies carrying the matter through the Clinton years.
Whether the economy can survive with such radical inequality, not to speak of the huge and growing double deficit, no one knows. But itâs surely a success for the planners and the very narrow interests of wealth and power they represent. And planning is not for the longer term, part of the lunacy of semi-market systems.
Posted by: Korora ||
03/25/2004 12:02:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11134 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Who cares what a washed up linguist thinks about the economy? And he smells bad, too.
#6
I give the Chomsky posts a 2, and only half-heartedly at that. Same tripe as always and same lack of supporting information as always. If I'm to pay attention he HAS to get some new material.
The comments, on the other hand? I wish I could give a rating higher than 10! Python-esque in diversion! Revolutionary in the coup over the blather of Chimpsky's adherents. But now I have to go see a man about a horse...
#12
Oddly, just blogged about this subject. The percentage of children living in poverty is lower than any time since Carter, the percentage of Americans living in poverty is lower, the percentage of families living in poverty is lower. LINK
In fact, all the percentages are lower than the Clinton averages.
If you want a good laugh, head on over to Noamâs new blog and if you get some time, read the comments, they are hilarious
The IMF is hardly more than a branch of the Treasury Department. Economist Jagdish Bhagwati, no radical, refers to the IMF- Treasury-Wall St complex that is a core part of de facto world government. The Treasury Department is part of the US government. If we had anything remotely resembling a democratic culture, actions of the government would be under the control of citizens, which would mean that citizens have to at the very least know something about them. And beyond that, we would have mechanisms to engage in political action. And in a more democratic society the third component, Wall St., would not exist in anything remotely like its present form, and what would exist would be under popular democratic control.
Posted by: tipper ||
03/25/2004 2:34:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11136 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
All demogogues with a following, real or imagined, claim the answer to all problems lies in mob rule - in the guise of "democracy." 'Tis true whether a secularist, multi-culti-ist, sage of the plains, turban of the 'Zoids, or Preacher With Perfect Hair -- for this would then become thiers to wield by proxy. How, um, transfuckingparently disingenuous.
#3
Hilarious! I especially like this comment from someone: "It's not nice to ask Noam to leave his own blog."
Posted by: Rafael ||
03/25/2004 7:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Sounds like this kind of thing might be right up Boris's alley . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
03/25/2004 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
i didn't stay to long there but got to the posts that said 'what is it with you jerk off artists!'
Me thinks Mr. Chomsky is in the process of discovering that the essence of democracy - the right to say what you really think - is alive and well on the internet.
#9
I reckon the comments are gone because someone posted a huge big page of definitions of sexually deviant terms. It was really quite offensive.
I think it's a shame because there goes our chance to really show up the poverty of Noam's arguments with some uncomfortable facts: the only true way to debunk him.
He'll just claim it's either a CIA conspiracy or redneck, ignorant Americans that did it, and be comfortably reassured in his ivory tower.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/25/2004 20:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Looks like the WH is 100% defensive here. I hate to see this necessary investigation politicized to the point that the National Security Advisor is compelled to jump into the fray. Ralph Peters was good on this today. This process should have occurred after the election.
There is plenty of blame to go around for 9/11. It should extend to most voters who allowed themselves the delusion that we were safe. The media is doing a great job of transferring all of this blame to Bush and Clarke is a pawn in this game. It is unlikely that he can recover from the political cost of this circus.
Noam Chomsky has endorsed, however reluctantly, John Kerry.
This is an endorsement from the man who, on hearing about 9/11, attempted to put it in perspective for the American people by arguing that President Clinton had murdered many times more people in his response to the Al Qaeda bombing in Kenya than Al Qaeda had murdered on 9/11. The fact that Mr. Chomsky had not a shred of evidence for this blood libel did not kept him from making it. After all, he had something far better than evidence -- he had his own opinion; or what Jeremy Bentham called ipsedixitism: something is true because I myself have said it is true.
Yet Noam Chomsky was by no means alone in standing up in the days immediately following 9/11 and declaring that 9/11 was the expected and natural reaction of those who had been oppressed by American hegemony, and who, however immaturely, were fighting back in retaliation for what we had done to them.
True, there were different theories of what exactly we had done to them, and at times, as I watched Americaâs leading public intellectuals apologize for the terrorists, I felt as if I were watching a contest in which these various intellectuals had been invited to write a theme on the question: "Why I would have flown planes into the WTC if I were a terrorist," and in each case, the major intellectual had a ready answer -- an answer that, oddly enough, was invariably couched in terms of their own pet theories concerning the evil of the very empire from whom they derived their power, prestige, and status. But in every case, the basic fundamental theme was unchanged: it was all really, in the last analysis, our fault. In short, we had it coming.
Now let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that these critics of America are right. Let us suppose that when the terrorists struck us we had done more than enough bad things to deserve such an attack. But now let me ask these apologists for terrorism a simple question:
If we had it coming then, donât we have it coming even worse right now? If two thousand of us deserved to die on September 11, 2001, less than a year after Bush stole the election and plunged America into the arms of the military-industrial complex, how many more of us deserve to die today, this very moment, after giving George Bush more than three years to consolidate his empire?
Those apologists for terror who ascribed to the "complex and nuanced" view that we had it coming are not merely apologizing for the wanton slaughter of two thousand men and women on 9/11, they are advancing a justification for killing a whole lot more of them right now. To say that we deserved 9/11 is to say that they were right to do it to us. And, since from 9/11 to today, as judged by their standards, we have only gotten worse, then they would be even righter to do it again. To tell a man that he is right to shoot his wife, if not positively inciting to murder, is not working very hard to discourage it.
So the first thing that Senator Kerry needs to do before he begins to celebrate the endorsement of the man the New York Times calls our leading public intellectual would be to ask him frankly, "Do you believe that the terrorists would be justified if they were to strike us again?"
Senator Kerry needs to know this in advance, as do the American people. It is a simple question, and it is one that deserves a straightforward answer -- not just from Mr. Chomsky, but from all those who tried to explain away the deaths of two thousands of their fellow human beings. "If we had it coming then, do we have it coming now?"
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/25/2004 1:15:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I loathe Chomsky. I mean REALLY loathe him. He epitomizes someone who was a complete failure in his career. His theory of innate grammar his only significant intellectual achievement turned out to be completely wrong. Something even after 40 years of evidence Chomsky refuses to accept. He then made career out of a lunatic world view dreamed up by Marxists who had to explain why none of their predictions came true. So the world is a vast conspiracy. In a rational world this guy would be on heavy duty meds for own protection.
#3
hey leave amerikka's only remaining anarcho-syndicalist alone--after all the 4 month barcelona commune proved his theories and allowed him to have a house--car--boat and those silly crew neck sweaters he wears as he pontificates to the sophmoric in that bastion of democracy in which he resides--academia--medic bring the emetic
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
03/25/2004 2:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's not a valid political argument that a candidate is responsible for all the opinions of all his endorsers. John Kerry doesn't have to respond about Chomsky's statements any more than George Bush has to respond about all the statements ever made by everyone who endorses him.
John Kerry never said "we had it coming." Why then should he be put on the defensive because someone else said it?
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
03/25/2004 7:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Mike S., Kerry will be asked about this endorsement much the same as Wesley Clark was asked about Mike Moore's endorsement of him and his comments calling Bush a draft dodger; Clark tried to deflect the question during the ensuing dem debate and it turned out badly for him.
#8
Of course the idiotarians would say that we don't deserve an attack, today. However, if we do get hit, heaven forbid, they would then say that we had it coming. I don't think the same people who say the 9/11 atrocities were a reaction to our "crimes" said on 9/10 that it would be understandable if someone were to launch a major terrorist attack on us.
Mr. Sylwester:
If a Republican were to "gain" the endorsement of the KKK, some White Power group, or such, there would be a lot of media coverage and he would be forced to decline the "honor."
OTOP, the Communist Party has endorsed the Democrat candidate in the past several elections. Did you know that? They do it openly, make press releases, etc, but somehow it doesn't get much coverage.
#9
If a Republican were to "gain" the endorsement of the KKK, some White Power group ....
You are right that this kind of argument happens all the time and that perhaps the mass media treats various cases unfairly. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted by: Homer Simpson ||
03/25/2004 18:41 Comments ||
Top||
#10
D'oh!
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
03/25/2004 18:57 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I fear you are right Lucky. I'm counting on a 3 pecentum nut factor.
Some people would like you to think President Bush lied when he talked about Saddam Husseinâs weapons. But, if Bush lied, then so did many of the people who are criticizing him now. When Bill Clinton was in office, his fellow Democrats had much to say about Iraqâs weapons of mass destruction. But, if you hear them talk now, youâd think the entire party suffers from amnesia. Democrats used to talk tough about Iraq. They did when one of their own was in the White House. And they did when polls showed it was politically helpful to support President Bush. But now, itâs campaign season, and theyâve changed their tune. To find out if the spin was sticking, I quizzed some peace protesters using hawkish quotes from notable Democrats.
Go to the link to check out the video... very entertaining.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American ||
03/25/2004 12:35:16 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11134 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'll say here what I said at LGF:
Evan's stuff, as usual, is great.
The problem is, only like-minded people are going to go to his site and watch it.
We should raise money to buy commercial time, or innundate Republican leaders and campaigners with e-mail about Evan's stuff, begging them to use it/him in '04.
(2004-03-23) -- Questions about the reliability of U.S. intelligence services grew today as documents revealed that the FBI tracked Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry as early as 1971, but did nothing to stop him.
"This looks like another tragic intelligence failure," said an unnamed aide to the Senate Intelligence Committee. "FBI agents knew Kerry was in the country and they even attended his anti-war speeches, but apparently their reports never reached the highest levels of the agency. He was literally within our grasp and we let him slip through."
The aide blamed the failure on the Nixon administration, which he said was too distracted by the war in Vietnam to devote full attention to homeland security.
"If John Kerry is elected president of the United States," he said, "Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves."
Posted by: Korora ||
03/25/2004 12:04:59 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Perfect tone. Parody so fine as to be indistinguishable from the reality... only your perspective tells you whether 'tis comedy or tragedy. Awesome!
Posted by: Fred ||
03/25/2004 17:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11137 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But Ziad charged that the United Nations gave Saddam "too much control" over the allocation of the humanitarian aid when the program was launched in 1997.
As a result, vital projects, such as building hospitals and schools, providing water and electricity, and removing land mines in the Kurdish region languished, Ziad said
tap..tap...tap... not a tremor on the ole suprise meter.
Any guesses who is paying for the schools, hospitals, etc.. now? I think we should deduct it from our U.N. Fees....
#3
CrazyFool: Great idea! Considering how much rebuilding Iraq is going to cost us, I figure we can forego our UN dues for oh, about a hundred years. If the UN needs money, let them use the billions they skimmed. Bastards.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/25/2004 23:47 Comments ||
Top||
EFL - read the whole thing. It strikes me as imprudent to cede control of all none contiguous ocean/sea to the UN so that they can charge us for use. Then let them use our shipâs to enforce the duties that they decide to charge us. Maybe we should wait until after we see the results of the Oil-For-Food investigation. Better yet, letâs just say no.
The highly controversial United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty, which was on a fast track toward ratification by the U.S. Senate, has been temporarily checked though not derailed.
In response to a groundswell of well-informed opposition both on Capitol Hill and from the grass roots, a hearing on the LOST (Treaty Doc. 103-39) is scheduled for today before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
-snip-
The first "Battle over the LOST" was in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan flatly rejected the treaty because it undercut American sovereignty. LOST II was in the mid-1990s. In 1994, then-U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright signed a supposedly amended version of the treaty and President Clinton sent it to the Senate for the constitutionally mandated advise and consent. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., who headed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was able to keep the treaty in a state of suspension. But Helms is gone, and his place has been taken by Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, like Helms a Republican, but one who strongly favors the treaty.
On Oct. 14 and 21, 2003, the treaty was heard by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Only supporters were allowed or invited to testify; there was, therefore, no registered opposition. On Feb. 25, a quiet vote was taken and the committee gave its unanimous consent. A committee spokesperson said the hearings, despite their one-sided testimony, were "very comprehensive." He explained that although only 10 or 11 senators were present for the vote, those absent took the trouble to "vote by proxy." "This is because the treaty has overwhelming support from the administration, the oil industry, environmentalists," he said.
However, knowing word about the LOST would ignite a firestorm of public outrage, proponents in the Senate hoped to keep the matter under wraps, bypassing the usual committee process as much as possible and bringing the treaty â without debate â to the floor for a voice vote, not a roll call. At that point, the cat jumped out of the bag. Columnists like Lamb, Weyrich and Gaffney and talk show hosts Jane Chastain and Rush Limbaugh and others sounded the alarm. Together they pounded the treaty on the air, in print and via the Internet. E-mail lists â like that sponsored by The Liberty Committee â were activated. Tens of thousands of messages poured into Senate offices.
"It didnât take many senators long to realize that there was indeed opposition to the treaty and they started to withdraw their support for it," says Liberty Committee Executive Director Kent Snyder. It became very clear that despite administration support, this treaty was anything but non-controversial. Critics called for additional hearings, asking why the Finance Committee and the Armed Services Committee were not holding any. The hearing today in Environment and Public Works may be the start of such a process.
-snip-
In 1996, when the Clinton administration was trying to secure ratification, Leitner authored "Reforming the Law of the Sea Treaty: Opportunities Missed, Precedents Set, and U.S. Sovereignty Threatened," a book which highlighted concerns about the high technology transfers mandated by the treaty.
-snip-
The problem is "thereâs nothing limiting the International Seabed Authority from going out and attempting to raise a navy or have contributing member states contribute vessels or act on behalf of the Authority to enforce its rules," he explained.
Leitner said the "blue hull" concept came from a report written by the Center for Naval Analysis in 1993, at the time of the earlier negotiations. The Center is a "gold-plated think-tank," funded by tax dollars, but is not a government agency.
"One of the things the Center recommended was that in the post-Cold War era â when we had a relatively large Navy before Clinton dismantled most of it â was an operational mission for the Navy." The idea was for the Navy to donate vessels and crew to the Seabed Authority "to assist them in enforcing their judgments and rules."
"So there were these two things. The think-tank for the Center for Naval Analysis writes a report suggesting this, and you look in the treaty and thereâs absolutely nothing prohibiting that from happening. And in fact if they ever got the U.S. into the treaty, I think thereâs a very good chance that they would actually do something like this. So itâs not required or specifically spelled out, but itâs possible and people have been thinking about it and actually suggesting it."
While not having specific authority to send American citizens a tax bill, a very large revenue stream will be generated by American companies for the International Seabed Authority. The Enterprise is the operating arm of the Authority and would be the part "that will actually go out and do something active to generate additional capital," Leitner explained. The revenue flow would come from the fees "just for a simple permit," for activities on the continental shelf beyond national jurisdiction, beyond the 200-mile limit. A company would also have to pay royalties on the sale of extracted resources, and the royalties and all payments would go to the International Seabed Authority.
As a by-the-way, Leitner added that the annual capitalization of the International Seabed Authority is required from all signatories of the treaty, and itâs based on the U.N. formula of 25 percent for the U.S. "So basically the United States will pay at least 25 percent of the cost of the Seabed Authority â thatâs required as part of the price of admission to the treaty," he observed.
-snip-
The Authority has the authority to set production quotas and limits. Companies wanting to do ocean mining would have to apply for permits and licenses from the ISA. Hereâs the kicker â a mining company would have to develop two mine sites and turn one over to the Authority. As Leitner put it: "You pay whatever theyâre going to extort from you in order to go into high seas and do some exploration. But as part of the rule-making thing here, you have to basically explore the equivalent of two mine sites. Then you have to turn over all of the documents, assays, mapping information, characteristics of the water column, anything that has to do with that exploration of those mine sites. You have to turn all that data over to the International Seabed Authority, and then they will decide which mine site they want to keep in reserve and give you the other one â if they agree to give you anything. They might turn you down after youâve turned all that information in, and you get nothing."
-snip-
But in any event the International Seabed Authority will keep one of them, whichever one it feels it wants to keep. Then, out of all these explorations or potential mine sites that now it monopolizes, itâs supposed to be provided with sufficient capital to then undertake operations of one type or another in whatever mine site it chooses to go after.
-snip-
One curious clause in the LOST requires some 38,000 metric tons of nickel to be reserved to the Enterprise "from the available production ceiling. âŠ" Leitner laughed as he recalled it was put in by Canadian and French negotiators to protect their own nickel producers. "They figured that the Enterprise would not be one of the early producers of anything on the seabed," he explained. "Basically they put a number of like that in to eat up a huge part of the quota of the amount of nickel that could be withdrawn from the seabed, in order to protect the two principal nickel producers in the world, which were Canada, and their International Nickel Corporation, and the French because of their interests in New Caledonia, which is basically one huge nickel mine; the whole island is a nickel mine.
"Basically, what theyâre doing is taking a huge chunk of the potential mining of nickel off the market to keep the prices of their land-based nickel artificially high, by limiting competition on the seabed.
-snip-
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/25/2004 3:14:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
After reading this entire article, I can't imagine ANY US administration EVER supporting such a treaty. It's just insane, given the treaty's provisions and powers. "No" just won't do -- "Hell No! Are you INSANE!" is more appropriate.
It is stupefying that the Senate committee tried to sneak this through - and then play the voice vote slam dunk.
Every US politician favoring this amazing surrender of technology and mineral assets should be publicly identified - and targeted for defeat in November. EVERY ONE. Period. If anyone finds further info on this identifying who's involved, please post the info! This is just astonishing.
Kill the UN - or follow the SUNS (Snellenr's UN Solution) Protocol - before more such asinine suicidal legal schemes float out of its nether end.
Excellent summary: This CATO Institute article does a good job of covering the myriad issues involved in LOST - and demonstrating that most of the supposed positives for the treaty are empty or pointless - while the negatives are a future minefield with particular risk to advanced technology nations --- Can we get a "f**kin' Duh" here?
This is a classic fuckup looking for a time and place to happen.
#4
Why all the fuss? The law is invalid as it is overridden by Rule Britannia which declares that the United States Navy inheired the oceans from the Royal Navy in 1943.
#5
Holy crap, this is scary stuff. The UN can't do anything useful as it is; now it wants to police the seas?
What are the odds that American companies are going to turn in their data, be denied contracts, and the sites then given to countries with dictatorships, the kind the UN loves?
Deep-six this thing, and fast.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
03/25/2004 9:00 Comments ||
Top||
#6
FUCK THE u.n. FUCK EVERY GODDAMN ONE OF THE COMMUNIST BASTARDS
#7
There are some legitimate issues like piracy, over-fishing, and pollution that need to be solved in a carefully considered way. Declaring the UN to be the new Neptune, ruler of the deep, is not very carefully considered. Several Sicilian mafia families or Rainbow Push could probably do the job more transparently with less graft than the UN. The mafia might even have a "friend in the business" that could repaint the hulls of whatever of the decommissioned FFG-7 class we have lying around. I understand that they partial to tasteful pin-stripes.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/25/2004 13:33 Comments ||
Top||
DEMOCRACY is, by far, the greatest system of government yet created by human genius. The problem is the elections.
In a routine presidential contest, the thundering emptiness of the rhetoric from both sides does little lasting harm. Our system is robust. Collectively, the American people are remarkably sensible.
But this isnât a normal election year. We are at war. While many domestic issues deserve debate, the War on Terror demands unity of purpose from both parties. It is essential that our enemies understand that weâre united in fighting terrorism.
Thatâs not the message weâre sending.
While this weekâs "9/11 hearings" on Capitol Hill are useful to a degree, theyâre poorly timed. Both parties hope for political gain, while our paramount goal should be protecting our country.
The worst election-year sin is the focus on past errors, real or purported, and the lust to assign blame. Whatâs done is done. We need to concentrate - hard - on the future.
Unfortunately, serious thinking about the threat is on hold until November. We need the best that both parties have to offer. Instead, we get the worst. Winning elections trumps defending our citizens.
We shall hear no end of claims from both sides that the other party is leading - or would lead - America to disaster. But the terrorist threat will force similar responses from whichever party occupies the White House. Any administration would rapidly (if perhaps painfully) learn the need to fight relentlessly, remorselessly and globally against our terrorist enemies. The War on Terror is not a matter of choice.
Danger will dictate our actions. The future wonât conform to the wishful thinking of either the Left or Right. Our tragedy is that, until November, our energies will be devoted to exhuming political corpses, rather than protecting American lives. Both sides will lie. America will suffer.
Consider a few implacable - if unpalatable - truths:
* There is nothing we can do to satisfy religion-inspired terrorists. If we do not kill them, they will kill us.
* The War on Terror cannot be won decisively and will endure beyond our lifetimes. You can no more eliminate terror than you can wipe out crime or drug abuse. But - as with drug abuse and crime - you canât just ignore it, either. The goal is to reduce terrorism to a bearable level. The lack of a final victory doesnât mean the effort is useless or a failure.
* We must think, plan and act in terms of decades, not months. Even as we fight todayâs battles, we must think about challenges a generation ahead.
* This is a war, not law enforcement. The struggle requires every tool in our national arsenal, from commandos to cops, from diplomacy to technology, from economic sanctions to preemptive war. At different times, in different locations, the instruments of choice will vary. There is no magic solution - or even a set of rules.
* The best defense is a strong offense. We cannot wait at home for terrorists to strike. We must not waver from the current policy of taking the war to our enemies. The moment we falter, our enemies will bring the war back to us.
* Nothing will make us invulnerable. Our goal is to reduce our vulnerability to the lowest practical level - while balancing wisely between security and freedom.
* A terrorist attack on the United States is not a victory for either of our political parties or for any school of thought. Itâs a defeat for all of us. When the next attack occurs - as one eventually will - we must blame our enemies, not each other.
* Allies are valuable, but they are not indispensable. In the end, we must always do what is necessary, whether or not it is popular abroad.
* The Islamic worldâs problems are not our fault, and we are not to blame for terrorism. We cannot force other cultures to be successful, nor can we avoid their jealousy.
* There is only one measure of success that matters in the end: Can terrorists harm the United States and its citizens? While some future strikes are inevitable, the inability of terrorists to strike our homeland since 9/11 is indisputable proof that, however imperfect, our approach to the War on Terror has been working.
* Our will must always be stronger than that of our enemies. Otherwise, theyâll win, despite our countless advantages. If we cannot maintain the courage for the fight, the terrorists will fill the courage vacuum. The War on Terror is a zero-sum game.
The hearings in Washington are history lessons, at best. But America is about the future - about turning our backs on the past and avoiding the old worldâs obsession with ancient injuries. Instead of savaging one another over what we failed to do yesterday, we must ask what we can do better today and tomorrow.
Election-year recriminations over the tragic events of our time serve no one but political hacks and the terrorists themselves. The message our bickering sends to al Qaeda and its sympathizers is that Americans are divided and can be defeated.
The terrorists are drawing the - incorrect - lesson that a Democratic victory this November would allow them to regain the global initiative. Although every new administration inevitably makes some mistakes, a Kerry presidency would have to face up to the need to combat terrorism as vigorously as the Bush administration has done. The man in the Oval Office doesnât get a choice on this one.
But the terrorists read things otherwise, thanks to our public venom. Theyâll attempt to strike here, as they did in Spain, to influence our elections. If they succeed, both of our political parties, with their craven bickering, will be guilty of inciting our enemies.
We Americans may disagree about many issues, but we cannot afford disunity in the face of fanatical killers. Nor are we remotely as divided as our enemies are led to believe. The problem is the politicians, not the people.
Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
Posted by: tipper ||
03/25/2004 10:07:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Good points, and reason to get worried this coming November. I only hope that he's right about Kerry, even if (God forbid) he's elected, being unable to choose to cower in the corner if we're attacked.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
03/25/2004 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Right up to the point where he indicates Skeery:
"...a Kerry presidency would have to face up to the need to combat terrorism as vigorously as the Bush administration has done. The man in the Oval Office doesnât get a choice on this one."
I thought he was a stand-up non-idiotarian guy. He blows it with that pair of statements, however.
Skeery has already indicated, without any wiggle room for Peters' assertions to be remotely true, that he would water-down our efforts dramatically with his mulilateralist crawling and fawning for forgiveness -- when Bush has it dead-right and *they* have it dead-wrong.
I agree in principal with his close, but he said it earlier: we're at war and the lethality of weapons today makes everything different. Failure to treat this with deadly concern will be an opening and opportunity for counting corpses again - and the numbers could be much higher. Even if the corpse count is low - one is too many. Even if the corpse count is zero - it could be an area deprivation attack, such as a dirty bomb, say at the Long Beach docks or other vital economic point. The economic devastation is also entirely unacceptable if at all preventable.
No, we can not afford a Skeery learning curve. Send his sorry ass back to Mass - and I hope they find a way to can him and remove this shit-for-brains looney liar 'tard from the public stage permanently.
Doc, essentially I'm with you - with big-time emphasis on the "God forbid" sentiment!
Hundreds of Palestinians have gathered to see a lamb born with what looks like "Allah" spelled out in Arabic on its coat. Are you sure it doesnât say Iâm not a substitute for a human female?
Onlookers in the West Bank town of Hebron said the real significance was the fact the animal was born on Monday -- the day Israel killed Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin. And what a great day that was, one less murderous scumbag in the world!
"This is clear evidence of Godâs existence," the lambâs owner Yahya Atrash told Reuters Television. "It was born with the words âAllahâ on one side and âMohammedâ on the other." Maybe better proof of the existance of God is Humpty Yassinâs brains on the sidewalk.
Palestinians said the Arabic letters of the name of God could be made out on the lambâs left flank, but it was harder to see the name of the prophet Mohammed. We need to see if the sheep tells them to send 14 year old children to do what the Paleo men are afraid to.
Posted by: JerseyMike ||
03/25/2004 9:02:15 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11134 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lamb .... yummm.
Posted by: Homer Simpson ||
03/25/2004 9:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Son of Bambi
And a Holy Man will come forward and say, "I understand the lamb. The lamb will speak through me. Its is saying 'Kill Jooos!' It is saying 'Pay more zakat - to this nice man standing beside me!' It is saying 'Allah handled me a little roughly last night... I liked it. A LOT.' It is saying..."
I wonder since this a holy lamb if it becomes the 3,021st most holy site of islam? Also, does having "allah" written on your side get you exempted from taking it in the ass? If so, 13 yr old boys all over the ME should invest in earl sheim.
#10
Jarhead:
Just think of it! A mobile holy site! The possibilities are endless!
Posted by: The Doctor ||
03/25/2004 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#11
.com> as soon as that fucker dumps there will be dozens of paleos jumping all in it, I can see it now - "lalalalala, I am covered in allah's feces, I am holy now, time to go kill jooooos."
Dr.> a real mobile holy site. Perfect for islam, kind of like a book-mobile where the only book available is the koran.
Although, I once laid a dump that looked peculiarly like Elvis - sadly, it failed to impress any of my buddies.
#14
There is a large fake miracle industry in Islam with literally thousands of web sites proclaiming things like this as proof of Islam or proof of Allah or the like. For a humorous look at some of these see:
#15
The real miracle is spray paint, but that would give away the secret, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/25/2004 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#16
I wonder what Allah has to say at his Blog today about this?
Personally I think if Allah were really annoyed about the death of Yassin, he could come up with something a bit better than a brown blob on the side of a sheep.
Something like striking down the Zionist state with a huge bolt of lightning?
Allah, have you struck yet? No?
Ok, well a spraypainted lamb is as good as it gets then.
Did anybody think maybe the lamb was a sign that Allah approved of the removal of Yassin?
At least 11 people, including a forest officer were shot dead by the timber mafia in district Buner in NWFP, a news channel reported on Wednesday. The forest officer was trying to stop the killers from cutting the forest illegally. Police was rushed to the scene and a case has been registered.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
03/25/2004 4:36:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
shot dead by the timber mafia
I'm gonna have to keep a closer eye on Vinnie the Spruce.
EFL- No it isnât not Scrappleface. Could Oregon wackiness possibly be the result of contamination leeching across the states Southern border?
Confused by the twists and turns of the US gay marriage issue, Oregonâs Benton County has decided to err on the side of caution and ban all weddings.
"We are, like, soooo confused!"
Until the state decides who can and cannot wed, officials in the county have said no-one can marry - even heterosexual couples.
"Dats right! Everybody just shack up! You, too, Grandmaw!"
They hit upon the plan to ensure that none of the countyâs 79,000 residents are subject to unfair treatment.
"Yeah. We decided to make sure that nobody gets treated unfairly by treating everybody unfairly. That makes sense, don't it?"
The last Benton County marriage licences were issued on Tuesday and, from now on, any locals wanting to get hitched will have to go elsewhere. The decision has found favour with pro-gay marriage activists who argue that at least it sends a clear message that everyone is entitled to equal rights: "It is certainly a different way for county commissioners to respect their constitutional obligation to apply the law equally to everyone," said Rebekah Kassell, a spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon. "We appreciate that they are willing to say they are not going to participate in discrimination."
"And we're happy to cheese off the other approximately 95 percent of the population, 'cuz we don't give a spit about them..."
But anti-gay marriage campaigners are not impressed: "We are happy Benton County is not going to violate the law by issuing illegal marriage licenses, but we are perplexed as to why they would not issue legal licenses," said Tim Nashif, spokesman for the Defense of Marriage Coalition.
"It don't make no sense, but what the hell? They're liberals. They seldom make any sense."
"Oregon not only has the only county in the nation issuing illegal (same-sex) marriage licenses, we probably have the only county in the nation refusing to issue marriage licenses at all." Too bad they will probably still allow county citizens to procreate. They need to test the water supply.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/25/2004 1:06:55 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11135 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh, man... I'm an Oregonian! :| I've got one of those PUR water cleaner things on my faucet, so I should be safe.
Actually, I think someone somewhere (maybe on the National Review Corner, but maybe just someone out in the blogosphere) suggested that if Massachusetts wanted to avoid having same-sex marriages go forth while they jumped the hurdles of a constitutional amendment, their congress could do exactly what Benton County did here. Of course, in that case, homosexualists would probably be angry, while here they seem marginally okay with it.
And yes, I blame California, but that says nothing; most Oregonians blame California for pretty much anything.
It's not fair, anyway: how come a single guy like me can't get a marriage license? I wanna be in a one-person marriage! MY CIVIL RIGHTS BLARGHA FARGLE THPPTT!
Posted by: Just John ||
03/25/2004 1:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yikes!
Remember those 80s-vintage bumper stickers that asked, "Is it weird enough for you yet?"
If I find someone with one of those, I am tempted to grab him by the lapels (if he has any) shake him and yell, "YES! IT'S ENTIRELY FUCKING WEIRD ENOUGH FOR ME NOW!"
So they try to avoid upsetting some by . . . upsetting everybody? Not denying some people rights by denying them to everybody?
I may not be a fan of gay marriage, but this is ridiculous, and I'm not sure that avoiding the confrontation like this is a strategy bound to work in the long run. There just seems something wrong about two people of the same gender getting "married" . . . but are we so PC that we can't say that? Where do some of you guys stand on this?
Posted by: The Doctor ||
03/25/2004 8:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Doctor, I got an uncle whose gay; he's actually very cool about talking about all the issues from "don't ask, don't tell" to gay marriage. (He doesn't get offended at all like a lot of these losers.) It's actually pretty interesting to see the redneck knuckle draggin' Marine (me) and him discuss this shit. Anyways, I feel that gay marriage is a b.s. term - marriage is defined as man and woman in the dictionary. If the states want to give some civil union thing to them at the state level, fine by me. I think it's a state issue and if one state decides to do civil union, the other states do not have to recognize it if they don't want. I would also support an amendment that as far as the gov't is concerned, true marriage is one man and one woman. Gets rid of the rest of the stupid polygamy loopholes of all varieties. Also, I'm all for "don't ask, don't tell", the military is not some F*'n social experiment - do your job, go home. Enough said.
#5
Jarhead, I'm with you on this one. I may not approve of homosexuality, but as long as you don't bring it up, that's fine with me. I don't want to know, because I don't care. If it's a fact of life, that's one thing. I've got a girlfriend, and I'm happy. If someone else has a boyfriend, that's fine, too, and I can deal with that, but not when they push it in my face and demand that I accept it as a relationship as normal as the one my girlfriend and I have. I realize I may sound more prejudiced than I am, but the constant protests get on my nerves. I feel that if they didn't bring it up, it wouldn't be a problem, and nobody's rights would be violated, you know? Then, I suppose, the whole right-to-marriage issue comes in . . .
I don't have a problem with civil unions, but, like you, I feel that marriage is a special thing, and these people reduce that. Of course, so do easy divorces (in the legal sense, not the emotional; I should know, having seen my parents go through one), so perhaps even the heterosexuals don't think much of it anymore.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
03/25/2004 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I've still not seen anyone explain *how* people reduce the meaning of marriage by wanting to be married.
I can easily understand how *divorces* reduce the meaning of marriage -- they turn what was supposedly eternal into something temporary, they turn "commitment" into "transient agreement".
But I just can't see how same-sex marriage reduce marriage's meaning.
And the words "civil union" sound like PC mumbo jumbo to me -- not wanting to call a spade a spade. Wouldn't a person be considered as a bigamist if he entered two such "civil unions" at the same time, or if he entered into a marriage with a person and a "civil union" with another person?
As for not recognizing *any* marriages, that's what a libertarian friend of mine had suggested as solution to the problem of same-sex marriages.
#7
As I said the problem is that marrriage is a social issue. Freedom of sexuality is one thing, asking society to ENDORSE and FUND a form of sexuality who is not beneficial for it is another thing. I have already spoken about the problem of gay marriage from the financial viewpoint.
There is another problem with it: it treats the form of sexuality who is not beneficial for society the same way that the one who produces an output (children) who is deemed to be desirable for society. Example: if all forms of sexuality are equal then we should allow all forms of sexuality being proselitized between children. Let's imagine that the effect of this is that 15% of those children become gays instead of 10% if we hadn't allowed proselitizing. The effect will be a drop in the bith rate. And that means Aris that the Welfare will have no money when you retire. In countries where you have the equivalent of 401k, people could have money but what we will be lacking will be non-retirees to provide goods or even something as mundane like medics, firemen, plumbers so it will be nearly as bad.
As I said letting people live freely is one thing, recognition by the society of gay sexuality is another one.
#8
Doctor> agreed; what two consenting adults do behind closed doors makes no difference to me. I don't want to know nor care.
Aris> marriage is man/woman as defined by the dictionary. Don't waste your time trying to change a word. It's like trying to say the color white is now the color green.
There is no fruitfulness from a gay marriage, i.e. they cannot biologically produce children together without a third party. My wife & I can or at least have the ability to. This is part of the reason many here don't view their relationships as being worthy of called 'marriage'. (I know you're going to grab this sentence, argue it w/a question back to me, don't bother - won't change my mind on this one.) That's not to say imo a gay couple love's each other any less then my wife and I. It's apples and oranges. We can produce they can't.
Civil union is a better term whether you agree or not - it affords them equal legal rights under the state. Taxes, inheritance, care, etc.
"Wouldn't a person be considered as a bigamist if he entered two such "civil unions" at the same time, or if he entered into a marriage with a person and a "civil union" with another person?"
>Yes, a person would probably be considered a bigamist if they entered two civil unions or a combo of either. The states would probably provide for this loophole in its legislation which, re-strengthen's my argument that an ammendment defining marriage as one man/one woman should be enacted.
On your last point, I'm not for certain, but I don't believe there is any legal right to marriage at least in the U.S. for any citizen. I don't think the constitution says that the gov't has to marry you.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
03/25/2004 11:08 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Jarhead> The dictionary doesn't define words, it describes usage. As such you can use a dictionary for linguistic arguments, but not for political ones.
And usage is changing so that nowadays marriage doesn't mean *only* what you describe: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=marriage
But since we've entered the linguistic game, do you know that the word "bigamist" comes from greek "gamos" which means marriage? By the very fact of calling bigamist someone who enters two civil unions, you are recognizing his "union" to be a marriage.
As for the words "civil union" themselves, I find them annoying also because I can't translate them adequately into Greek. There exist "civil organization" and there exist "political unions", but you bring the two words altogether and they end up meaning "marriage" instead. since politics comes "politis", meaning citizen or civilian.
So the way I would translate into Greek "civil union" may be the way I would translate "political union" aka "political organization".
---
JFM> You and Jarhead seem to me to be arguing from two contrasting point of views. JFM, you seem to me to be denying the word "marriage" because you don't want to help gay people have the same rights, because this would seem as "endorsing" and "proselytizing" to you. Am I correct in assuming you also oppose "civil unions"?
Jarhead on the other, is willing to afford through "civil union" equal rights to what I will still choose to call "married" folk. In that case the state still "endorses" homosexual unions, and still treats them as if they were marriages, and therefore there's no actual reason on behalf of the state *not* to call them marriages -- except ofcourse that they are afraid of offending.
Either way, we differ on what we consider "beneficient" for society and what we don't. I find the benefits of marriage to society to be the sum of the benefits going to each individual family -- you think them solely connected with childbearing and some kind of population growth which interests me little to nothing to less than nothing, because I think it treats people as little more than breeding machines.
There's no point in considering these points further because they are wholly incompatible views.
#11
Bunch of "civil servants" in Oregon need to be fired. They have only one purpose - to serve the public. They've decided NOT to do that. Doesn't matter WHY, they've decided NOT to perform their sworn duty. Fire their butts, blacklist them from further government service EVER, and show them the door.
Marriage is a social institution that predates history by several thousands of years. Its primary purpose was to establish a means of ensuring the continuity of the society in an orderly manner - recognized parenthood, inheritance, protection against inter-breeding, and many, many other forms. It also provided the most nurturing environment for the young, enabling them the best opportunity for success in society. It still does. It requires special recognition, because it does provide such tremendous results.My grandparents never divorced, my parents never divorced, my wife's parents never divorced, and we've been married 38 years. Our children see a loving, nurturing, team approach to life's problems, and understand that's the historical norm, because that's what's proved to be successful over the long run. Whether that's possible in a "gay" or "lesbian" relationship is immaterial - there's no TRACK RECORD of such success, and the odds are against it. If you want to play Russian roulette with your future, that's one thing. To play Russian roulette with the future of the entire society of our planet is something else again, and that's exactly what the "PC" social experimenters are doing.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/25/2004 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
How would *your* marriage, Old Patriot, be threatened by gay people marrying? And if your marriage isn't threatened by this why do you think that other marriages would be threatened? And therefore how would "the entire society of our planet" as a large be threatened?
That's the definition of conservatism, thinking that change is by itself threatening because it is new and untried. But not everyone is a conservative, and you can't convince non-conservatives on an issue by just telling them "This is new! Arrgh!".
Because my attitude is more like "This is new? No reason not to allow it then (since marriage is always voluntary) and see if it works."
If that's "social experimenting" so be it, but gay marriages aren't actually being *imposed* on anyone. Giving them legal recognition (whether calling them "civil unions" or "marriages) is the state keeping up with society, not attempting to change it.
#13
Giving them legal recognition (whether calling them "civil unions" or "marriages) is the state keeping up with society, not attempting to change it.
Except that society doesn't want to grant them that legal recognition (at this time, at least); only a small group of activists and thugs want to do that. That's why the gay marriage supporters went into hysterics over the idea of a Constitutional amendment -- that's a very democratic process, and they know the population probably won't support them.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
03/25/2004 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#14
RC> you're right in that polls show more then 80% of Americans don't want gay marriage to be legal. However, the info gets conflicting when it comes to what percentage of that would actually support an ammendment to the U.S. Constitution stating that the term "marriage" is defined as only between one man/one woman. When it comes to ammending the constitution people are leary of it, and probably w/good reason.
I, personally, have never felt threatened by the gays wanting to have legal recognition for my above stated reasons. However, I don't think they're going to find the social recognition (if that's what they're looking for) from most of our society. They're currently trying to make their struggle a kin to the civil rights movement of the '60s which infuriates a lot of blacks. They've also made this argument w/regards to military service. I don't think their comparison is valid either, especially in regards to the military - being born black isn't a behavior, homosexuality is.
#15
Aris, IMO marriage between Catholics occurs in the church before God. The government issued piece of paper is of no actual import. A county governemnt of Oregon can issue a piece of paper to the Afghan gentleman, from the other day, who developped a common-law relationship with his donkey. I intend to continue to choose in a state that refuses to pay the donkey a tax refund based on Earned Income Credit unless the donkeys wages are accurately calculated to include room, board, grooming services, waste removal and oats.
Now, if you haven't yet tossed your moniotor out your window in anger, let me explain. My illustration is not intended to equate gay marriage with donkey sex. Nor is it intended to imply that donkey marriage is the logical result of granting gay marriage.
My view is that people in America have become overly concerned with legitimacy granted by the government. I don't look to the governemnt to validate my lifestyle. I am quite happy when government confines it's intrusion into my life to the extent necessary to shake me down for cash to fund the military and trash collection ect..
Somewhere the American bus has driven into the ditch of socialism where the governemtn has become like the sun in our daily lives. I can't imagine Thomas Jefferson, living in peace on Monticello was intruded upon by local, state or National government.
I would elliminate the countroversy by implementing a flat tax on the national level and withdrawing the US government from local social issues. Different localities would then be able to handle social issues as they see fit and thereby attracting citizens of like mind to areas residential areas that suit them.
We will probably not be able to implement my plan anytime soon. Unfortunately, our Constitution has become prostituted interpreted and interpolated when Amendments should have been drafted and enacted. I think that our founding fathers failed to anticipate that legislators would morf into spineless constituent pleasers who depend mostly on Blue Ribbon Commissions to perform all difficult and controversial responsibilities delegated to them by my forefathers.
The Judiciary and Executive branches of our government have usurped power that whould be weilded by Congress out of necessity because legislators have made CYA a top priority.
This ongoing interpretation has resulted in governemtn waste and total silliness on a grand scale illustrated by this controversy.
Marriage is not a word that government should have ever usurped by the government from churches. Once the Supreme court decided that it was necessary to "interpret" the Constitution to create the seperation of Church and Staate in the 1940's, the governemtn should have immediately should have ceased issuing liscences of marriage and instead began issuing Certificates of Civil Union to whomever qualified by local statute.
Granting Civil Unions to only heterosexuals would have then been upheld or rejected properly by the Supreme Court (if the Supreme Court was annointed as the final arbitrator of Constitutionality by ammending the Constitution) under Equal Protection. The losing side or both sides sought to elliminate ambiguity by ammendding the Constitution or by holding a Constitutional Convention - whcih would have been hard as well but proper and also have made for very interesting Reality TV - in my highly warped opinion.
To summarize my raving (should have posted this on Raveberg?) I opine that Having the governemtn grant "marriage" is akinn to allowing Pepsicorp to rebottle carmel colored urine in Coke bottles and sell it to undercut the Coke tradename. Although not inteded by the forfathers our governemtn has deevolved into a godless mess and should avoid using godly words like marriage. With repsect to gays themselves, like Jarhead, I know and have known many gay people that I respect. Hopefully, gay sex will not become manditory in at least one state, prefeably NH, where I can retire.
Signed
Super Hose - Live Free or Die, Offender of all with this post post. I fully expect to be Borissed and attain my first vaunted "ass-hole" flag.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/25/2004 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#16
SH - well said. Another good thread lads, much thanks.
SH, I like your post, but I have to disagree, as an atheist the church does not exactly like me, without a judge to marry me to my wife-to-be I canât get married. So to me the governmentâs involvement in the issue is important to me.
---
marriage was originally about ownership; letting all the other males know that THIS woman was yours and they canât have her unless you say they can.
Of course it did not stay that way, it became an institution for raising a family, the exact source of that revolution is debatable, though I donât find claims that it was the church that made the cultural change occur as being very plausible. (A factor maybe, but not the deciding one)
but what is marriage today? you can hardly call it an institution for raising children, broken families are a plenty, I cant name a single person I knew growing up who didnât have a broken family of some kind, a ratio of 3:7 were abused ( of the ones I knew well, can not comment for ones I did not get close to), and not to mention the single parent families.
so I really can not consider marriage as being an institution for the proper rearing of children, it does not make sense in our culture, or atleast not in the one I grew up here in Pennsylvania; it may be what our ancestors defined it as, but it's not how we seem to use it ( in general, I'm sure there are exceptions)
----
In the past I've asked folks I know to define what marriage is to them, none really had a precise answer (unexpected question I suppose) buh the general theme most came up with was commitment. Which I feel defines the modern approach to marriage nicely. A formal, or if you prefer symbolic, way of saying "I am yours and you are mine, we two are one".
and I think this is where much of the disagreement comes from, you have folks, mostly older, who still define marriage as being an important part of the family unit: A mommy, a daddy, 2.5 kids, and a 2 car garage. And you have folks who define it as a symbolic commitment, a symbol of love.
so with the family unit folks, gay marriage is a bad thing because you canât have two daddies or two mommies, that's a perversion of the family unit
and with the other group there is no call of alarm for gay marriage, if two guys/gals want to commit to their love then good for them, no worries there
's hard for the two sides to see eye to eye as their base definitions are different
---
that 80% figure I find hard to give cred to, statistics are so easy to play with them, any argument that uses them is suspect. (look up denbeste's discussion of the subject, it's well done)
But I wont argue that most 'older' (define however you like) folks are against gay marriage.
but if you look at the younger generations, gay/bi/les/straight it's all good, hardly matters. So I kinda feel this entire subject is a moot subject, the way relationships and marriage are viewed is changing and gay marriage is going to happen, no doubt something along the lines of a civil union that is the legal equivalent of a marriage.
Really the best conservatives can hope for is to delay it as long as they can, which I'm sure they will
my big question though is how can you justify marriage in the terms of 'the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman' where is the sanctity? if you disagree with my definition of it as a family unit then what do you see it as that some how makes it so good that gay folks are not good enough to be apart of it? I am looking to increase my understanding of the issue from the eyes of 'gay-marriage = bad' folks so corrections or just a different take on what exactly makes man/woman more special than man/man or woman/woman or tranny/tranny is much appreciated
#18
"Experimentation" takes place at the beginning. Marriage is a long-standing traditional institution. If gay marriage was a great and wonderful thing, it would've been invented and promoted long before now and survived to the present. It didn't. That's the result of "social experimentation": it kept one sort of marriage that benefited society and ignored the others.
As far as the annoying "how-does-gay-marriage-affect-your-marriage" question goes, I'd point out that when abortion was being rushed through the courts to be enforced on the country, people claimed that there wasn't going to be any dramatic affect at all. "How would abortion affect your life choices?" Well, it didn't for that generation which lived without Roe v. Wade, but it certainly changed the generation that grew up with it. I'm going to personally be okay because I'll have memories of a better time. My kids will grow up with no distinctions made between, to be blunt, real marriage and pretend marriage.
And on top of all that, it's not like the country is coming together to debate this. There was no debate. Less than ten Oregonians went into a back room, then came out and told the entire state: "We just changed an entire long-standing institution without being asked! And if you want to change it back, you'll have to jump through a hundred hoops! BWA HA HA! ...Hey! Now the constitution says, right here in the adumbration of the penumbra, that you must dance for us! DANCE, PUNY OREGONIAN! MWA HA HA HA!"
...I am not a happy camper, in case you haven't noticed.
Posted by: Just John ||
03/25/2004 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#19
if you know histry youd know first gay marry in roman time. nero had a wife who was man that he have castrate. i dont think it go very well but i read that nero had fun. i dont know if any more roman have gay weding but i wouldnt count against it. i dont think it help there society as they couldnt fight off barabian hord.
#20
JustJohn,
(sarcasm)
you are EXACTLY right! we should take away woman rights too! they didnât have that in the beginning! Letâs bring back slavery! YAR! WE BE OLD SCHOOL!
(/sarcasm)
as for the question, I never asked that, and you didnât even answer it. soo.. that was weirdâ¦
as for abortion, the big thing with abortion is it's gunna (and did) happen if it's legal or not. What you have to ask yourself is if you prefer 16 year girls have someone shove a coat hanger in them or having an actual doctor do it in a safe manner ?
as for your Oregon comment, I agree, their action was not the wisest
#21
I manely agree with Mr. Jarhead even though he is a known Irishter.
But I am also sympathetic with Aris points. And BTW is it me or is Connie Hines just hot?
Posted by: Mr Ed ||
03/25/2004 17:49 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Aris, Jarhead, Dcreeper, and Just John, I am surprised that you could understand what I was trying to write as I have now realized that I accidentally pasted my uncorrected draft. My apologies.
The post was originally attended as a humor piece foe a few yucks about how the gay marriage issue has turned around in a bizarre way. (BTW Fred's comment about Grandma being forced to "shack-up" is priceless.)
As the underlying issue has come up for discussion, let me try to briefly try describe the point of view that I have arrived at somewhere between comment #1 and #2. My wife and enjoy a relationship that involves intimacy caring and love on a level that has become like a warm fireplace to me. We have enjoyed introducing three children in the midst of that warmth. We consider God to be a necessary element of our family. Some others don't include God in their family, which is certainly their choice.
Our relationship is validated within our family and should grow warmer as years go on regardless of what goes on about us. I have seen similar marriage relationships that did not include children but usually include sharing the warmth with others but not the intimacy. I have seen non-married same gender family members (siblings or parents and chilren) enjoy the same warmth and intimacy without sharing the sexual part of marriage.
I have no idea whether same gender couples in a sexual relationship can enjoy this type of love, intimacy and warmth. If they can, more power to them. Anybody in that type of relationship ought to be very thankful and doesn't need approval from a flawed outside body. A marriage license is necessary for taxes and benefits, but these things pale in comparison to the relationship itself. (sorry that wasnât so brief.)
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/25/2004 23:59 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Just John, My Pro-Life argument is unconventional also. It doesn't really address the Doctor/Woman relationship. It is really aimed more at the Abortion Cheerleaders. It goes like this:
1. My wife and I have suffered through two very painful miscarriages interspersed through the birth of our three children.
2. Once this happened to us many other people opened up and shared with us their descriptions of their own equally painful and sometimes much more painful miscarriages. Stillbirth is such an incredible tragedy that I am both sorrowful for those who have to deal with that catastrophe in their lives and thankful that my wife and I were spared that awful experience.
3. I am horrified by the cruelty of those who could encourage and assist others to voluntarily create a miscarriage for other than extreme circumstances.
It kind of avoids the whole legal/illegal - she going to get it anyway argument and points to the fact that each abortion decision is about one woman, her baby and the rest of their lives. I'm not one for relying on rhetoric.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/26/2004 3:27 Comments ||
Top||
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - With fewer than 100 days until power is handed over to Iraqis, the top U.S. administrator said Wednesday he was establishing several Western-style institutions that are expected to put a moderating influence on the fledgling government that takes over June 30. Top administrator L. Paul Bremer said significant steps had been taken to rebuild the country since the U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein a year ago. "One hundred days from now, Iraqis will be sovereign in their own land and responsible for their own future," Bremer said in an outdoor speech in the Green Zone, the heavily protected area housing coalition headquarters in central Baghdad.
Bremer said he would set up an Iraqi Defense Ministry and a national security Cabinet later this week. He said he was in the midst of appointing inspectors general to each of Iraq's 25 government ministries, while also creating a government auditing board and an anti-corruption commission. Bremer said work was under way to establish a public broadcasting service and an independent panel to regulate it.
Ack! Not PBS!
Bremer has already appointed most Iraqi ministers, many of whom are expected to keep their jobs after the handover. He is sorting through the ministers' choices for deputies.
U.S. and Iraqi officials expect Iraqi guerrillas and foreign fighters to step up attacks in coming weeks, to try to disrupt the handover process and demonstrate that a fledgling government cannot control Iraq. "The security issue cannot be overemphasized," said Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, a Shiite Muslim member of the Governing Council. He said newly trained Iraqi police would do their best to stabilize Iraq alongside 110,000 U.S. troops.
Enormous tasks remain. The biggest involves anointing an Iraqi transitional government that will take power June 30 - but the Governing Council and U.S.-led occupation figures have yet to agree upon a plan to name those who will govern. "We're moving at rocket speed," al-Rubaie said. "The counting down has started."
Al-Rubaie said a U.N. team would arrive Thursday to look at technical issues surrounding the transfer of sovereignty. A second U.N. delegation, headed by top negotiator Lakhdar Brahimi, is expected in about 10 days, al-Rubaie said.
Just in time to watch Bremer finish appointing all the ministers.
Bremer, who often says he was tapped to run Iraq on two weeks' notice last spring, is clearly glad to be handing off his responsibilities. "It will be a happy moment for all Iraqis - and an even happier moment for my family," Bremer told a few dozen Iraqi dignitaries, seated in the shade of rustling date palms.
Bremer cited the signing of an interim constitution as a key step toward the June 30 handover of power from the coalition to Iraqis. He acknowledged some Iraqi leaders were not fully satisfied, but praised members of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council for making compromises on a document that he said enshrines religious freedom and other basic rights. "Iraq is now on the path to full democracy in a united state at peace with its neighbors," he said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/25/2004 12:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
