Saturday, August 31, 2002
World Summit on Sustainable Development ........... continued
Awwwwwww, isn't that so sweet!
We have the assholes inside the convention fighting to steal my money, and we have the assholes outside the convention fighting for Marxism.
Power hungry globalist on one hand vs power hungry communists on the other.
Doesn't it just warm your soul!
Friday, August 30, 2002
World Summit on Sustainable Development
As some of you may know, the World Summit on Sustainable Development is now going in Johannesburg South Africa. Aside from feasting on caviar, lobster, and $300 a bottle French wine while thousands go to bed hungry just a few miles away, the attendees to this conference are tackling the issues of sustainable development.
The speakers have all been saying that we must ‘revolutionize the way we treat the environment’ otherwise mankind is doomed if we stay on the path we are heading down.
History repeats itself again……..
The Roman writer Tertullian warned in 200 A.D. that "we men have actually become a burden to the earth" and that "the fruits of nature hardly suffice to support us."
In 1798 the Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population, in which he claimed that population growth would always outstrip food supplies, inevitably resulting in famine, pestilence, and war.
Biologist Paul Ehrlich notoriously updated Malthus’ gloomy predictions in his 1968 book The Population Bomb, which predicted that hundreds of millions of people would die of famine in the 1970s.
Well, are the alarmists right this time around? Is the end finally here? Fortunately, No.
But, OK, I’ll bite, what are their solutions to these ‘problems’.
The five key areas that world leaders much address, according to keynote speaker UN Secretary General Kofi Annan are as follows:
Provide access to at least one billion people who lack clean drinking water and two billion people who lack proper sanitation.
Provide access to more than two billion people who lack modern energy services; promote renewable energy; reduce overconsumption; and ratify the Kyoto Protocol to address climate change.
Address the effects of toxic and hazardous materials; reduce air pollution, which kills three million people each year, and lower the incidence of malaria and African guinea worm, which are linked with polluted water and poor sanitation.
: Work to reverse land degradation, which affects about two-thirds of the world's agricultural lands.
Biodiversity and ecosystem management:
Reverse the processes that have destroyed about half of the world's tropical rainforest and mangroves, and are threatening 70 percent of the world's coral reefs and decimating the world's fisheries.
These do seem like reasonable areas to concentrate on, but how are we supposed to tackle them?
Regulation, of course.
Through the use of treaties [like the Kyoto Accord], debt relief, and massive quantities of foreign aid we will be able to conquer the Third World’s looming economic crisis. But is this necessarily true?
Will giving money away and managing the rate of economic development make the global environment better?
How is it that North America, Europe, Australia and Japan can be both wealthy and have relatively clean environments? The thrust of this convention is show that economic growth, unless highly controlled, destroys the environment, but the facts simply do not play this out. The key misunderstanding amongst the greens is that economic development destroys the environment.
Fact is, it does exactly the opposite.
How do modern industrialized nations provide access to clean water for its citizenry? Did we receive a grant from the World Bank to build water treatment facilities and resiviours? How is it that our air and water are consistently becoming cleaner. Is it because we have undertaken massive energy and transportation austerity measures? Why are there more fully wooded and undisturbed nature areas in the first world than there have been for many years?
The answer to these questions is our dynamic economies. We provide such an abundance of goods, services, ideas and capitol, that we can afford to tackle these issues. We can afford highly efficient, high yield farms. We can afford pollution controls on power plants and factories. We can afford to set aside tens of millions of acres for wildlife conservation.
People burn down the Amazon and plant crops becasue they are hungry and poor. Africans poach endangered species because they are hungry and poor. Fishermen in the Philippines dynamite coral reefs because they are poor and hungry. A lofty goal biodiversity does not mean too much if your whole life revolves around avoiding starvation.
Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University, believes the 21st century will see the beginning of a "Great Restoration" as humanity’s productive activities increasingly withdraw from the natural world. Ausubel and his colleagues calculate, If the world farmer reaches the average yield of today’s US corn grower during the next 70 years, ten billion people eating as people now on average do will need only half of today’s cropland. The land spared exceeds Amazonia." If 10 billion people choose meat-rich diets in 2070, then farmers will need only 75 percent of today’s cropland. In other words, through technologically improved farming, millions of acres will revert to nature.
The idea is for Third World nations to increase their industrial capacity, not restrict it. All the free money in the world is only a temporary solution; doing for the poor what the poor should be doing for themselves.
I know the counter to this argument: Imperialism and the ‘legacy of colonialism’ [whatever the fuck that is] driven by racism, the need to exploit poor people, and the greed of capitalism is responsible for their condition, not anything they have done.
No, the real problem is that such countries have yet to establish and normalize the invisible network of laws that turns assets from "dead" into "liquid" capital. In the West, standardized laws allow us to mortgage a house to raise money for a new venture, permit the worth of a company to be broken up into so many publicly tradable stocks, and make it possible to govern and appraise property with agreed-upon rules that hold across neighborhoods, towns, or regions. This invisible infrastructure of "asset management",so taken for granted in the West, even though it has only fully existed in the United States for the past 100 years, is the missing ingredient to success with capitalism. But even though that link is primarily a legal one, the process of making it a normalized component of a society is more a political, or attitude-changing, challenge than anything else.
Poorer nations have a good deal of wealth and capital, problem is it is all dead and not nearly productive as it could be.
All of mankind’s problems are solved through one avenue: economic development. Population, hunger, disease, ecological destruction, crime, and many others. The sooner the World Summit on Sustainable Development’s attendees address this issue [or in their case, acknowledge its existence], the better.
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
Poor Phil Donahue
Phil Donahue has plunged in total collapse on MSNBC with cable viewers, NIELSEN ratings show.
Donahue has sunk to a basement rating of a .1, according to sources, the lowest possible rating's measure available!
What amazes me most about this is that I thought his ratings would be sky high considering the rousing endorsement
he recieved from the US Communist Party.
A .1 share represents roughly 90,000 viewers.
Considering they are paying Donahue about $2.0 million, and his show probably cost another $4.0 million to produce, that means MSNBC is paying about $50 for every viewer.
Reason 2,062,511 Why Indymedia is a joke
Posted by some asshole named: nazi punks, fuck off!
I think it's a great idea for everyone to take a close look at the 9-11 victims. I've been through much of the list, and it's an eye opener. Although, having said what I did above, about not treating one victim differently than another, I must confess hypocrisy .. because I do indeed see some victims as being very different than others.
some stats ..
2824 victims .. down from an estimated high of wha.. 8000?
76% of the victims were caucasian
658 of them were bond traders at Cantor Fitzgerald
295 of them were employed at Marsh & McLennan insurance
You can look at them individually, or in the statistics... either way you get a very good idea of who the victims were from those links. One thing I have not been able to determine is how many victims were under the age of 20.
Everyone should ask themselves how they feel about this group of people, on an individual level, not as an 'American', or any other damn 'thing'... as a person that has seen a lot of body counts being pumped into their homes via the boob tube, from all over the planet, since they were old enough to be exposed to it.
Ask yourselves what you feel about the physical loss of the WTC buildings themselves. When I think of the towers I do see a loss, but not of capital or any such bullshit, I see the loss of physical manpower invested in the construction, and the resources extracted from the Earth. I don't give a shit about 'office space', and not being a New Yorker, I have no sentimental attachment.
[Of course you dont, after all nothing wrong with striking the center of global capitalism, right.]
I have to say very clearly that I don't give a flying fuck about any rich white American investment banker working above the 50th floor in any fucking building! I won't be shedding any tears for them .. not then, not now, not ever!
Sorry.. went off on a tangent, bottom-line .. I agree with you that a victim is a victim is a victim
[unless they happen to be a white middle / upper class capitalist, did you not just say something about 'a victim being a victim']
... and oh yes, I should have mentioned this earlier, as you said, there are countless numbers of non-citizen workers that have been lost forever, and will never be identified for the reasons you gave. They should be mentioned, absolutely .. they should be included in the memorial, not excluded just because they lacked a piece of paper.
Peace and long life.
Wow, All I can really say is that it is pretty fortunate little assholes like the one above have computers. Because like so many on the 'radical progressive' community, posters "like nazi punks, fuck off!" are all talk, and avoid face to face confrontation unless they feel relatively secure that no 'real' harm will come them. Saying things like this is a really good way for winning a one way ticket to the county morgue.
But after all, what else would I expect from the vast majority of 'Indymedia' posters.
Thanks to Bill Herbert of the the Tool
for the original link.
Sorry I have been away so long. I was snatched out of my house in the middle of the night last week and forced down to Corpus Christy Texas by my employers. Nice town though.
Tuesday, August 20, 2002
The Stock Market
Many have speculated that the fall of the market and the recent fall of the dollar has to do with this or that, but there could beanother more likely reason, a $200bil reason.
It seems that many wealth Saudi Shieks have been divesting
from the US real estate and Eutiy markets since 9/11.
Thursday, August 15, 2002
And By the Way
The Blue Angels are flying right outside my office window right now.
I took a long lunch at Navy Pier and watched them practice.
I am taking a half day and will posting some pictures of the Angel’s practice runs tomorrow.
Sorry, but this was waaayyyy too easy to pass on
Just like that blond at the bar last nite.
Just kidding it’s a swipe at my girlfriend who NEVER READS THE SITE!
Seems as if Steven C. Day is lamenting the decline, or stagnation of liberalism in America
Lets have a look see, shall we?
If liberalism were a football team, the head coach would have been fired years ago.
Oh please, liberals are too god damn sissy to play football, so don’t even go there …. girlfriend.
According to an annual Harris poll, only about 19 percent of Americans consider themselves liberals -- a number that has held remarkably firm for more than 30 years. In the battle for the public heart and mind, liberals are getting nowhere.
I don’t understand. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
The news is worse at the ballot box. Liberal elected officials have become less common than satisfied WorldCom shareholders. Out of 535 members of Congress, only 59 belong to the Progressive Caucus, a whopping 11 percent.
Hmm, the Progressive Caucus, let us have a look at just what noble goals they have. The Progresive Caucus is an extension of the Democratic Socialist of America
Democratic Socialists of America's Progressive Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives
Taken verbatim from the Internet web site of the Democratic Socialists of America
"The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International (also in Francais and Espanol). DSA's members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics...
"We invite you to support the campaign by adding your name to the list of signers of the Pledge for Economic Justice. In conjunction with the Campaign DSA is working with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a network of more than 50 progressive members of the US House of Representatives...
"The Progressive Caucus of the US House of Representatives is made up of 58 members of the House. The Caucus works to advance economic and social justice through sponsoring legislation that reflects its purpose. The Caucus also works with a coalition of organizations, called the Progressive Challenge, to bring new life to the progressive voice in US politics."
Well It should now be plainly obvious why only 11% of Congress is in the Progressive Caucus.
One might reasonably conclude from all this that the American electorate is made up of Margaret Thatcher and Archie Bunker clones. But it isn’t. In fact, according to public opinion surveys, a substantial majority of the public favors the liberal position on a wide variety of issues, from gay rights to protection of the environment.
Environmental protection or the collectivist goals of so many in the green movement (or watermelons as I call them, green on the outside, but Red to the fucking core). I think most Americans are environmentalist in the Barry Goldwater sense of environmentalist: good policy based on good science and preservation of natural wonders for human recreation.
Not the anti-hunting, anti-fishing, everyone rides a bike to work, wea ll need to have the standard of living of Ethiopia, environmental fascism practiced by the left in an attempt to control the levers of power.
I mean hell, who is going to argue with you if you claim that you are doing what you are doing to save the planet?
So why, if the public agrees with liberals on so many specific issues, do they elect so few of them to public office?
Because we DON’T AGREE with you, dipshit.
In an earlier column I suggested that part of the reason may be that by abandoning the word “liberal” and treating the concept of liberalism as a topic to be avoided at all costs, left-of-center politicians have undercut the left’s credibility.
No, what cut your credibility was the support for Castro, and Stalin, and Mao, and Ho Chi Min., and Pol Pot and every other asshole who came to power with the promise of ‘social justice’ and ‘equality’, but instead gave their people death, famine and oppression.
How can you expect to gain credibility if you continually deny what is plain to see, and then lie about it afterwards?
I want to follow up on that point by looking at the extraordinary tidiness that has characterized recent liberal political tactics. The best analogy I can come up with is football’s “prevent defense.” Instead of working to promote a broad progressive agenda, liberals have been spending most of their energy, what there is of it, trying to prevent conservatives from scoring “big plays.”
Hey, what can I say, we are just a lot smarter.
But as so often happens with this strategy in football, conservatives have been scoring touchdowns by moving the ball down the field a few yards at a time. At the same time, the moribund condition of liberal advocacy helped pave the way for the hostile take-over of the Democratic party by the ever-so-moderate and corporate friendly Democratic Leadership Council. This, in turn, has further weakened the liberal cause.
Did you ever think that the US has actually rejected your ideas after flirting with them 40 years ago.
The good news is that people are ready to listen to a new vision of America -- one built on something more than greed. This is a gift to liberals, served on a silver platter with the name Enron embossed on it. Consider it a small consolation for watching your 401K evaporate into the dissipating ozone.
Schadenfreude in all its glory. Mr Day takes much delight in the financial pains of others, because now he and his comrades see an opportunity to capitalize on it. That’s right Mr Day, you wag that finger at us and say ‘I told you so’, and people will assuredly line up by the droves to load into the boxcars to take us to the re-education facilities.
But this hope will never become a reality unless liberals are prepared to fight for it, starting by reclaiming a fair chunk of the Democratic Party from the Democratic Leadership Council and spreading a progressive vision of what’s possible across America. The time for the “prevent defense” is over. It’s time for the offense to take the field.
Face it, ‘progressive’ have no where else to turn. You will always be the mattress backed whores for the Democratic part because you have nowhere to turn.
But please, giggle giggle, by all means, ha ha ha ha, go start a third party.
The sad thing is if Steven Day was an advocate of classical liberalism, I would be all with him. Our founders were classical liberals. They thought that people should be able to work, trade, move about, think, write, speak and live as they saw fit, not in some socially engineered society.
Unfortunately liberalism today means statism (definition below).
Under statism, government is no longer a policeman, but a gang of thugs with the legal power to initiate force in any manner they please against a legally disarmed citizen.
Variants of statism include: socialism, nazism (national socialism), theocracy, [pure] democracy, communism, fascism, tribalism, etc.
In form many of these systems differ, in theory and blood stained practice they all unite upon the same fundamental collectivist ethical principle: man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. Whether those "others" are a dictator's gang, the nation, society, the race, (the) god(s), the majority, the community, the tribe, etc., is irrelevant -- the point is that man in principle must be sacrificed to others.
STRATFOR has a lengthy analysis of the Administration's reasons for invading Iraq.
Very lengthy, but very well done, trust me.
Now unfortuantely you have to be subscriber to STRATFOR to read about 99% of the articles on it, so I just signed up for membership.
From Washington's point of view, the problem of al Qaeda has become the problem of U.S. relations with the Islamic world in general and with al Qaeda in particular. The Bush people also see this as unsolvable. The creation of a Palestinian state simply will be the preface for the next generation of the war. Repudiation of Israel might satisfy some -- while destabilizing Jordan and Egypt -- but it still would not solve the core problem, which is the desire to expel the United States from the region.
That leaves abandoning the region altogether, which is seen as impossible. First, there is oil. Although the development of Russian oil reserves is underway, the fact is that Persian Gulf oil is a foundation of the Western economic system, and abandoning direct and indirect (through client regimes) access to that oil would be unacceptable.
Second, al Qaeda's dream is the creation of an integrated Islamic world in confrontation with the non-Islamic world. This is a distant threat, but were the United States to leave the region, it would not be unthinkable. That itself makes withdrawal unthinkable.
The al Qaeda problem cannot be confined simply to al Qaeda or even to allied groups. It is a problem of a massive movement in the Islamic world that must be contained and controlled. Placating this movement is impossible. The manner in which the movement has evolved makes finding a stable modus vivendi impossible.
What may be possible is reshaping the movement, which would mean changing the psychological structure of the Islamic world. Five events have shaped that psychology:
1. The 1973 oil embargo
2. The survival of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein
3. The defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan
4. The perceived defeat of the United States in Somalia
5. Sept. 11, 2001
Each of these events served to reverse an Islamic sense of impotence. From 1973 until Sept. 11, the Islamic world has been undergoing a dual process. On the one side, there has been a growing sense of the ability of the Islamic and Arab worlds to resist Western power. On the other side, there has been an ongoing sense of victimization, a sense predating the United States by centuries.
The center of gravity of Washington's problem is psychological. There is no certain military or covert means to destroy al Qaeda or any of its murky allied organizations. They can be harassed, they can be disrupted, but there is no clear and certain way to destroy them. There may, however, be a way to undermine their psychological foundations, by reversing what radical Islamists portray as the inherent inevitability of their cause. Sacrifice toward victory is the ground of their movement. Therefore, if the sense of manifest destiny can be destroyed, then the foundations of the movement can be disrupted.
While invading Iraq has important military and strategic implications, the psychological angle is important, too.
One of those times when I do not mind paying all that $$$$$$$$ in taxes.
The Chicago Air and Water Show is this weekend.
I guess you can all figure where I will be.
One of my personal favorites.
Tuesday, August 13, 2002
Lame arguments that need too many crutches
After reading Sean Gonsalves' most recent article
, 'War Talk a Neo-Con Ploy ', I believe Gonsalves grossly misrepresented Col. John Warden paper ‘The Enemy As a System’
(good read by the way). First the paper was published in 1995, not 1996. A small discrepancy but it is symptomatic of your lack of understanding of the paper's thesis.
Gonsalves first started by stating:
To quote a bumper sticker I once saw: "I miss Ike. Hell, I even miss Harry," especially after reading the war philosophy of one of the main Gulf War planners. In a 1996 USAF Air Power magazine article, Col. John Warden wrote: "strategic war is war to force the enemy state or organization to do what you want it to do...It is...the whole system that is our target, not its military forces.
First, I doubt very much if Gonsalves read it in its entirety or with an open mind. Secondly, as Col. Warden points out in his paper a state's military force is only one aspect. Japan and Germany both had access to the Allied armies, but since they had no access to the Allies other four areas of war fighting ability whatever was lost on the battlefield could be replaced. In order to defeat an military force you must cripple everything that supports it.
The 'whole system' is our target? Pardon my naivete, but I thought attacking non-military targets - a.k.a. targeting civilian infrastructure - is considered to be terrorism.
I will pardon his naivete, but what the whole system refers to is the system by which an army, any army, operates. The forces which make up an military force are only one relatively small potion of a nations war fighting ability. Civilian and military leadership, logistical support, production, transportation infrastructure, and the support of the population for a continuation of an armed conflict are the other aspects. Despite what was inferred, not once in Col. Warden's paper does he insinuate that exclusively civilian infrastructure be destroyed.
Destroying a school, or hospital would most definitely be an act of terrorism, but the destruction of railroads, bridges, ports and infrastructure facilities critical to a military ability to supply and transport its force is good policy and one which wins wars. As most know, a key element in the defeat of Germany and Japan was their inability to effectively resupply their foreword deployed forces due to allied assaults on transportation infrastructure.
Comparing "enemy systems" to five overlapping rings, each marked for varying degrees of destruction, Warden wrote: "The fourth most critical ring is the population. Moral objections aside...." Say what? Isn't our moral sense precisely what makes us human? How else to explain Truman's trepidation: "I fear the machines (of war) are ahead of morals by some centuries," he wrote.
Here again Gonsalves misrepresents what Warden wrote. Warden was stating that if the population ceases to support a war effort, then no matter how large or effective an army one has, it will be useless, and victory cannot be achieved. He pointed to the example of the North Vietnamese being able to wear down the American publics support for the war (and if you do not believe this I strongly suggest you read 'How We Won The War', by North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap).
Further more Warden specifically states that directly targeting civilians is not an acceptable approach. He also points out the reality that not all of our potential adversaries feel the same way we do on this subject.
Again, let us reiterate that we hold direct attacks on civilians to be morally reprehensible and militarily difficult. That, however, will not keep someone else from trying it against us or one of our friends. It is something that has existed since time immemorial and isn't likely to go away in the near future.
- Col. John Warden
The thesis of Col. Warden's paper is simply that if you want to win a war, attacking the enemy's army is simply not enough. You must destroy the civilian populations support for the war (as in the US during Vietnam), you must destroy the enemies logistical support, command structure, and supplies. It is not, as you implied, an open invitation for the mass murdering and carpet bombing of civilian populations.
I should expect that a journalist with access to millions of readers should be less biases with his views and more honest with his sources. If someone are antiwar, or however they classify themselves, that is just dandy, but one should not have to resort to twisting the words of Col. Warden in order to give an argument one more crutch to stand on.
If a crutch is needed, mabey the idea is just too fucking sick to stand on its own.
Monday, August 12, 2002
Nah Nah Nah Nah!
Nah Nah Nah Nah!
Hey Hey Hey!
Good bye Cindy!
My sentiments exactly!
The Left’s Schadenfreude
Schadenfreude comes is German, from Schaden, damage + Freude, joy. It means a malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others
So what does this have to do with the price of tea in china?
Everyone’s favorite Maoist, Barbara Ehrenreich, feels a certain Schadenfreude
about the state of the world today.
It's a pleasure, of the schadenfreude variety, to sit back and watch the credibility peel off our principal institutions with no help from their usual critics.
What is so pleasurable to Babs is the credibility hit that many of the tools of the capitalist state have taken. Whether it is our intelligence communities, the White House, corporate malfeasance, mishaps in military, or the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic church, Babs seems to enjoy the state that these institutions are in.
She does not really care that failures at the CIA and FBI put all of our lives at risk and may result in another catastrophic attack on our nation, she is just glad that the organizations which have suppressed her dream of building a dictatorship of the proletariat are now in disarray.
She does not care that accounting games in corporate America have ruined the fortunes of tens of thousands. It just gives her a sick satisfaction that the ‘bourgeoisie’ is loosing so much of its wealth.
Her concern is not with the children whose lives have been seriously damaged by pedophilia. She is just filled with glee that one of the last bastions of white male patriarchal oligarchy (a tool used by capitalist to suppress the workers) is being shaken to its core.
The deaths of US soldiers does not phase her in the least, as she would be more than willing to go to Arlington National Cemetery just to fulfill her childhood dream of pissing on the grave of the unknown soldier. No, she is ecstatic that the military is suffering losses (small as they are), because they too are the insurance policy of the elite.
But even the most reluctant child must eventually wake up to the fact that the grown-ups in charge can't always be trusted. What we have learned in the last few months is that no one is looking out for us, guiding our souls, or ensuring our future prosperity.
Well how nice of Babs. First she uses that time tested approach to the ‘average Joe’, the noble savage approach. We are, after all, just children to her. Too simple and ignorant to be trusted with running our own affairs, let alone properly decide who is going to ‘look after us’.
And when the powerful begin to act irresponsibly, it's the responsibility of the rest of us to take their power away from them.
The Cambodian Killing Fields, the gruesome aftermath of Barbara Ehrenreich’s fellow travelers “taking the power back” in Cambodia.
Take it back like this Babs?
I don’t think so babe.
Thursday, August 08, 2002
The not-so-honorable Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on Robert Mugabe
I don’t know how many of you who read the Razor’s Edge know who Robert Mugabe is, so let me give you a brief history of the man (animal).
About 20 years ago, Zimbabwe, formerly know as Rhodesia, won its independence from Britain. Since then he has slowly degraded from the ‘liberator’ of Rhodesia to a dictator.
Despite the killings of dissidents, diamond smuggling, over $1.5 billion in a Swiss account, and the coming self-manufactured famine, there is not much in the way of criticism in the media of Mugabe.
Granted it is not exactly a hot button issue, but still……
But Mugabe’s biggest mistake is a series of land seizures he has authorized. The land ‘reallocation’ is auspiciously designed to ‘redistribute’ farms from about 10,000 white farmers to landless veterans of the civil war. Mind you that most of these ‘veterans’ are between 20 and 30 years old (many not alive during the civil war).
In an attempt to prop up support for his reign, Mugabe has advocated the killing of any white family that will not leave its land. To date, of 1,500 have been driven from their farms, and about 700 have been killed. This number does not include the several hundred native African farm workers that have also been killed.
Aside from the fact that this is illegal and immoral, it is also very stupid. These farmers account for over 90% of Zimbabwe’s agricultural output and two-thirds of its exports.
You cannot simply give large pieces of land to untrained locals with no experience in agriculture and expect them to produce on it.
It is not only leading to financial ruin for the nation, but in a nation that used to export more food than it consumed, famine
But oh yeah, back to Cynthia McKinney
Well McKinney had some words of praise for Mugabe during a House floor debate:
“To any honest observer, Zimbabwe's sin is that it has taken the position to right a wrong, whose resolution has been too long overdue--to return its land to its people… When we get right down to it, this legislation is nothing more than a formal declaration of United States complicity in a program to maintain white-skin privilege… It is racist and against the interests of the masses of Zimbabweans.”
– Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, speaking in opposition to the Zimbabwe Democracy Act, December 5, 2001.
The Guardian has a fairly good series of articles on Zimbabwe
, for those interested.
For more on the violence against farmers in southern Africa in general, go here
Words to remember
A lot of lefties out there have raging hard ons for George Orwell, especially his book "1984".
I don’t know how many comparisons I have heard between Orwell's 1984 and today.
I wonder what they would think of this ....
Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'
Just thought this was interesting
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." S. Adams
Two Tough Questions...
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally challenged, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion?
Read the next question before scrolling down to the answer of this one.
It is time to elect a new world leader, and your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:
Candidate A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B: He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whisky every evening.
Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs.
Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first, no peeking, then scroll down for the answer.
-Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt
-Candidate B is Winston Churchill
-Candidate C is Adolph Hitler
...And by the way, the answer to the abortion question: If you said yes, you just killed Beethoven.
Pretty interesting isn't it? Makes a person think before judging someone.
Remember amateurs built the ark Professionals built the Titanic.
Tuesday, August 06, 2002
A “Mistake and A Crime“
by James Carroll of the Boston Globe, is just more of the usual revisionistic bullshit we have become used to these days. The article basically states that the use of the bomb on the Japanese on this date, August 6, 1945 was not only a mistake but we knew it be such.
A very telling quote from Carroll’s piece gives his motivations away:
If we used the nuclear weapon as much to send a signal to the Soviet Union as to end World War II, then all the wickedness unfolding from that use - not only the arms race, but the demonic new idea that national power can properly depend on the threat of mass destruction - belongs to us.
Ahhh yes, that classic leftist assertion that the cold war was not the fault of the Soviet Union’s aggressive post war expansion into Eastern Europe, but it was all our fault. If this were true, it would make people like Carroll dance in the streets. After all when ever one of the pansies can pin every problem that the world faces on the US, so much the better. It does not matter if the facts bear this assessment out, just make it and your fellow travelers will eat it up.
Fact is, its not.
I don’t have the time to get into the details, but with the millions of documents released since the end of the cold war, the aggressor in that conflict is plain for anyone to see.
But what about his supposed main premise: the US did not have to use Atomic weapons against Japan to end the war.
Well with the withdrawal of the Japanese from Manchuria to defend the home island, the fate of 400,000 British, Australian, Indian, and American POW’s was unclear. The Japanese did not want to leave them there, so in May of 1945 the JIA ordered the liquidation of all Allied POW’s by the end of September 1945.
That’s 400,000 dead, more than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Or what about the proposed invasion of Japan, operation Olympic?
Operation Olympic was the codename for the US invasion on Japan. It was to begin in early September 1945 on the smallest of the Japanese home islands, Kyushu.
Estimated US losses: 90,000 dead, 275,000 wounded or MIA.
Estimated Japanese Losses: 600,000 dead garrisoned IJA regulars, minimum 550,000 civilain auxilaries dead. 2.6 to 3.0 million civilians dead.
Estimated time to break resistance on Kyushu: 8 to 10 months.
And that was for one island.
Now people like Carroll will tell you that casualty estimates from the invasion were just that: ‘estimates’. They will also tell you that since no one can see into the future, or alter past events, that the Olympic argument is moot.
I would counter that premise by stating that although I cannot say with 100% certainty that Olympic would have cost as many lives as the planners claim they cannot then contend that Japan would have surrendered without the use of the bomb.
The argument works both ways.
But there are some indisputable facts that no one can deny.
Fact: We dropped the bomb.
Fact: The first atomic bomb fell Aug. 6, 1945, on Hiroshima. Hirohito and the military knew about that city's destruction later that day, but did nothing.
Fact: An invasion of Japan would have cost the lives of US servicemen, even if it was only one.
Fact: The war ended days after Nagasaki.
Even if it meant saving just one American combatant, it still would have been worth it.
Fact is it saved the 400,000 POW’s, and that alone is more than enough justification for me.
General Yoshijiro Umezu, Chief of the Army General Staff, signs the Instrument of Surrender on behalf of Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, on board USS Missouri (BB-63), 2 September 1945.
Friday, August 02, 2002
According to Sandra Bernhard this 'Hero Worship'
(the title of her new comedy tour) is bullshit. She sees this hero worship as just an attempt to capitalize on this nation’s tragedy.
I think she is just mad that the attention has gone to strait men (firefighters, police, rescue workers, soldiers) instead of going where it rightly deserves (radical marxist lesbian single mothers with gaps in their teeth so large I could drive a fucking Caterpillar 797 through).
The ‘Big Cat’ 797
Here is a tip Sandra: get some dick, you might lighten up.
We are judged by the company we keep
Richard Goldstein’s laments in his latest piece
in the Village Voice that he has taken offense to being called a Stalinist.
“Camille Paglia, a friend of this Creature From the Blog Lagoon, has taken to calling me a Stalinist. She doesn't mean that I'm a follower of Uncle Joe. The S-word is a hardcore version of the term politically correct. But the fact that Paglia has chosen this loaded epithet to describe me—on the neocon Web site run by David Horowitz—is telling. It's not hard to see why Red-baiting remains alive on the backlash right. It's the coward's way of contending with threatening ideas.”
Well Richard, let me reflect upon a saying I once heard:
The industrious communist tail always wags the lazy liberal dog.
Tell us, oh persecuted one, what would you call Ms Paglia or a “certain gay conservative and former Gap model” if either contributed articles for a magazine run my Tom Metzger of White Aryan Resistance (WAR)?
What would you call Mr Sullivan or Ms Paglia if they, for example, wrote an article sympathetic to Adolph Hitler, or if they directly collaborated with David Duke on an issue?
Would you call them a fascist? I would, because after all we are judged by the company we keep.
And what company does Goldstein keep?
Well for one, he is a contributor to the Nation Magazine.
And after all we know what kind of track record the Nation has when it comes to apologetics to Marxist and Stalinist.
The Nations Man of the Decade in 1940, was none other than Joseph Stalin.
The Nation’s publisher is Victor Navasky; a classic example of the left's inability to come to grips with its own intellectual failures. Navasky once waged war on Allen Weinstein's excellent book, Perjury, for daring to skewer the Left's myths and misinformation about Alger Hiss. Now that even Leftist scholars are forced to admit that Hiss was a Soviet spy who lied under oath, Navasky lamely claims that what Hiss did wasn't espionage at all.
(another contributor to The Nation) takes that one step further and argues that spying for the Soviet Union wasn't really that bad of a thing to do after all.
Now, tell me, Mr Goldstein, just what kind of company do you keep? Or does that mean nothing?
Tell me why you would label Barbara Ehrenreich a “radical critic”, when you know god damn well that she is a self described Marxist
proclaiming that “the Marxist vision at last fits America's future”
Afraid to call a spade a spade?
Do you still get a tear in your eye when someone mentions the name of William Kunstler? The man who proclaimed that he could not criticize the atrocities committed by the North Vietnamese Communist because “I [Kunstler] could never criticize or speak ill of a socialist nation”.
Do you get a lump in your pants when the newest book from Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal is published?
“Long before I knew what a Red actually was, I had several friends whose fathers lost their civil service jobs because of blacklisting and other friends whose last names suddenly changed for reasons mysterious to me. I can still recall the panic on my father's face when he discovered that my after-school Jewish culture program was run by …………… That ought to give you some idea of how far the terror went ……. Red-baiting was a very effective way to control millions of people who had no connection with Communism. Apparently it still is.”
Now come off it Mr. Goldstein. Clearly I have shown that you DO have a connection and indeed a deep admiration for Communism. And in case you have not gotten around to reading it, the Venona Project condenses 100,000’s of intercepted messages from the Soviet Union to its embassy in New York.
Some Examples from Venona (which I strongly suggest be mandatory reading):
The Soviets got us into World War II at just the right time for them, by manipulating the messages that FDR’s administration sent to Japan in November 1941. Venona contains the identity of the high-placed spy who was responsible (you may already know his name!)
FDR’s most trusted confidant and right-hand man was a Soviet spy too — who successfully advised Roosevelt to do Stalin’s bidding at Yalta and elsewhere (hint: it wasn’t Alger Hiss — it was someone ever higher up on the chain of command!)
Ever wondered where the revered liberal writer I. F. Stone (another icon at The Nation) got ideas for his columns (and money to put out his newsletter)?
Spies fed liberal columnists scoops from classified documents — documents the columnists then used to vilify the United States. The Venona Project name names.
The American Communist Party: traitors, or just patriotic “liberals in a hurry”? The Venona Project reveal where their loyalties really lay — and how extensively they acted on those loyalties
And just what the fuck is this ‘control millions of people who had no connection with Communism’
? After all the KGB/NKVD would never plant spies in the US, and the American Left would certainly never help them.
In case you cannot put it together Mr. Goldstein, the left tried its fucking best to sell us down the river 50 years ago, and is still hard at work doing the same today!
This is another piece which shows just how deeply imbedded Marx’s dogma is in people like Goldstein.
While observing the 2000 elections you once commented “The old labor slogan still pertains: Which side are you on?”
Good Question Mr. Goldstein, Just what fucking side are you on?