More Porto

All this guff about the risks of the UAE "running our ports" is just so much crap it makes me want to puke. The folks from Dubai Ports are no different from the previous owners P&O -- a UK firm. This is not going to change how security is managed, it is not going to "deprive" the vermin from the teamsters from extorting their "fair share" of the loot, the Coast Guard is not going to have to do anything different either. This is an administrative deal. Plain and simple. Either we believe in fair trade, open borders or we don't. Or are we telling the world that we do except for Arabs -- or the object of political manipulation/scorn du jour? Sort of sounds like the free speech double standard -- at least we are consistent hypocites.

But let's look at these "Arabs." In Dubai, you can drink alcohol, eat pork, buy and sell just about anything in the world, walk the streets with considerably less fear than you would in ANY United States city, carouse, hit on members of the opposite sex without fear of the religious police (or PC police, or far right lunatics that we have in the US), etc., etc. Dubai is also one of the few places that the US military can come and visit and feel safe. When the US fleet enters port, they operate joint security with the UAE military ... to our standards. US sailors and airmen are welcome. The thing about Dubai is that it IS already what we so desperately want to achieve throughout the Arab world: stable, friendly, not given to anti-western riots, capitalist and not wanting to set up a theocracy. Dubai actively cooperates with US and Western intelligence (unlike some of Dubai's close neighbors ... notice that all the terrorists that tried to blow up the oil refinery are ending up dead ... shot and not captured), and our military.

Dubai has also been the Middle East's version of Switzerland for hundreds of years (maybe a couple of thousand). It is oil-poor (less that 10% of Dubai's revenue comes from oil) and in the past, has been aggressively neutral. They don't want you problems, they want your trade and money. Full stop. They are, of course, part of the UAE, but don't make a mistake in thinking that Dubai is like Abu Dhabi ... it is not. The local Sheik does not like that idea. And, if the truth be known, nor does the Sheik next door in Abu Dhabi, or even Saudi: Dubai represents a very necessary outlet for the rigors and strictures of more dour Islamic states. And when a Saudi or other Arab wants to cut loose, where does he go? Dubai. It is truly international. Of course, Al Qaeda money went through Dubai -- there's no other place it would go! Do you think the Nazis banked in London? No, it was Switzerland -- and still is for most self-interested dictators and government thieves around the world. Dubai is just trying to be number 2. Dubai does not want terrorism, they want to sell hotel rooms, golf, gold and banking services -- a cross between Las Vegas and Zurich.

If everyone is wetting themselves about an Arab take-over, place some security restrictions on operational management. But don't lets surrender to knee-jerk idiocy for politics sake. Speaking of idiots, Barbara Boxer called for a ban on any foreign ownership of ports/terminals in the US. According to the Los Angeles Times 13 of 14 operators of the Port of Los Angeles / Long Beach are foreign. One is Chinese and government owned (Cosco). And Senator Boxer is the junior senator from ... California.

Now if memory serves me right, Cosco (not Costco) tried to move to an abandoned US military terminal in Long Beach to open a large container terminal -- Clinton was President and the move was eventually scorched for fear of the Chinese using the terminal as a base for spying. Boxer was a rabid supporter of that move. The Chinese are great at running ports in the US! Now this seems to be a bit of a contradiction ... Boxer wouldn't be trying to make some cheap political points against Boosh at the expense of international respect for the US? She wouldn't be so crass ... would she?

Trouble for Dubbya is that this is the perfect storm for him: the right wing nutsos want to axe the sale because of fears of "Ay-rabs and Mooslim terrorists." The left and liberals want to kill it because they want to do anything they can to hurt Boosh, irrespective of how badly it hurts the US internationally. Then there is the administration ... screwed. And all of us -- screwed as well by both liberal and right wing hate mongers ... each with their own agenda, and neither looking out for the US or us. Frikkin idiots.

Say goodbye to Summers

So the crackpots in the faculty of Arts and Sciences have succeeded in getting rid of Summers. Summers had the misfortune to stir their ire in some of his views. In 2002 he ventured that the calls for the divestment of Harvard from Israel was "anti-Semitic in effect, if not intent." Big mistake #1. Remember the hard-left of Harvard are very pro-Palestinian.

Second error was to fail to pay enough lip-service to left regarding gender, race, religion, sexual preference, and the military. This led to a no-confidence vote against him last March by the A&S faculty. That no-confidence motion provided they were unhappy about ''Mr. Summers' apparently ongoing convictions about the capacities and rights not only of women but also of African-Americans, third-world nations, gay people, and colonized peoples," (Dershowitz article). When Summers opined that there might be a predisposition for success in mathematics and sciences ... and men just might have it, the left began baying for blood. Since that point they have plotted to oust him.

Now, here is the kicker: the majority of the faculty and student body do not want him removed. On the radio this morning I heard that as many as 65% of the student body actively wanted Summers to stay, and only 19% stated that they wanted him gone. And of the various faculties and schools, only the A&S faculty voted against him, owning as it does, a lock on far-left political correctness: freedom of speech is fine, as long as it agrees with our beliefs. And Summers consistently diverged from the hard-left. But they have the corporation's ear -- may it rot off their collective heads.

Where does that leave Harvard? In a very bad place -- a place where academic freedoms, fundamental freedoms and independence can no longer exist. Exit Harvard from serious consideration as a top flight academic institution, enter Harvard as the next jingoist organ of the left. Even Alan Dershowitz (whose excellent summary of this absurd end to Summer's Presidency inspired me to write this blog entry) who is by no means right wing, recongnizes that this is a dangerous step for Harvard.

Tomorrow: civil war in Iraq and why nobody is really very surprised.

Ports and Lunacy

Even if you are following this tempest in a teacup, you may well be wondering what the heck is up. So lets look at what the mainstream media are trying to portray: in this time of our War on Terror (when it suits them, there is indeed a war going on) Boosh is compromizing national security by letting a company from the UAE run some of our ports in the US.

First off, the previous entity in place was a UK-based company. Second, just because an UAE company runs the ports (collects docking fees, trans-shipment fees, ensures berthing availability, etc.) does not mean that anyone has given responsibility for security to a possibly hostile foreign nation (the company in question is at least partially owned by the UAE government). All the measures set in place (if in fact they work at all) are still in place and will not be altered in one single meaningful way by the new contract holder. Net loss to security ... none.

But the Democrats and many Republicans are going ballistic. This is another Boosh example where he does one thing and says another. Bullshit. He was not even aware of it until the authorization was granted. And why should he be if there is no effect on US security? US companies run things all over the world, even where lots of locals might not like it (think air traffic control), but there is no knee-jerk outcry.

Get a grip people!!! The UAE is one of the only Arab countries in that neck of the woods that is relatively tolerant of the US, to poke them in the eye would be a propaganda bonanza to our real enemies in the Middle East!! But no, Frist(R), Clinton(D), Menendez(D) and dozen of whining Congress-weenies are trying to create the next great scandal ... why ... its an election year!!

If the UAE firm can do it best for the least amount of money, fine. Put in whatever safe guards you need to in order to make sure that security is maintained, but don't let us look like frikkin hypocrites. So much for free trade, transparency, etc. Christ, what politicians won't do to get some press.

Of course, the mainstream press do not report directly that the risk is next to zero, that would not make good news. Instead, it is about letting the politico-weenies grandstand and in the process ... making Boosh look bad. Any black eye for Boosh in an election year is good. Irrespective how it might undercut American security (abroad this will make it appear that we are everything that other hostile countries accuse us of being and so unify the appeal of being anti-American), the press cares only for their own agenda. Once again.

David Irving

So he will get 3 years in the slammer for his assertions that the Holocaust did not happen. And the Austrian prosecutor wants to appeal the leniency of the sentence so that he hopefully goes away for 10. You see, the Austrians take their Holocaust denial laws pretty seriously. But, for the sake of freedom of speech, you can draw the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head. Somehow, this does not speak to me as the equal application of the laws.

If you want to deny the Holocaust, you should be able to. I should be able to mock, scorn, revile and otherwise attempt to ridicule you for your idiotic beliefs, but nevertheless, you should have the right to be a denial wacko. And I should be able to publish cartoons about Islam and have Muslims pillory me on their own press for my idiotic beliefs, morals (or lack thereof), etc. Freedom of speech should work that way. Here in the US too -- I should be equally able to shout out my hatred of Whites, Blacks, Asians, Innuit, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, [A]theists, myself, you and anyone or anything else. And if the rest of civilized (or not so) society should then wish to spend their time telling me how stupid my beliefs are, then they should be able to do that.

Or we need to get very PC and say that nobody should have the right to talk ill about anyone.... But what if I decide that not talking ill about me is offensive to me: I don't want to be liked, I bask in the hatred of others? Are my rights then infringed by the PC majority? Someone, somewhere is always going to be offended. Always. Tant pis. If we aspire to a classless society, one that is color, gender, preference, lifestyle, etc. neutral, then we have to stop punishing one set of "offensive" practices but rewarding the same practices when effected by someone of a different color, race, gender, etc. It is either bad for all of us, or not. By the very nature that "it" is permissible for some, we set up segmentation in our society -- it cannot be avoided. And spare me the crap that it is okay because of the past. Is it okay for Protestants to fry Catholics at the stake because the Inquisition did that for 500 years? Oh, I am just getting even with this Catholic dog, because my great, great, great grandfather was a heretic....

What is "hate speech" anyway? Wikipedia provides: "Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication." Sort leaves a few questions, doesn't it? What may incite one person, may not even cause another to blink (think the cartoons). One person's intent, may not be communicated at all or be subject to misinterpretation. So it all depends on where you stand while considering the matter ... thus it becomes so ambiguous as to mean nothing at all. It means whatever you want it to mean -- and only from your point of view: it is a tool of intellectual repression. Read the following webpage: http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html.

Open minded persons should always try and put themselves in "another person's shoes" to try and see what it might feel like to be the target of ridicule and hate. But you cannot mandate it: you cannot control another person's thoughts (Orwell), so the key is education. Not a blanket assertion from the educational oracle that your beliefs are wrong and another person's beliefs are correct, but education to allow rational (not emotional ... and that mostly cuts relgious dogma out of it) examination of another's core belief's -- acceptance that they might just be different and learn to live with that? Ooooh, now that's a novel idea. Does that lead to the Unalienable Right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Now THERE is a strange concept that has been floating around for a couple of hundred years....

Gitmo revisited

Let's take up where we left off last night.... You have to remember the Special Raporteurs (investigators) are dependent -- their way of life, grants, status etc. -- on finding human rights abuses. These are professional watchdogs (mostly self motivated and appointed through adept politics within a bloated and intensely corrupt bureaucracy) whose sole mission and goal is to find what they are predisposed to find anyway.

It turns out that the Gitmo 5 did not even visit the camp. They refused to go there after the US refused to allow free access to all prisoners. Ok, that does not look too good for the US, but you can put that into the report. But, how can they make an unbiased assessment of the camp without having been there? How many prisoners can you actually get in to see? If all you listen to for evidence is hearsay, and the evidence is not independently verifiable then that evidence is worthless. It would be thrown out in any court, US or EU. But not, apparently, by judicial experts from the UN. And of course if the hearsay used as a basis for the report is the crap put out by lawyers for the detainees, then it is worse than hearsay, but propaganda and possibly slander.

The UN report pointed to cases of excessive violence during transport of prisoners and force feeding of hunger strikers. Lemme see... he wants to die to become a martyr for the cause, and the US wants the detainee to live -- you can't let them all starve to death, because then you will be blamed for that too. So the human rights activists say that their human rights are being infringed by detention and also lack of self determination (being allowed to starve themselves). But if you hold them in the Hilton and they starve, you are just as "at fault."

Net of all of this is that according to the human rights experts, holding them at all is wrong. For the sake of argument, let's say that this is correct ... but then you let them go and next week they are back at their own games in some far off 'Stan: "you, woman, you have no Burqua on. You must die. You, flying a kite, you must die. You, American, minding your own business in New York City, you offend me in any number of ways ... you must die too." WHAT ABOUT OUR HUMAN RIGHTS? DOES BEING AN AMERICAN MEAN THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY OR THAT WHATEVER WE HAVE SHOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO THOSE OF THE REST OF HUMANITY? Is it OK to attack us, but wrong for us to defend ourselves? Is it OK for the grossest human rights violations to occur in distant dusty lands, simply because they are sovereign nations? Is it ok to deny whole segments of the human race the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The UN has stood by while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. The UN played the fiddle while genocide has occurred all over Africa -- many times. Sudan is the site of the latest show of ineptitude: Arab Muslims from the North have systematically exterminated the largely black Christians in the South. Khartoum doesn't even seriously deny it, calling it and internal affair. There is good evidence -verfiable- that slavery continues to exist on a large scale in the Sudan. Where is Kofi-bloody-Annan whenyou need him. The UN has always stood by while the forces of militant religion impose regimes of repression all over the world. And it is not only the third world where the UN failed to do anything. Consider the brutal years of sectarian violence in Balkans. The UN? Over at the HQ on the East River, taking serious lunches, power dinners, handing out human rights investigation franchises to the nomenklatura. But effecting change? Don't be stupid.

So what to do about Gitmo? You can't just keep the detainees there until they are old men, can you? But you can't just release them either. Mostly, they are there for a damn good reason, but there has to be some review based on security needs of the US -- a start would be membership or affiliation with Al Qa'ida. You fit that, you might as well start to call Gitmo home. Then perhaps a proved set of human rights violation (yes, that again): you go around killing people because they do not believe in your brand of whatever religion -- start collecting towels and a welcome mat for your hut. Taliban commander? Here's the SPF 40 for the Cuban sun. Not nice, not too efficient, but a start. This IS a war with real enemies of the United States and our rights. 500 or so detainees? Is that number perhaps too low?

The Gitmo Gang

So the UN calls for the closing of Gitmo as a "torture camp." Well, let's examine who exactly is involved: Chairman Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Leila Zerrougui; Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak; the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir, and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Paul Hunt.

Puh-leeze.

Leila Zerrougui (an Algerian -- from a country that is a hotbed for Muslim extremists and where murder in the name of Islam is an everyday occurrence)is "Sub-commission Expert" on the accountability of armed forces and discrimination in the criminal justice system for the UN. In introducing her 2003 report on discrimination in the criminal justice system, said that research carried out so far showed that there was undeniably a racial dimension to discrimination within the administration of justice. Such discrimination was often a manifestation of racism, xenophobia, or intolerance, and foreigners, minorities and indigenous peoples were the most seriously affected. Other persons, such as the poor, disabled or those having a different sexual orientation, were also victims of discrimination and were often subjected to unequal treatment under the criminal justice system.

In short, there is no way that she was going find anything but the most dire of conditions and torture in Gitmo. She is also a long-term UN cadre ... and as any rational, sentient person knows, you cannot get ahead there unless you are rabidly anti-US. Anti-Israeli helps too.

Next, Leandro Despouy (Argentina -- another country known for its "excellent" history of preservation of human rights and a staunch friend of democracy and the US) was prior to his latest gig at Gitmo, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities -- a gig that has been brewing at the UN (and providing full employment for functionairies since 1984 ... how much did that cost ... bet that money could have bought some wells and farming equipment in Ethiopia or Somalia). Another long-term UN hack. While workling for the UN Economic and Social Council he presented several reports on the administration of justice and the human rights of detainees. On the face of it, that might imply some knowledge of the plight of such persons. In practice, he is good at telling his masters what they want to hear. He is also a lawyer and has been a professor in international public law with a specialization in human rights. Might as well have his Che poster framed for his office.

Manfred Nowack.... He is Professor of Constitutional Law and Human Rights at the University of Vienna and Director of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights (BIM). Since 1996, he has served as Judge at the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo and, since 2000, as Chairperson of the European Master Programme on Human Rights and Democratization (EMA) in Venice. From 1987 to 1989, he was Director of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM) at the University of Utrecht, and from 2002 to 2003 Olof Palme Visiting Professor at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (RWI) at the University of Lund. Nothing here is mainstream ... even from recognized first class leftist institutions such as Oxford, Columbia, Sciences Po, etc. For a grip on the type of human rights issues they focus on, look at their website http://www.univie.ac.at/bim/ and you begin to appreciate it. The focus is on anti-discrimination, look at their links page: it is self explanatory ... every human rights organization of note. The tone and politics of these organizations is, needless to say, quite a bit to the left of even left-wing US politics. So while Nowack's motivations may be noble, in terms of a fair and even assessment of Gitmo ... he should recuse himself.

Asma Jahangir (Pakistan -- another wonderfully and notoriously neutral country where the Danish flag is now in short supply): she has served as the chairperson of the Pakistan Human Rights Commission. In 1980, Asma Jahangir and her sister, Hina Jilani, got together with few fellow activists and lawyers and formed the first law firm established by women in Pakistan. They also helped form the Women's Action Forum (WAF) in the same year. Sounds pretty good if you were a defendant or an absued woman in Pakistan. In 1998, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed her as the UN Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human rights on extra judicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Since her appointment, Ms. Jahangir has visited Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mexico, East Timor, Nepal, Turkey and Honduras responding to the keenness of Governments to improve the situation, while also documenting human rights abuses. "It gives me an opportunity to pick up the issue from the ground and take it right to the top, to the UN level," she says. She is, of course still "taking it right to the top" at the UN. Name one thing substantial that the UN has ever accomplished in making or keeping peace. The people of Haiti just love the UN troops. Google it, go ahead. There is an excellent interview with Asma at this URL http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2002/webArticles/111102_interview_asma.html ... read it; she seems a wonderful person. But also extremely unlikely to find anything other that the abuses of human rights at Gitmo.

Paul Hunt. In 1998, Paul Hunt - a national of New Zealand - was elected by the UN to serve as an independent expert on the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1999-2002). Between 2001-2,at the request of Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, he co-authored draft Guidelines on Human Rights Approaches to Poverty Reduction.In 2002, he was appointed UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health -- the first appointment to this new human rights mechanism. As Special Rapporteur, he endeavours to help States, and other actors, better promote and protect the right to health. In his work, he has chosen to focus in particular on
poverty, discrimination and the right to health. An independent expert, he undertakes country missions and reports to the UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights. Paul has lived, and undertaken human rights work, in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and SouthPacific. He has written extensively on economic, social and cultural rights, including Reclaiming Social Rights: International and Comparative Perspectives (1996) and Culture, Rights and Cultural Rights: Perspectives from the South Pacific (2000). He is a Professor in law, and Member of the Human Rights
Centre, at the University of Essex (England) (wasn't that a Poly?)and Adjunct Professor at the University of Waikato (New Zealand). Not a real luminary academically, but clearly adept politically within the UN.

Hunt's prior magnum opus was a report, "On the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health." The UN voted on whether this highly criticized report would be accepted. It called for the promotion of "reproductive rights" for women - a UN euphemism for abortion, contraception, and sterilization. Fifty-two states voted in favour of accepting the report, with only one member state opposed -- the United States of America. In short, his last brush with the US resulted in a bloody nose. The US, it seems, does not side with the notion that mass sterilization is a valid and legitimate way of improving the physical and mental health of people in developing nations -- the US fears that the application of a policy of sterilization might be a bit uneven ... perhaps a violation of human rights. At least as a measure of policy. Cute that.

So what are we left with? A report on Gitmo that could only have one conclusion, one viewpoint, one result. So is this actually news at all? It was an absolute certainty that the result would be a condemnation. Note, that none of the "Raporteurs" comes from a country directly threatened by the folks presently at Gitmo. Two of the Raporteurs come from countries actively allied with the people at Gitmo and one from a neutral nation so-far-from-anything-that-who-would-bother (very no-nuke and granola for everyone) and one from a country that is the site of some of the most leftwing institutes, think tanks, etc. and that also elected Joerg Haider. Go figure.

The reality is, human rights aside, the second we set these turkeys free, they will not pass "go" to collect $200 and proceed immediately to what ever Madrassa they came from to plot how to reinstate the Taliban and/or kill Americans. If we could be sure that they would go home and farm and raise kids, play soccer, smoke some [whatever], I'd be the first to say "let 'em go." But they won't. And no report from a bunch of ideologues is going to change that.

You can't make this up

Really. Some of the treasures infecting today's news.... The French aircraft carrier Clemenceau, thought to be loaded with asbestos is forced to take a return trip back to France as Greenspeace and others successfully sue to have its export to India to be broken up halted. Why? Greenpeace claims that there is over 500 tons of asbestos left in the warship. France says as little as 45 tons. But admits that some 30 tons of asbestos is unaccounted for during the remediation done in France over the last years. Who is lying? Well, 500 tons is complete crap given that the vessel weighs some 27,000 tons. But 45 tons ... and another 30 or so missing ... well that would smack of trying to avoid some very costly remediation. Would our good allies the French try and sidestep such a necessary task? Hmmm? And India is all pissed off at losing the jobs. Have they ever heard of mesothelioma? But if you figure that the life expectancy of the ship breakers is such that it is unlikely that the personnel affected would ever get to the point of onset, it just means lost cash.

But France stepped up its attacks on Iran today stating that Iran's nuclear program could not possibly be used for civilian needs alone. Hence it was a clandestine military program. Duh. But at least someone aside from the US is talking about the elephant in the room.

What else? Oh yes, the Cheney thing. He shot a friend. That is ... lemme see ... negligent at the very minimum, perhaps criminally negligent or even manslaughter if the vic dies.... But what has everyone up in arms (or at least the liberal press) is that he didn't call a news conference to tell everyone about it right away. Picture a breathless Cheney rushing in front of news cameras with his bright orange hunting vest on, gun in hand. "Hey, I just did something really stupid and shot a friend by accident." What exactly would that achieve? Is it news? By the standards of hatred-influenced reporting of the Vice President, it is clearly news. By the standards of the gun-totting far right wackos, it is news too -- Cheney can't shoot. But what I cannot "get" is the insane desire to find a scandal here. It took 18 hours for the news to get out. Cheney claims that it was his desire to get the facts correct before making a statement, which we all know is clearly bullpoop. But under the facts, he was under no legal requirement to report anything at all. The only person who was obliged by law to file a report of a gunshot wound was the hospital doctor. If the guy died, then we have a different scenario. Should Cheney have made a timely announcement? Yes. Is there some sort of 18 hour scandal rule? I don't think so.

But before we leave this topic, let's put it into context. A certain Senator from Massachusetts drove off a bridge, leaving someone to die in the car. He then took off to hide in the family compound, leaving the dead woman in the car and as far as we know made no attempt to rescue her or retrieve her body. During the time in which the accident (they were both accidents ... or at least the gunshot was) occurred, Senator Bloat was engaged in an extra-marital affair, not illegal, but not really acceptable either. Cheney was shooting innocent animals. Not illegal in any way, means or form, although PETA would disagree. Cheney did not stroll off back to the ranch, open up a six on the porch and wonder whether his friend would bleed out. Bloat is still a US senator who loudly preaches on such matter as morals and ethics.

So what irks us about this accident? Is it because a gun was used (us blue-staters hate guns and people who own them)? Was it because the shooter was Cheney? Would we have had the same response if it had been Al Gore or Bill? Would Bill have handled it differently? Yes, he would! There would have been an instant press conference, scenes of Bill tearfully holding his friend's hand in the ambulance, Bill over the bed, Bill outside the operating room.... It would have been a PR bonanza, not disaster. But it was Cheney. Darth Cheney. Seasoned hunter and evil wizard second only to Voldemort.

And bird flu makes its appearance in Europe proper. Italy is witnessing a dramatic collapse in the sales of chicken as a result of bird flu appearing in wild swans. And the annual migration from Africa is only a few weeks away. Not looking good folks.

Al Gore

What an asshole. So Gore flies to Saudi Arabia (on a trip financed by the Bin Laden Family) and gives a speech in which he claims that the US indiscriminately rounded up Arabs after 9-11 and held them in "unforgiveable conditions" during which they suffered "terrible abuses." Let's consider this.

It turns out that the US did round up Arabs after 9-11. About 700 Arabs were in fact taken into custody for visa violations, paperwork inconsistencies, etc. Of that total, only 15 were found to have been inproperly handled. So, yes, there was a round-up. But considering that it was Arabs that flew the planes into the towers and Pentagon, Arabs, that financed it and Arabs that held parties in the street to celebrate the murders of thousands, I feel the targeting of Arabs for a round-up both prudent and considerate of national security. Remember the liberal press screamed that Bush let Arabs go during the immediate aftermath ... our favored Saudi friends (remember that fat toad Moore?).

Nowhere in any press, not even in the Middle East (where even half-truths can be the basis for fevered reporting) was there any allegation that any of the persons taken into custody and deported were subject to any form of abuse, or held in unforgiveable conditions. In short, for the sake of drama (and perhaps his paymasters) Al Gore stood up on the international stage and lied about the US. A lie, in of itself is perhaps a "so what" circumstance, but what is not it that he was giving ammunition to a people that demonstrably hate the US. The country in which he was speaking is is the same country that produced the bulk of the hijackers for 9-11. This is also the country that finances the bulk of Sunni-originated terrorism (read Palestinian -- you know where telethons are held to give money to the families of suicide bombers). And on a grand stage of the home of Islam. What is worse, some cartoons or a statement by the ex-Vice President of the US that the US is guilty of abuse of Saudis and Muslims?

And when contacted by various news agencies for support as to the allegations made by Al Gore, his office declined to comment. Asshole. If he thinks that he can yet stage a political comeback, try and weasel your way out of this travesty, Gore. You disgust me.

Kansas -- American Fundamentalism

So a lovely young couple from Nebraska went to Kansas recently to get married. She had her parents permission and they were in love. Trouble is, she was 14 at the time. You see, there is no minimum age for marriage in Kansas, provided you get parental or judicial permission (can you imagine a judge putting his "OK" stamp on the motion?). Why is this trouble? Well, they live in Nebraska, you see. So when you come home, you may be married as a result of Nebraska being forced to give full faith and credit to Kansas, you cannot engage in martial relations.... So hubby/daddy (yes, they have a child now) will have to do a year in prison for his eagerness.

Of course, another little issue is that he impregnated her before she was married, and that carries a sexual assault charge with it. But as the judge said, probation was out of the question in that he continued to have sex with an underage teenager. The bright side is that she is now 15 and when he gets home, she will be 16. Yahoo. I like his NASCAR tie.

And they will probably be married a lot longer than the average blue state union.

Cartoons

And the furor goes on. Now papers are printing one or more of the cartoons to make a point of it in the U.S. However, note that the great Washington Post / NY Times / Boston Globe group have cravenly elected not to print. Why? These are in bad taste and not useful. Hmmm. But the Washington Post did not think it in bad taste to print a cartoon where a U.S. soldier was depicted with nubs for both arms and legs with Cheney saying "now we can call him battle hardened." That was in good taste? Or did the usefulness of the political attack outweigh the reality of lampooning American soldiers returning from national duty.

As people are threatened with death, as clerics call for the execution of the cartoonists, as mob leaders call for the punishment and execution "al Zarqawi" style (that means a beheading with a knife) of Danes and Norwegians ... the Globe talks of the need for sensitivity towards Islamic interests. Can the blind hatred of Bush be so consuming that even this be relegated to the cause of PC?

Folks, as noted some days ago, this is an important distinction developing between Western countries, which are by and large secular and the Islamic world where the word of Mohammed is the word of God (and its interpretation determined by hostile clerics). Each violation of Islam is a violation of the word of God in their minds and must be punished. Our right to freedom of speech directly conflicts with Islam: our rights versus the Word Of God. We believe (most of us) deeply in our inalienable rights (thank you Mr. Jefferson) -- or we should inasmuch as our country was established to provide these rights and American have died in huge numbers in the last 225 years to protect them. And Muslims have died in huge numbers to promulgate the Word of God as told by Mohammed. This is one of those litmus tests. This is not a tolerance thing. And that makes this a flash point which can die down of its own accord or escalate to something greater.

Those who would impose their thoughts on others through means of political correctness and access to the courts (for so-called civil rights infringements -- where does free speech leave off and civil rights displace it?) probably have little problem with kow-towing to the threats made against them. Those who value their rights to self determination and expression -- and that should be you -- cannot bend like grass blown by the wind, but must stand strong.

Ferry sinking

I am truly sorry that so many people died in yet another ferry accident. Most of us can remember the other horrors: the Estonia, the Herald of Free Enterprise, and other almost too numerous to list around Asia. But there is a difference between bad luck, poor seamanship and outright idiots who should be imprisoned. In this case one look at the ship makes it clear that the top decks were added later to increase the capacity of the ship. I cannot believe that it was done with adequate consideration to bouyancy and seaworthiness. Most likely for outright greed: how to keep an obsolete ferry profitable. Only too often do we see the outmoded and outright dangerous shuffled to the Third World. The ship originally had a traditional seaworthy line too it, far different than the boxes that pass as ships today, dependent on all manner of electronics and stabilizers to avoid wallowing like pigs, even dangerously.

And where do people congrgate when it is hot and stuffy below? On deck, or at least higher up where there is a view and more comfort. In this case, precisely where they did not need the extra weight. We learned from the Estonia and Herald disasters that eevn small amounts of water shipping in can case a drastic destabilization of even a well designed and modern ship. Any extra instability in this case would surely be deadly.

Something ominous this way comes

The uproar over these cartoons intensifies: maybe people around the world have suddenly come to the realization that those who would eradicate the West do not mean for people to have freedom of mind or speech. It is and always was strict obedience to the dictates of some theocrats -- their power. These people who are protesting in Gaza do not want choice, they do not want a general freedom to do and think as you please, they do not want to negotiate, they want you to shut up ... or else. And there will be a next step, and a next. Did people wake up a few days ago to the realization that they were kow-towing to a bunch of religious zealots in a far away land -- and worse, they were growing their own local branch of this intolerant movement?

Some of the editorials in the European papers -- Le Soir in particular -- are scathing about the infringement of the freedom of speech. Calling the attempts to bully the press as a form of modern day Inquisition. Heady stuff indeed. Will Saudi Arabia, Syria and others now pull their diplomatic staff from France and Germany? It is easy enough to bully little Denmark and burn some Danish flags, but to piss off your only real political allies hedging against the US? That remains to be seen. Or doesn't their "conviction" as to the blasphemy extend that far? And if it doesn't, then does that not expose their actions as hypocritical? And if the EU is real and a "union," does it not mean "one for all and all for one?" Sure, I know that each member reserves their right to sovereign diplomatic representation, but the press in virtually every member of the EU has published these cartoons. Ahhhh, a free press. But those in uproar wouldn't know about that, would they? After all to contradict is to blaspheme.

So now we have Chirac, not always the most trustworthy of fellows, coming to the aid of the sensible people everywhere: he has threatened Iran. What on Earth is happening? First we have Europeans everywhere all pissed off that the Arab Street is rising because of a few silly cartoons, and now Chirac puts international security ahead of French political gains?

Just a minute, French gains.... What or how could France gain by leading a charge against Iran? Chirac said something to the tune of rogue states fitting the French doctrine for a nuclear response. What does that mean, exactly? Is this just table setting for when Iran goes "rogue" by defying the IAEA and perhaps the UN Security Council? It appears to be. But there has to be some sort of direct financial gain for France here ... there always is. Mere political gain -- standing up to do the right thing -- has NEVER been a French consideration. So I am mystified.

However, let's look at how this may play out. Iran fumbles around for a month, the IAEA does the referral bit to the Security Council ... then what? Showdown at the OK nuclear facility? The only country that could conceivably go it alone is the US and only because it alone possesses the necessary weapons. France could, however, nuke them: and they will have to to get to the centrifuges beneath various mountains. No Osirak mistake here. Actually, anyone attempting to take out the program would have to resort to nukes. So, is this the first tentative steps to set out the need and authority?

So, what next? These are exciting times!! One thing for sure, if there is any action against Iran, oil prices will take a one-way ride to the stratosphere. Cut off Iranian supplies, we are looking at the $150 barrel of oil. That leads to recession in the West (all over the West) and the demise of GM among others and mass chaos. Shut down the Straits of Hormuz -- ALL BETS ARE OFF.

But how does the world not move against Iran? We must. They cannot be allowed to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. Safe behind a nuclear shield, who knows what mischief the theocrats in Tehran will get up to. Israel will not be safe -- ever. Moderate Sunni muslims beware too. Women all over the world who value their current freedoms, however extensive or moderate, should wise up to this too. The Ayatollahs do not plan for an Equal Rights Amendment. And abortion? No debate.

And to keep us in our place? A briefcase (or trunk) in some nice sleeper's house in every Americn city. We won't have the courage.

Dire indeed

Firstly, I must agree with one reader that remarked that Boosh might need someone to tell him what to say and what not to say: we are not quite sure of what he says anyway.

Now ... I have a loaner car while my car is in for service. They thought that they were doing me a favor. A brand new --18 miles on the clock-- Pontiac Grand Prix. THis is one dire car indeed. It is so bad that I can hardly believe that this is still the junk being spewed out by the world's largest loss producer. So it all makes sense, I guess.

Firstly, for a car with sporting pretentions (it has a deck spoiler on the trunk lid), this car wallows like a stuck pig in corners. If there is a bump or pothole in that corner, then woe betide you as you feel the whole car "come loose" and threaten to swap ends, or simply let centrifugal force take it wide ... very wide. From the lights, the front wheels spin with authority -- not your authority, but with great conviction, anyway. And the steering gets very light under acceleration, but not in the torque steer fashion of old Saabs and the like: just vague and scary.

Inside the car is a symphony of cheap plastic and smells like it too. New car smell? Only if you associate that with the cheapest of Chinese plastics. Hard, nasty to the touch. The gauges are covered in a clear plastic shield, only the shield is oriented upwards so as to face the top of the windshield. Accordingly, what ever is going on or passing above the car is reflected directly into the driver's face. Disconcerting to say the least. The controls are ill placed (it would be better to have a chimpanzees fingers to get to the stalks behind the wheel), and not at all intuitive.

I don't know what the official EPA gas figure is, but it cannot be good. In two blinks I used a quarter of a tank.

Lastly is the overall driver's and passenger's position in the car: the beltline is too high, the roof too low, and nasty and cheap is everywhere. No wonder they can't sell these. For the same price you could get a nice Honda.

European Solidarity -- Cartoons

Go to this URL and read.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2020790,00.html

Someone over in Europe grew some testicles.