Familiar?

Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, accused Britain of escalating the crisis by referring the matter to the United Nations security council. Really? Now as far as I can remember, when people seized the soldiers of other nations and held them as political hostages and propaganda material this used to result in war. Or at least some war-like acts. Going to the UN (while an utterly cowardly and feckless thing to do) does not seem like a rash and wanton attempt to escalate the crisis. In fact, by referring th matter to the UN, Britain has basically guaranteed that nothing would be done (mostly courtesy of those wonderful peace-loveing, human rights worshiping nations, Russia and China).

But government-sponsored students roam Tehran with useful signs such as the one above. Not content to have prisoners paraded (in violation of the Geneva convention -- if that is indeed applicable) making "confessions" and "writing letters of apology", students held mock trials of the 15. Mock trials? What? In a country where you can be arrested at the whim of the religious police to face a modern star chamber?

The propaganda fiesta using the 15 hostages as a media tool ... reminds me of Gary Francis Powers, the Vietcong, Mugabe, and a host of other terrorist displays (think of all those lovely videos provided to Al-Jazeera of beheadings, and the pioneers of the Islamic art of hostage taking, the PLO and PFLP etc.).

The Iranian government places themselves in good and appropriate company and is being consistent with their own history ... 444 days presided over by Jimmy Carter. Note that they were released minutes before Ronald Reagan was sworn in? Did you ever wonder what Reagan had intended for Tehran if they had continued to hold the Americans ...? I am sure that the Iranians had a pretty good idea.

And yet, in spite of such behavior, we cannot see our way clear to preventing these people from acquiring nuclear weapons. Putin is clearly an idiot if he does not see the risk posed to Russia as well, and the sizable Chinese Muslim population is probably looking forwards to their own theocracy.

Terrorist?

This is not the face of an evil Imperial soldier. This is the face of someone who is under duress and scared as heck. The headscarf and cigarette. Quite a difference from the picture of the person kidnapped from the Shatt Al Arab waterway.

Iran sez ...

Iran first gave the world coordinates for the kidnapping (although they call it arrest) that closely agreed with those of the British ... about 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters. Subsequently, Iran announced different coordinates (without giving a reason for the change or even acknowledging one at all) that places the site "0.5km" inside Iranian territorial waters. That is 500 meters, about the length of a par 5 golf hole. Useful distance inside of Iranian waters for spying, that.

So I figured I would post a few pictures ... see what your gut is on this.



Clearly, the person on the right is a spy. A vicious provocateur. The person on the left is a poor aggrieved leader of an oil producing nation.

This map was provided by the Ministry of Defense. Let's see the Iranian map. Oh, wait. They have not provided one. I do note that the small boats were operating more than 5nm from their mother ship. In future, I'd suggest that they operate under the gunfire umbrella of a vessel that could blow kidnappers to kingdom come.

Imperialist western sailors in captivity. I'd think that they'd prefer Gitmo. The BBC has reported that sources inside the hardline faction of the Iranian government believe (as does Ahmadinejad) that the captives can be used as "pawns" in the nuclear game or to trade with the US to get their Al Quds agents back. I'd like to point out that the Al-Quds agents were captured hundreds of miles inside Iraq, while trying to flush papers down the toilet, while by contrast, the UK sailors were kidnapped inside of Iraqi waters. Sorry, Rosie.


In case we forget the ideology of the Iranian President.... He was an activist back then too, and is still closely allied with the Al-Quds branch of the Revolutionary Guards (he was in the Special Forces of the Revolutionary Guards during the Iraqi war of 1980-1988, a senior officer in the Al Quds -- which means Jerusalem!! -- organization, a senior officer in the Special Brigade of the Revolutionary Guards, which organized foreign assassinations and other extra-territorial activities such as funding and training Hezbollah, etc., etc.). Name a hardline policy and A-jad is either behind it or agrees with it.

A-jad fell out of grace during the late 1990's as Iran edged towards reform. But as the hardline faction re-asserted themselves , A-jad was appointed mayor of Tehran. There, "he reversed many of the policies of previous moderate and reformist mayors, placing serious religious emphasis on the activites of the cultural centers by turning them into prayer halls during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. He closed fast-food restaurants and required male city employees to have beards and wear long sleeves. He instituted the separation of elevators of men and women in the municiple offices. He also suggested the burial of the bodies of martyrs of the Iran-Iraq war in major city squares of Tehran." (Globalsecurity.org).

There seems to be little doubt that the election that brought A-jad to power was rigged, with the support of the IRGC, and its paramilitary force, the Basiijis who "got out the vote." Or more like vote for A-jad or else...." A-jad is not at all interested in a democracy, or even a democratic face to a theocracy. He states that Iran "did not have a revolution in order to have democracy, but to have an Islamic government." A form of Islamic socialism ... but make no mistake, my wannabe socialist friends, the first part is the important one: Islamic. That is, their form of Islam. Women need not apply. Remember that.

Think that I am out of line?

Huh? Do ya?

Well no sooner than I posted the last entry, I read the following:

Posted: March 26, 2007
3:30 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

In yet another provocative claim, TV host Rosie O'Donnell implied today the Iranian seizure of British sailors was a hoax to provide President Bush with an excuse to go to war with Tehran.

In a discussion about the 15 British personnel seized Friday for allegedly entering Iranian waters, the controversial co-host of ABC's "The View" correlated the event to the Gulf of Tonkin incident that propelled the U.S. into the Vietnam War. President Johnson's administration was accused of provoking one incident in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin and making up another as a pretext for war.

O'Donnell, according to the media watchdog Newsbusters, said: "But interesting with the British sailors, there were 15 British sailors and Marines who apparently went into Iranian waters and they were seized by the Iranians. And I have one thing to say: Gulf of Tonkin, Google it. Okay."

The U.S. and Britain, however, along with Iraq and France, contend the sailors were not in Iranian waters.

After O'Donnell's comment, the dialogue when like this:

JOY BEHAR: Some other time. Some other time.

O'DONNELL: Well, you know...

BARBARA WALTERS: It could be a decision-making time. It's a very difficult situation. It's at the United Nations. It's being examined now. Should there be sanctions? Militarily, we certainly don't seem to be in the position to do something militarily. But it is a decision-making time.

O'DONNELL: Yes, but it's very interesting too that, you know, these guys, they went into the water by mistake right at a time when British and American, you know, they're two, they're pretty much our biggest ally and we're considering whether or not we should go into war with Iran.

BEHAR: But the U.N. was about to sanction them, also have an embargo against Iran. And the, and the timing [unintelligible] so they distracted the whole world with this.

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: Right and they may be about to expel the inspectors right now, too, which could be considered [unintelligible]

O'DONNELL: Right or it could be just the Gulf of Tonkin, which you should all Google.

As WND reported last week, O'Donnell implied the World Trade Center brought down deliberately on Sept. 11, 2001, for the purpose of eliminating records of government investigations into corporate fraud.

The previous week O'Donnell defended 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. During the March 15 broadcast of "The View," she suggested the U.S. government elicited a false confession from Mohammed by using torture, robbing him of his humanity and treating him like an animal.

A transcript of Mohammed's confession to 31 terrorist attacks had been released that day, but O'Donnell argued it came only after having a "hood on his head and being beaten to death."

"They didn't allow reporters there and he hasn't had a lawyer," the talk show host stated, insinuating the confession was coerced with no accountability.

Defending U.S. handling of Mohammed, co-panelist Elisabeth Hasselbeck asked, "You don't think he had ties to any of (the terrorist acts)?"

"I think the man has been under custody in secret CIA torture prisons and Guantanamo Bay where torture is accepted and allowed – and he finally is the guy who admits to doing everything," O'Donnell said. "They finally found the guy, it's not that guy bin Laden, it's this guy they've had since March 2003."

In November, O'Donnell told Hasselbeck in an exchange on "The View" that Americans shouldn't fear terrorists.

"Faith or fear, that's your choice," she said.

"You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world, or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking."

And you think I am crazy??????

More knee-jerk hogwash

OK, let's get this straight: the US and UK did NOT set up the kidnapping of 15 marines and sailors to enable an attack on Iran. This has similarities to the Hezbollah kidnapping of an Israeli soldier (the anti-American/Israeli left believe this to have been a hoax designed to allow Israel to attack the peace-loving Shiite militias in Lebanon).

It is a provocation. And Iran told us that they were going to do something like this weeks earlier in response to our capturing Al-Quds agents in Iraq. Reza Faker, a writer for the Revolutionary Guards’ newspaper Subhi Sadek, said: “We have the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks.” Reza Zakeri, of President Ahmadinejad’s office, said that capturing a Western soldier was easier than acquiring a cheaply made Chinese product. Now what the "fighting cocks" means, I just don't know -- I'll have to assume that it is related to the bloodthirsty "sport" of cockfighting?

Then General Ali Resa Asgari defected to the West ... and with him came lots of info about actions of the Revolutionary Guard in Lebanon ... and presumably, Iraq.

This is all set against the background of Iran's intransigence with respect to its "peaceful" nuclear program and UN calls to cease enriching uranium. Fat lot of good diplomacy does there.
And idiots -- reflexive, knee-jerk leftists, anti-Booshies (really, pick your battles, there are plenty but this is one where you need to face reality), and assorted Muslim extremist wackos -- insist that this is a set-up. If you fit this description, you must also believe in the tooth fairy, that Pol Pot was just trying to clean up Phnom Pen and that Joe Stalin was just misunderstood.

"The Iranians mounted a similar attack in 2004, when six Royal Marines and two sailors were abducted from the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The servicemen were spirited to Tehran and paraded blindfold on television, which broadcast their apprehensive apologies for a “big mistake”. If those servicemen did indeed make a mistake by inadvertently straying into Iranian waters, the treatment they received remained unconscionable."(London Times).

So does this looklike how you'd want to threaten the Iranians? Not exactly a stout, armored craft to provoke Iranian patrol boats.... I'd think that this is the equivalent of running onto the battlefield butt-naked, waving a bulls-eye flag.

So listen up: the Iranians are up to no good. They are provocateurs. They see themselves as the rightful rulers of the whole of the Middle East (think Darius, Xerxes and Cyrus -- if you don't know these names, then shame on you). While we might not belong there, they are trying to set up circumstances such that they will step in -- and THEY have no intention of ever leaving. Oil and the wealth it represents would provide the treasury for the great conquest of Shia Islam led by Iran. And that folks is the difference -- and we are by and large too stupid in the West to listen to them in this regard.

They have TOLD us that this is what they intend. Don't think that ramblings from the mosque and clerics is mere religious rhetoric -- these guys control Iran and shortly will have a finger on a "button." They have an agenda: (1) kill all the Jews; (2) throw Westerners and any other unbelievers out of Muslim lands of the Middle East; (3) obliterate the heretic Sunnis; and (4) reestablish the empire of Islam of old. Also, they don't have to worry about elections, pandering to political factions, idiot greenies, lobbyists, or other vermin: they can be made to disappear. They don't worry about who will be in power in the next 4 years. Or worry about juicy cabinet posts as rewards for toadying. And yet, people believe that this is a set-up. IDIOTS.

Listen too to this: each and every boat in the Shatt al-Arab run by any military is equipped with GPS technology, including warnings and alarms if they stray outside of their operational zones. There is simply no way that they made that error -- its too closely monitored. The error(s), if we wish to find them, is that: (1) they didn't try to fight their way out; (2) the frigate accompanying them did not alert them of approaching Iranian craft; (3) did not support the RIBs (rigid inflatable boats); and (4) did not try and head the Iranians off. What this looks like is that the rules of engagement may be at fault ... sending troops into harm's way without giving them the means to protect themselves. Why? Probably afraid of offending or "provoking" the Iranians. And the Iranians probably counted on that. So maybe the Iranians were right -- it IS easy to take some Blondies hostage ... because the cowardly morons (politicians, all) in Whitehall (UK Pentagon) believe in appeasement and diplomacy. IDIOTS.

So what to do? If we (US/UK) attack, it will look like a set-up stunt and the Iranians will loudly proclaim it as such. Our reflexive knee-jerk press will give this credibility and lefty loonies will march in the streets in protest. Exactly what the Iranians want. Us "out" sooner. If we just say -- do what you want, but if we find any of you on our side, we will blow you to hell and gone ... we can expect Revolutionary Guards line up for the opportunity and provoke warfare. Iran wins again. Remember, they cross over the line in the Gulf ALL the time to try and provoke us now, so imagine the fun and games if we threaten them.

How about publishing the real-time data and surveillance tapes that we undoubtedly have? Just air it out into the open? Does anyone really think that the Iranians don't know how good our surveillance devices are? Iran might simply label it lies and fabrication, but the rest of the world might be able to see it and at least a seed of doubt may be planted. Or if the UK did screw up, fess up and apologize?

Spring is the offensive season -- expect more to come.

Weird ... but no cigar.

So I have been sitting on my ass for a week, skiing, cooking and minding the kids. And I don't feel good about it. Or bad about it, either. It just feels like something weird is about to happen.

OK, so the Fed kept rates static. What does that mean?

Gordon Brown is trying to hide the fact that he is a Trotskyite ... and???

The Iranians are giving everyone the finger ... what's new?

The French political race is a shambles ... yes. OK.

Democrats are trying to phase in an enforced withdrawal from Iraq. Assholes. But nothing really different about that.

Al Gore tells us that the climate is at a crisis point -- but flies from city to city in a combo of private jets and commercial ones. Uh, for the guy that "invented the internet" has he ever heard of webcasts? Or teleconferencing?

A guy gets time for fornication with a dead deer ... in Minnesota. Weird.

Bob Mugabe hires a bunch of Angolan voodoo bloodsucker paramilitaries. And we contemplate our navels. A man that turned the bread basket of Africa into a dust bowl. Send over some precision guided munitions to his political party picnic.

The Brits arrest three people getting onto planes bound for ... Pakistan ... who were connected with the 7/7 bombings. Gee, Pakistan. That IS a surprise.

Ho, hum.

Do the Math.

I LOVE this cartoon. Really, it says it all. And expresses a fond wish of mine. I'd pitch her against either of those two in a debate, 9 rounds with gloves, 18 holes, a briefcase with some numbers and a button, and the ability to let me go to sleep at night feeling secure.

Do you imagine that she'd let the Dork Cheney's and Alberto Gonzos screw up? I think not. And you also get to nail up the lesbian rosette, too. A clean sweep. She probably scares the DNC more than the "Return of Newt." And milquetoast Re-whine-agains ... uh, you gonna vote for Hillary? No, I didn't think so.

Gonzo and the Lawyers

The press and the Democrats (and a few grandstanding Republicans) are all up in arms that the Boosh administration was underhanded in firing 8 US Attorneys. What's the deal?

First, it appears that Congress was misled as to the real reason for the firings. So Gonzo hemmed and hawed as to the "official" reason and stonewalled as Democrats tried to label this as a political firing. Congress feels that they were misled, if not actually lied to -- which would constitute (in their eyes) obstruction of justice (Congress) etc. So now everyone with a beef with the Justice Department has their knives out and is trying to get a Boosh because of Gonzo's missteps. Sort of a Scooter Libby thing: the underlying "crime" was not a crime at all, but the cover-up for political reasons was/is a crime.

The reason was pretty simple: they were not doing as their bosses would have them do. So is that a political reason or performance based? That depends on your viewpoint: if you are not doing as your bosses would have you do for political reasons, you are not performing your job as requested. In short if Democrat, it is political, if Republican, performance. But it the end, this does not matter at all -- they are employees of the Executive Branch ... Boosh's employees.

A basic principle of American law is that you have the freedom of association ... the ability to hire or fire for no reason at all (unless, the target is a protected class and can claim the action was illegally motivated). But as a white male, basically, you can be fired at whim and will.

Clinton, coming into office fired ALL the US Attorneys. Boosh could have, but chose to hold over some of Clinton's appointees. Mistake. But coming into his second term, Clinton held on to most of the incumbents .. why not, they were his appointees. But Boosh, still had some Democrat appointees in place and they were not doing or following the creed of the Boss. So he wanted them out (or Gonzo did). So it adds up to a big "SO WHAT?" Boosh for all his idiots in place has the right to throw out whomever he wants. For ANY reason (apart from protect persons). But as far as the Democrats see it, any lefty US Attorney is or should be protected.

So instead of just firing them and saying Boosh or Gonzo had lost faith in them, they tried to hide the reasons. had they just fired them, then there would be nothing to say about it. Yes, some politically motivated BS in the NY Times, etc., but a limited action nevertheless. But Congress is excised that they were cut out of the loop (again, it is NONE of their business) and were/are afraid that Boosh was trying to do an end-run around their advice and consent to future appointments. Actually, little, if any in the way of consent would be needed, just "advice" which can be readily ignored. US Attorneys are not like Federal Judges who belong to the third branch of government; again they are Boosh's employees.

So when Sununu (R) comes out claiming that Gonzo should go because the firing was poltically motivated ... it really only exposes his need to grandstand and ignorance of US law. Rather abysmal when considering he is a US Senator. I can forgive the Democrats as ideologues, but not an "esteemed" very senior Senator -- of course, Sununu is a long-time Boosh enemy. Sad to see a "smart" Republican go after the President in the same way Democrats do -- unthinking and merely full of spite.

Pick your times and battles, enemies of Boosh, goodness knows, he gives plenty of opportunityfor you to so, the moron.

Remember: (1) these are employees that can be hired or fired for ANY or NO reason at all -- just don't lie about it or try and get clever; and (2) fire the sneaky bastards up front before you start, don't expect the leopard to change it's spots.

If you are illegal ... then face the music

Let's get one thing straight: if you are here in the United States illegally, you are a criminal under the laws of this country. If you work here illegally, you may be guilty of more crimes -- do you pay taxes? How about FICA? Do you hire others? Do you have appropriate licensing and insurance coverage? Do you cause the US taxpayer to pay for translation services because you cannot speak our language?

Yes, there might be poverty in your home country. Yes, conditions in your home country may not be as good as the conditions you might make for yourself here. Yes, this IS the land of opportunity. Yes, in your shoes I'd do the same too (but try and get legal). Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

But you are a criminal. I don't care that you even pay taxes (though I appreciate that, and the fact that you do should be taken into consideration whether to deport you or not), you are still a criminal -- only this time not guilty of tax evasion.


So a whole bunch of people were arrested in a raid in New Bedford. The Boston Globe's reporting goes to the human issue (and is blatantly manipulative): ""Has anyone seen my wife? She left for work yesterday and never came home. Our newborn baby is hungry and crying. Can someone please help?" asks a young father in the basement of a crowded church, one clear voice above the din of the hundreds gathered. The fear is palpable in the young man’s eyes. He implores the listener to offer solace, hope, and encouragement." Yup. I feel for them, honestly.

The Globe adds: "These families in New Bedford escaped severe poverty and oppressive governments because they dared to believe in the American Dream. Ineligible for public benefits, they work every day and pay taxes in hopes of providing a better future for their children and their communities. The land that first welcomed Pilgrims is no longer the land of opportunity that the Statue of Liberty represents."

Sorry, Mr. Globe reporter, you fail to mention the single salient fact that, if things had been otherwise would have avoided the whole sorry mess: they were illegal. Had they been legal, they would be in a different situation. Also, note that while they may be ineligible for public benefits, they CAN and DO just walk into hospitals for medical treatment. Their kids go to our schools and cost more to educate through ESL programs, etc. Note, too, that "public benefits" means stuff that you and I pay for with our taxes -- and that they would not get in their home countries either. In short, America does not have the responsibility to shoulder the economic woes of anyone who can manage to arrive here. Get your head out of your poop shooter: the United States CANNOT support the entire world on everyone else's terms. Just can't be done. We need the rule of law to move on in this regard: it is precisely the lack of obedience to the law that has created the corruption and poverty in the migrant's home countries in the first place. Can't you see that? If nobody obeys that laws, we get chaos and life becomes a free-for-all. Like Central and South America.

An entirely different question is this: should our immigration and labor laws work this way? Of course not. We should have a system for guest workers in place, whereby the migrant worker would: (1) be able to speak English; (2) pay taxes; (3) receive benefits in respect of those taxes; (4) have to go home when they become a burden on the State (unless they choose to become U.S. citizens); (5) not pass US citizenship on their children by virtue of being born here; (6) have reciprocity with the countries whose sons and daughters are "forced" to come here to work. There a bunch of other issues, but let's just start with these.

I have written before about the Mexican government's hypocritical position: if you try and work illegally in Mexico, you might find yourself in prison working for free. They certainly won't have any consideration about your economic migrant status or human rights -- as too many Guatemalans and Nicaraguans have found to their dismay. Throw open your borders Mr. Calderon, institute a workers program - then open your trap about our practices. Mr. Chavez ... you are so rich and magnanimous, how about open the Venezuelan doors to your fellow latinos? They won't even have to learn the language.

We ALL have to pay taxes. Period To be fully functional in this country and NOT burden to taxpayers, you MUST speak English. You can't simply come here, spawn, and then claim entitlement to remain by virtue of the fact that you are fecund. I won't pay for the by product of nookie. And when you are no longer useful here, too old, too infirm, too lazy -- goodbye. I certainly don't need to pay for you either. If you commit a violent crime here: you should do a full sentence on a work gang, then get sent home NEVER to return. If you do ... make it really unpleasant.

Back to new Bedford. The problem is that people will go wherever they can to do better in life: ants will find a way into your kitchen, if you leave sugar about. To prevent the ants from coming, you have to clean up the sugar. I don't mean to imply that migrant workers are ants, but only point out that nature is sure to its course. To clean up the sugar, you have to imprison those who flagrantly flout our laws: the employers need to be locked up. And the workers returned home -- with humanity. Round up the family, put them on a nice passenger jet home with suitcases and say $1000. Tell them that the following time that they are caught illegally, they will build nice new roads in the US of A -- for free. But don't penalize them in applying to enter here legally. If they have paid taxes, they go to the head of the line in front of those deported without having paid taxes.

Strict liability for U.S. violators --make employers pay $10,000 per person caught working illegally for them: you'd soon have the money for the repatriation program. Get caught on two different occasions, you do time and the fine. Three instances, you do Federal time and have all assets stripped.

I don't want to stop immigration, I want to stop exploitation and enforce our laws to increase the standard of living of ALL workers in the United States. People will get hurt in the process, families split up for a time, but don't forget these people -- for all their need and aspirations -- are still criminals, and they know it too. They know the risks and consequences.

I've been busy -- probably should be in rehab

So ... do you have to go to rehab too? Have you exercised your 1st Amendment rights once too often? Forgotten to take your PC pill? Well now there is a solution, just right for each us us and guaranteed to make you feel like yourself again: Liberalism.

Yessir, folks, just join us over in the Liberal camp and we will soon have you violating other people's rights, all the while loudly proclaiming the magic talismanic words, "hate speech!"

Ann Coulter did not need to stoop to implying that Edwards was a "faggot." She is really too competent for that. But she could not resist the double whammy of pointing out that Edwards is what many Americans would call a "faggot," while taking a swipe at the lunacy of our society where someone who says something inappropriate is deemed suitable for "rehab." Let's deal with the "faggot" first, then move on to "rehab."

Currently, faggot is a nasty word used to describe homosexuals. Formerly, it was a smallish bundle of wood used for lighting fires. It is also still used in parts of England and Wales to describe a type of pork product. "Fag" is a shortened version of faggot, but commonly in use in England as a word for cigarette, or the underclassman servant of a 6th former. To "fag" is to serve said 6th former. "Fag," as we know it in the U.S. is not used as a pejorative in other English speaking countries (apart from Canada -- and who knows about them, or cares).

To be a fag has in our PC world become to enter a protected class, not dissimilar from being black, female or latino. Under the constitution of the United States, however, being homosexual is not to be part of a protected class. Being part of a protected class is a result of being born that way in the sense of your skin being indelibly colored, or having two "X" chromosomes. And not related to sexual preference. That is the key distinction: homosexuality is about choice (not matter that one might feel born that way), being black is about pigmentation and is obvious on its face. Maybe we should be more enlightened in that regard, but the law remains as it is. One thing is physical, the other mental. Thus, while the PC liberal crowd might shudder at this: fags are not protected.

From that source of often incorrect info, Wikipedia:

Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on his or her race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height and weight). The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.

Which brings us to free speech. The government cannot generally regulate the content of "hate speech" but it can regulate the results of it -- where it is used to incite to riot, or bring about harmful consequences to others, e.g. shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema. Lots of people would like to bring content into question, as in many socialist countries around the world (and in California where although hate speech is legal, it is easy to sue for damages or fire someone as a result of it). To deny the holocaust in Germany is a ticket to jail. To call someone a queer in Canada is to risk 2 to 7 years behind bars -- because it can be seen to be an incitement to hatred. Mercifully, in most of the US, that is not the case and political speech is absolutely protected. Good, and this is as it should be.

I like the idea of being free to hate someone and be hated in return. To call him/her what I think of her and have him/her call me what they think of me. Just so long as it does not incite to violence -- protection of the person being the talisman. But what about discrimination, I hear you say? Well, what is it, really? Discrimination can be the exercise of free choice, or being told to do and think as others would have you do it -- that is, we don't like the way that you think and you must do it our way, or else. The very reasons why we became a nation in the first place are to avoid this. Yes, the United States screwed up with the blacks for about 200 years, and continued to do so until the Civil Rights movement brought us into the light. It is exactly that blacks were deprived of the freedom of choice that makes it so offensive and shameful, and that it went to the sanctity of the person.

But in Europe, since recorded time you were told how to think and what to do -- and still are. Certain people -- people who became Americans -- didn't like that. If you like to tell people what to do and what to think, I suggest that you move back to Europe. Or Canada.

You see, the United States has a singular solution to the problem of nasty people: you do not have to deal with people who offend you. Instead deal with those that please you and see things as you do. And, unlike the situation in Europe, there is generally nobody who wants to mandate a single orthodox approach (apart from the Bible bashers and Cambridge loonies). The solution: if someone is an anti Semite, then don't deal with him or see his movies. Simple. If someone doesn't like blacks, those who find this offensive should not engage in commerce or associate with that person. The Wall Street Rule: sell that which you do not like. Fire an offensive employee. Quit a job where your boss is offensive. If a company has sexually inappropriate behavior as commonplace, then move your brilliant person, with your creativity and brains to a place where it is not tolerated -- but don't use the government as a legal weapon. The weapon of association and commerce will ultimately prove far more effective in regulating conduct that laws telling you how to think.

That brings us to Cambridge -- I mean, Orwellian risks posed by the PC liberal folks (before I sound too right wing, please note that the right wings crazies who thump the bible and proclaim all homosexuals to be deviants and sick and probably more offensive that the Cambridge crazies, but not as vocal or well organized): who is going to be the arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not? Where is the line to be drawn for legal imposition of behavior rules? Simply, there is no intellectually acceptable approach. None. What is fine by me is not fine by you. Cannot be. We are a nation of individuals and that is EXACTLY what make us great. To do other than allow free speech, is to embark down the road of totalitarian politics, thought police and control, and the loss of individual freedoms too many to list. Want "rehab?" Think that it is appropriate? Think that the Soviet Gulag was appropriate -- that venerable institution was also intended to regulate thought.

For the lefty reading this: do you smoke pot? Do you regard this as a right unfairly denied you? If it is not unfairly denied, then you must be aware that you are breaking the law, right? But that is OK, by you because you "know" that this is OK, that is, you "know" better? What about people who "know" that their hate speech is OK? They think that they "know" better too.... Or do you know better than their better? Remember the pigs in Animal Farm? The Party in the Soviet Union "knew" better too.

Let us also look at some obvious hypocrisy: Anne Coulter is a villain, and those lamenting the failure to assassinate Dick Cheney are not? Is it OK to hate all right wingers and fascists because they are exactly that? But it is not OK to hate left wingers and those that would tax the individual to the extent that it stomps out enterprise? IT is OK to hate those who believe in the word of the Bible, but not OK to hate those who would impose political beliefs -- both are as crazy as the other, at least to each other?

Ann Coulter can call or imply that John Edwards is a fag in my book. And I reserve the right to call her a screaming rightwing loony or slut. Slut. That is a sexual preference -- having many partners without too much regard for quality -- just as the homosexual orientation of someone might be. Should we all hate someone who calls Coulter a slut? She might not be, just as Edwards might not be a fag. If you want to live someplace where feelings are legislated, move to Canada.