From Drudge comes this report about a bunch of global warming protesters that are calling for the resignations of both the directors, of the National Hurricane Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.SILVER SPRING, MD – Hundreds of concerned citizens and leaders from across the nation will join Hurricane Katrina survivors Wednesday to call for the resignation of the heads of the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at the NOAA Headquarters just outside of Washington, D.C. During an 11 a.m. demonstration, advocates will demand that NOAA stop covering up the growing scientific link between severe hurricanes and global warming while insisting on real solutions to the problem of global warming.
Unbelievable.Well, it just goes to show that somebody has to hang for everything that goes wrong, whether it's an act of God, or not. Heaven forbid that we would see things as they truly are. Why in the world would we need to accept that hurricanes, tsunamis, tornados, and other natural disasters have been around since the planet was formed? Read these pieces: THE MYTH OF GLOBAL WARMING Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a MythMyths vs. FactsWith all of the garbage that Hollywood is putting out, the media has been saturated with movies like Gore's ridiculous waste of money and The Day After Tomorrow, it's no wonder people are allowing themselves to be whipped into a frenzy, over a natural occurence. Whoever coined the term moonbat, deserves royalties.Cross posted at The Wide Awakes
Neal Boortz, Atlanta based and syndicated talk show host, has a commencement speech that everyone should read. I have been meaning to link it up, but everytime I think about it I am away from the computer. So, for your reading enjoyment, here it is:The Neal Boortz Commencement SpeechEnjoy.
My son graduated Saturday. Pride, joy, and happiness were the prevalent emotions, on that day. The very next day my mother-in-law, broke her distal femur, near the knee. This is a nasty break. Surgery was done yesterday. But today, she appears to be giving up. She is 81, has lived a good life, and probably does not want to live in a nursing home. Sorrow is setting in, here. But we must endure and we will, as we do in all things. Life is a metamorphosis and an ongoing evolution. This is but one phase and one stationary point in time. As George Harrison said, "All things must pass". And they do.
In case you haven't been reading lately, I have been a little irritated at our national legislative assembly of elected officials. Therefore, I was thinking about writing an essay under this title and theme. As I began to think about how I wanted to present it, I did my customary search to see what all was out there on the topic and much to my surprise, I found this op-ed by Chris Lykins of the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise, in Texas:
A Culture Of Corruption Backfires
It pretty much says what I wanted to say, up to a point. And even though it doesn't go quite as far as I would have loved to see it go, it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. Jefferson is just one of many, many that have been entrusted with the affairs of the republic and yet, have defiled the very institution they were elected to serve in.
We all have heard about the case of Duke Cunningham from the MSM, ad nauseum. Anytime its a Republican in the hot seat, the MSM just has to hammer away at it, as if they are the only ones guilty of misconduct. And that's fine. Despite the fact that Cunningham was once an honorable man, he did it, and he should be punished for it. (And he is.)
But here's an interesting tidbit being reported by the AP, about Harry Reid and some free ringside boxing tickets for some top-notch matches. There's even a picture of Reid and McCain at ringside. The report says that McCain reimbursed those responsible, for his. But, there is no mention of Reid doing it. All this was at a time when there wwas an on-going debate about whether or not, there needed to be a federal boxing commission. Obviously the Nevada Commission was an interested party of that debate and wanted to keep the status quo.Reid's House counterpart, Nancy Pelosi, is no stranger to impropriety, either. Pelosi and Hastert both seemed to have no trouble whatsoever condemning a raid on Jefferson's office, for reasons that are clear to all that have an ounce of sense. So, I guess what I am trying to say is that corruption knows no party lines. The battle does not pit Republicans against Democrats. It pits the People vs. Congress or Us vs. Them. They work for us. They make laws for us, because we hired them to do so. We have to obey those laws. so should they. The problem is so out of hand, so spun out of control, it will take a long time to reel it in. But, we have to start somewhere and 2006, is just as good of a time, as any. We, the people, must send a message. This culture of corruption is deeply rooted and it must be dug up, before it chokes off what few freedoms we have left.I think we deserve better. Don't you think so?
Flemming Rose is the culture editor of the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten. He is the man that was responsible for the printing now famous Mohammed cartoons that sparked outrage by Muslims, worldwide.
In his recent RCP essay entitled, Europe's Politics of Victimology, he criticizes and indicts a popular strategy known as, playing the victim card. This piece is both an indictment and an entreaty for a better understanding of what has led Europe to the point it is, currently.
Europe today finds itself trapped in a posture of moral relativism that is undermining its liberal values. An unholy three-cornered alliance between Middle East dictators, radical imams who live in Europe, and Europe's traditional left wing is enabling a politics of victimology.
Many will, no doubt, openly deny this. But that doesn't change the fact that he is absolutely correct. You see, leftism is not concerned with what is right for people, it is concerned about empowerment. A good example is Nicaragua. The Sandinistas promised political and economical bliss to all that would help overthrow Somoza. Yet today, the country is no better off than it was under the dictator. Their economy still is not to be envied and the Sandinistas have since left power. Nothing was accomplished, no one made life better. The only thing that changed were the names of tyrants, empowered.
Radical Islam has taken a page out that old leftist playbook and we see that as far back as 1979, when the Shah was overthrown and replaced with a far more oppressive regime. Today, this triple alliance that Rose refers to, is precisely where the modern-day assaults on western culture are coming from. The Iranian government, the mullahs that preach hate in Europe and elsewhere, and the left have truly converged, as a loose force of three.
As one who once championed the utopian state of multicultural bliss, I think I know what I'm talking about.
I think that some in the left may have had the best of intentions when they wanted to trust this multi-culturist model (that has never happened yet, in the course of our planet's history). But Rose and many others have come to realize some things, during this episode that thrust him (and others) into the cross-hairs of those that want this radical ideology to spread. They have learned it the hard way. The question now becomes, what will it take for Rose (and those others) to convince his (their) former leftist brethren, of their continued folly?
...what about the dark, bearded new Danes who speak Arabic at home and poor Danish in the streets? We Europeans must make a profound cultural adjustment to understand that they, too, can be Danes.
One thing is, multi-culturism does not mean one culture is allowed a pass to infringe on others' rights, under the banner of their faith. That's the part that's so dangerous. That's the part they do not get. Rose must first come to the understanding that multi-culturism has never been accomplished and unless those with the dark beards are willing to assimilate, it won't matter what you do to encourage it.
Anyway, this is an interesting piece and though I do not agree with everything he says in it, it's worth the read. Rose isn't quite there yet, but he's getting there. Sometimes change must come in phases as part of a metamorphosis, the important part is that the first part begins and takes root, then when the time is right, the next phase will come.
There was an old Hall and Oates song from back in the 80s that I always have liked. It was a song about a relationship where one party was feeling the whole thing was going sour. So, some of the lyrics can be wrested from the song and sung to Congress, as a message from the people. Here are those that are applicable to this present situation with one minor alteration: Reaching out for something to hold
Looking for a love mutual respect where the climate is cold
Manic moves and drowsy dreams
Or living in the middle between the two extremes
Smoking guns hot to the touch
Would cool down if we didn't use them so much
We're soul alone
And soul really matters to me
Too much
You're out of touch
I'm out of time.
Well, that pretty much says it all. They are almost completely out of touch and the American people are running out of time and patience, waiting for them to put our wishes first. We desperately need leadership and there is little to none. We seek action and interventions to problems that need attention now, and they have done so very little. They act only in election years and when their hands are forced. And then, all they do is put band-aids on it. A Congressman has been taped taking money, the money was found in his freezer, and Dennis Hastert pitches a hissy-fit because the Justice Department searches the office of the guy that took the money. That tells us, they all have done things they would not want known. They need replaced, en masse.
Of all of the things that God has bestowed upon me, there is one gift that I have enjoyed more than any other. Being a father was that one gift that has been something that I have never taken lightly, because it was the one gift that came with great responsibility, and at times, enormous burden. But more than anything in the world, it also came with great joy and happiness. And how glad I am that I accepted those challenges that came with both, the role and the title.
Yes. The rewards were (and still are) worth every drop of sweat that I have expended over the years, worrying that I would make a mistake or two, or that something would happen to those little children that I helped create. Things are never perfect and my years as a father were not perfect, either. I know where I failed, at least I think I do. But, as I look at my deficiencies and reflect on my performance as a dad, I also see that I did a lot of things right.
I could write a book. But let's suffice it to say that I didn't have a cushy childhood. I had it a lot better than most. And of that, there is no doubt in my mind. Nothing was handed to me, I inherited nothing, I won nothing. I worked for everything that I own. And although, by many standards it isn't much, I am today, among some of the richest men in the entire world. My youngest child, my son, graduates high school today and I will probably cry at the ceremony, as I see him walk up to that stage and get that diploma. So that will be the end of my hard-nosed reputation in the community. Now, people will know that I am no Red Foreman (the dad in That 70s Show), who is my TV character hero. My reputation will be be shot. But I do not care. In the end, it will be most therapeutic. Why? Because I have done the one thing that so many people have hoped to do, but couldn't. I have done the one thing that many should have done, yet failed to do. And, I have done the one thing that many have had the honor and privilege to do, before me. I have raised a son. He has responded, this is his day, and I am very glad in it.
I want to wish my American readers a very happy and safe Memorial Day weekend. Watch out for idiots on the road and please do not drink and drive. For all of my readers in Europe that do not celebrate this holiday, you guys have enough holidays ;)Seriously, enjoy but be careful.Always On Watch has a great piece on Memorial Day.As does Mustang from Social Sense. Be sure to follow his link.GM from GM's Corner checks in with this.
Well, pretty much everyone in the world that cares to know, now knows the winner. Taylor beat out Kat. Between those two, I think the better contestant won based on the performances Tuesday night. Taylor's last song smashed Kat's, to pieces. Taylor's song was more of a question for his fans, friends and family. Kat's was more of a look at me, vote for me, this is my dream. But the young innocent girls that live in their Harlequin romance novel and fantasy worlds, were not enough to carry her in the end. Those that know sincerity and saw the real love of music in Taylor and could feel it everytime he sang (even though he may have butchered it, like he did Levon) voted.
But as I have written before, who knows?
Seriously, I think the show should be more forthcoming about the votes and how they breakdown. I think it's a bit fishy that sometimes they tell you, and other times they don't. Who really knows for sure? I mean, I understand that it's entertainment. I know that they can do what they want in entertainment. But, if something is billed as a contest with millions and millions of fans buying into it with their money, it should be legitimate and they demonstrate that it is. That's all.
I could be wrong, though. It could all be on the level. But, they should have it, open and candid. If not, just let the judges decide and forget the damned voting. But you know that won't happen. The lost revenues in the vote calls would be huge and not only that, people would probably lose interest in it, altogether. No audience participation would signal the end of it, I am afraid.
Look, if you are going to do something and people are going to spend their time and money, making you money, I would expect to it to be fair and on the level.
Anyway, it's over. And I think, it was the best ever. I do not know if I will watch next year, or not. That's a decision I won't lose a lot of sleep over, in the meantime. But I do think that it is odd that of all of the posts I write (with many on some very serious topics), this one I wrote a week ago, still gets the bulk of my hits.
Maybe, I should write on entertainment. Maybe Entertainment or Showbiz Yen/Yang?
Nah!!! Forget I ever said that.
The New York Observer has an article about John McCain speaking at a closed-door Republican event, in NYC. (HT: Drudge) Here is one bit, I would like to present:
He cautioned against ghettoizing immigrants, which he noted has brought about disastrous results in France, and criticized elements in his own party as “nativist” before lambasting the punditry of Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs and Michael Savage for helping to “fuel the problem,” according to two of the sources.
Limbaugh, Dobbs, and Savage would not have an audience on this particular issue, if the elected officials in Washington would listen to 80% of the American people. Most of that 80% do not feel the way they do because they are xenophobic. Most feel the way they do, because of security issues and sound economic concerns.
While it is true that most of the people crossing over are no national security threat, there are no guarantees that some aren't. If we do not control the border, it will only be a matter of time before someone will slip through undetected that will seek to do harm to our country. When that attack occurs and we have found that the attackers came across the Mexican border disguised as Mexican immigrants, we will all ask the question: Why did we not act, sooner? You see, the old adage of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, really resonates in this instance.
Our healthcare system cannot keep providing free healthcare and other free perks to citizens of other nations that are here, illegally. Our nation has obligations to its own citizens, first and foremost. We cannot help it if the Mexican government is corrupt, we cannot help it if their government does not create opportunities for their own people. Most of the 80% that want a fence or a wall, want it there for these reasons.
Limbaugh, Dobbs, and Savage are using their forums and their microphones to say to the people in Washington, what the people want. The people that want border control have jobs, families, and many other committments that prevent them from marching in cities, like the professional leftist protesters. If they took to the streets in their numbers, you would really see something. But they have lives and no time, to do it. So Savage, Dobbs, and Limbaugh are not fueling the problem, as the Senator suggests in his remarks. They are merely speaking for the ignored majority, in this country. They are relating the the feelings of the many. Maybe it's just that Senator McCain, like the vast majority of those in Washington, just do not want to hear them. Well, if they don't hear these three (and the countless others on the talk-show circuit that get it) now, while there is time to do so, they'll hear from us in November. And I doubt they'll like what we have to say, then, either. (Na na na na. Na na na na. Hey, hey, hey. Good-bye)Addendum:I guess Ed Koch isn't helping much either. Read what he has to say, here.
The Jerusalem Post is reporting this story. (Hat Tip: Drudge)Iran conducted a test launch Tuesday night of the Shihab-3 intermediate-range ballistic missile, which is capable of reaching Israel and US targets in the region, Israel Radio reported. The test came hours before Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with US President George W Bush in Washington to discuss the Iranian threat.
Tick, tock. Tick, tock. Tick tock..................
Tom Curry, National Affairs Writer for MSNBC, has written an excellent article about Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and his pre-2008 tour through Iowa, which by all appearances, seems to be an attempt to gauge the pulse of the Democratic voters, in an important red state. (HT: RCP) Winning Iowa is extremely important for any candidate, for fundraising purposes.
I recommend reading it, especially if you are a Democrat that seriously wants to win back the White House. But whether or not he gets the nomination will highly depend on how well he is received by the anti-war left. But all indications are beginning to show that he will have a difficult time, because of the Nancy Pelosis, the Jack Murthas, and the John Kerrys. They are among the ones that voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq and now are doing everything they can to undermine that operation, at every twist and turn along the way.
During a campaign swing across the state this past weekend, the Indiana senator's mellow demeanor, folksy Midwestern charm and credentials as a governor and U.S. senator gave Bayh threshold credibility with most of the rank-and-file Democrats he met.
But Bayh has something else that’s not an asset, something that gives a reporter a distinct sense of déjà vu: his vote for the Iraq war resolution in 2002.
Ah, that haunting resolution has come back to roost, as a litmus test for 2008. A vote that was taken in October of 2002, now becomes the single most important issue for the future.
Here is one woman's complaint to Bayh at one of the forums he attended:
In a room at a community college in Osceola where a dozen people had gathered to meet the senator, Carole Waterman told Bayh that her son, a Virginia National Guardsman, had returned from a stint in Iraq. She didn’t want him or anybody else's son to be sent there.
“How are we going to get ourselves out of this morass? Killing our troops, killing the Iraqis, breaking our budget… It makes no sense to me at all,” Waterman told Bayh. “I’m wondering how you feel about that.”
Here is another complaint from a man:
At a living room event in Sioux City on Saturday night, former Woodbury County chairman Al Sturgeon told Bayh that rank and-file Democrats still feel “outrage over this incredible debacle in Iraq.”
Calling it “the biggest political and military blunder of my lifetime,” Sturgeon said to Bayh, “I’d like you to explain your vote on the war and why you gave the president a blank check to get us into this disaster.”
Sound familiar? Sure it does. (See: Cindy Sheehan)
But now, let's look at how Bayh handled these questions.
Carole Waterman:
Bayh replied with a long and subdued justification of his vote for the 2002 use-of-force resolution, along with an explanation that he has learned from his secret briefings as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee that if U.S. troops withdrew, a civil war and perhaps a regional war would erupt, with Turkey, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia plunging in.
“That would be bad for us,” he told Waterman.
Carole would have none of it:
With exasperation in her voice, she said, “I wanted him to say to say we were leaving Iraq tomorrow. At this point, I don’t care if there is a civil war in Iraq, because there already is a civil war.”
Carole must not know what the definition of a civil war is. But for argument's sake let's just say she is right. There are varying degrees of a civil war and this one is nowhere near as bad as the vast majority of civil wars that have taken place in the past. (If you are skeptical about this not being one, read this and this.)
So now, let's move on to Bayh's response to Al Sturgeon's question:
Bayh calmly answered that “I wouldn’t cast the same vote today as I did then.” He noted that “the French believed that (there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), the Germans believed that, the Russians believed that, everybody believed he [Saddam Hussein] had weapons of mass destruction.”
Al was a little more reasonable in his assessment than Carole, afterward:
“It was an honest answer and I did appreciate the candidness. It’s not a good answer, because there aren’t any good answers.”
Maybe not, Al. I have to admit that I was a bit apprehensive at the time the debate was going on, myself. I wan't sure of the wisdom in fighting in two different conflicts, simultaneously. After Clinton had cut the military down during his watch, this was a legitimate concern of many.
But once the decision was made to engage, I have supported the troops by any means possible and available to me. I will not undermine the effort for any reason. I will not sit in arrogant judgement of the Administration on this issue, while we have troops in the field and in harm's way. I refuse to do so, whether I agree with the President or not. I may criticize him and his staff on any other issue, but not that.
And Bayh doesn't do it, either. He may have since had second thoughts and that's perfectly within his rights, to do so. But he has kept them to himself and not taken potshots at the President, for political gain. The same cannot be said of the Democratic leadership, which care only about responding to the anti-war hacks that have hijacked the Democratic party.
Still not convinced? Take a look at this piece from the WSJ and read it with an open mind. This op-ed successfully refutes the anti-war crowd's weak and faulty arguments, systematically and with sound logic.
I think deep down Sen. Bayh understands a lot of this. But for him to articulate this at this point in time, does not do a lot of good for him, should he make a serious run for President, in 08. The anti-war crowd has began using their resources, angry and vengeful as they may be, at Lieberman and Hillary, in their 06 Senate races. How successful they are this fall, will determine whether or not Bayh has a legitimate chance at the nomination or not.
But, if I were a Democrat, I would seriously take a good look at Bayh as my nominee, because he can win a red state. Kerry, Gore, and the others that have undermined this war effort cannot. He is a social moderate and fiscal conservative that left Indiana with a budget surplus, when he left office (which his successor spent down and even drove the state into near bankruptcy, after it was gone).He may very well be the answer, but first he has to get past the angry leftists, in the primary process. And if this past weekend in Iowa is any indication, it doesn't look to be easy.UPDATE:If this poll is any indication whatsoever, Bayh is doomed.(You have to laugh folks, or you'd be spending your life crying)ADDENDUM/AFTERTHOUGHTIf enough Republicans are fed up and don't like their party's choice, if they are still feeling disenfranchised, they may crossover and vote for Bayh in the primary season. You had the Reagan Democrats. Who knows? Maybe the Bayh Republicans?A lot of that success would be contingent on how he sees the border issue. That will be the thing that he will have to tread, very lightly, as a Democrat. But the American people have been quite clear as to what they think about it.
Mike at Mike's America has posted links to this story. So, a hat tip and a good job, are both in order to him, for getting this one up. I know that to many I am preaching to the choir on this one. But to those that aren't so sure or do not buy into the fact that there are dangerous people among us; it would be wise for every school official, every parent, every student, and every everyone to watch for people hanging around the schools, especially now as this school year comes to a close. Maybe this is nothing, but maybe it is. We need to find out what these guys were doing. The one thing we cannot do is blow it off and hope it will go away on its own, like many love to do. But as to, the article?READ IT!!
Where are Michael Newdow and the likes, when you really need them? An editorial from Investors Business Daily tells us of how the Koran is being openly taught and read in schools, in California. And how the courts so far, have gone along with it. Education: In our brave new schools, Johnny can't say the pledge, but he can recite the Quran. Yup, the same court that found the phrase "under God"unconstitutional now endorses Islamic catechism in public school.
In a recent federal decision that got surprisingly little press, even from conservative talk radio, California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it's OK to put public-school kids through Muslim role-playing exercises, including:
Reciting aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful . . . ."
Memorizing the Muslim profession of faith: "Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger."
Chanting "Praise be to Allah" in response to teacher prompts.
Professing as "true" the Muslim belief that "The Holy Quran is God's word."
Giving up candy and TV to demonstrate Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.
Designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially "becoming a Muslim" for two full weeks.
It's all done under the guise of learning what it's like, to be a Muslim. It's supposed to be part of a world religion course. No harm in that, right? Let's read further:In the California course on world religions, Christianity is not presented equally. It's covered in just two days and doesn't involve kids in any role-playing activities. But kids do get a good dose of skepticism about the Christian faith, including a biting history of its persecution of other peoples. In contrast, Islam gets a pass from critical review. Even jihad is presented as an "internal personal struggle to do one's best to resist temptation," and not holy war.
Now let me say that I am not advocating that Christianity be given special treatment, in spite of the fact that the overwheliming majority of Americans claim Christianity as their faith. What I am saying is that if you are going to teach world religions to impressionable young children, in a government school; then all religions must be taught objectively and without bias and that means all religions. Is that so hard to do?Evidently it is. Read on:The ed consultant's name is Susan L. Douglass. No, she's not a Christian scholar. She's a devout Muslim activist on the Saudi government payroll, according to an investigation by Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington." He found that for years Douglass taught social studies at the Islamic Saudi Academy just outside Washington, D.C. Her husband still teaches there.
The people that filed this suit and lost, weren't Atheists. They were probably Christians that didn't want this indoctrination to go on in their public schools, at least in the manner that this has been presented. But I suspect that if it had been Michael Newdow behind the suit, maybe the outcome would have been much different. So, Michael where were you on this one? Asleep? Why the silence from your end? Islam is a religion, don't you know? Does it not offend you that this is taught in you tax-supported government schools? Or do you just get offended at Christianity? Now would be a time for Michael Newdow to demonstrate that he is a man of principle. Now would be a time to show there is no hypocrisy, in his cause. But strangely enough, I don't hear a lot coming from him or his camp. Maybe, just maybe, he will drop by PYY for a little discussion on this. Then again, maybe not.But Michael, if you ever come across this sleepy little blog, know that the door is open here for your comments. I'd love to hear how you see this one.(Hat tip on this one goes to RCP, as it does so many times at PYY.)
Well, Drudge is reporting this.The Democratic National Committee (DNC) secretly placed political operatives in the city of New Orleans to work against the reelection efforts of incumbent Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
This came out late, last evening. The sources are not named in this. But if this is true, it shows the hidden hypocrisy of the Deaniac left. You see, Howard loves to use race as an issue when he is screeching his rhetoric against the GOP. He loves to commit the all too often knee-jerk reactions. He really had a field day, in the days following Katrina."We must ... come to terms with the ugly truth that skin color, age and economics played a deadly role in who survived and who did not," Dean said.
So if this is true, what does Howie do now? How does he explain this act that so very much reeks, of possible closet racism? The MSM may give him a pass, they may not. Who knows for sure? If this does pan out, he may get outed (and bigtime). This may be the Dems last best chance to can this guy.But wait, there's more. It seems that Mr. Dean has been involved in other highly questionable acts that may smell of racism. Remember the Richard Steele campaign? With all of this starting to take shape and as the 2006 campaign begins to heat up, I cannot help but wonder. What other things do Howie and the DNC have cooking, when nobody is looking? How else will they demonstrate that they are not what they claim to be? How many more lies will be told, while accusing others? How many more times will they be given passes on this kind of behavior?Tough questions? Not really.UPDATE: Courtesy of Drudge comes the retraction of this story. Thanks to AC at Fore Left, for the heads up.
The AP has the report.
Let's take a moment and think about this a minute.
Does it or does it not make sense for the Arab states to be concerned about this threat? Sure it does. The Sunnis are just as concerned about the prospects of a nuclear Iran, as Europe, the U.S., and the rest of the enlightened world is.
Here's the situation. Russia and China are only worried about the oil situation, right?
Well, if the Arab states are smart, they will see the need to step up to the plate a little. And although it's noble of them to send this delegation, what they really need to do is simple. They need to tell Iran to cool their jets, allow UN inspectors any/all access to the nuclear program, and quit threatening its neighbors. And if they do not, they must tell them that they will step up production should Iran cut off any oil sales as punishment/ retaliation to anyone.
The goal here is to protect the world against another slaughter of sixty million people (or more). Nothing else.
Yet, it amazes me that no one can stand up and say, enough is enough and that the world community will not allow this thing to happen again. Because folks, if this is not handled soon and properly, this thing will get out of hand and we will see, an out of control Iran very soon. With each step along the way, they will get braver and feel more empowered.
We do not need to bomb them right now. I am not saying that, at all. But what we do need, is for the US, China, Europe, Russia, and the Arab world to put their squabbles aside for a little while, get this thing through the UNSC, and be prepared to use sanctions. (Sanctions that will hurt.) What we need are some statesmen, not a bunch of cowards that are afraid to someone mad at them. And that includes the Arab world.
If the Saudis and the other Gulf states really care about their future and the future of the world, they will be prepared to pick up the slack, in order to keep the oil market as stable, as possible. It may not be possible to absorb it all, but the blow most likely can be softened enough, to ride this out and bring Iran to its knees.
How hard can this be?
Super Frenchie has pointed out that the Iran insignia story has been pulled from Canada.Com, because the Iranian embassy has denied it. I like to be as accurate as I can, so I am publishing this retraction on the story. But I have to tell you, it really doesn't make me feel a hell of a lot better about the situation, as it stands right now. As long as they threaten, blackmail, and browbeat others into complying with their demands, they are out of control. They need to be made to understand the consequences of continuing down this path. If the world community does not make their stand sooner, rather than later, there will be no stopping Iran without major force. Even Russia and China will be sorry they let this get out of hand. If I were Putin and Hu, I'd really take a hard look at this, because this brand of theocracy is not their friend. If I were them, I would not sell my nation out to thugs, terrorists, and assassins for a short term deal. Because believe you me, when the time is right, they will have them so sucked in, they will be completely at the mercy, of those same jerks. So, thanks again to Frenchie for the heads up.
One of my favorite bloggers has died after a lengthy illness. And it saddens me. I suspected he might be ill, when after the first of the year, he announced that he would be shutting his blog down. Now he is gone. My prayers are with his family. He will be sorely missed by them, and those that were privileged enough to have viewed and read his material.Rest In Peace, Nickie.
Is it deja vu, all over again? Take look at this article from Canada.Com (it can also be found on Drudge, which is where I found it).
And to think that Harry Reid considers racism the root cause for wanting the official language to be English. I don't know about you, but I find it utterly amazing, to think that dangerous things take a back seat to nitpick stuff, in the Democratic Party. This is what is meant by the phrase, "straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel".Cross posted at The Wide Awakes.
The name of the piece is The Real Iraq, written by Amir Taheri. It comes from Commentary Magazine and is featured on RCP, who gets the customary hat tip.The reason this article will probably not make it to the MSM publications will become much clearer, as you read it. It certainly paints a different picture than the Iraq based left-leaning media reporters that rarely leave their hotel rooms, yet file reports like they were some kind of eye witnesses.It isn't all strawberries and cream, either. But, it does illustrate the old adage of, "there are two sides to every story and the truth is somewhere in the middle". This piece is a good illustration of that "somewhere in the middle".
Well, before you think that American Idol is nothing more than a waste of time and before you start saying that this simple little slice of American pop culture is not important in the grand scheme of things, let me say why I think that it is.
You see, it's almost nostalgia in a way, for me. I remember watching the first two seasons with my son, back when he was younger and didn't mind spending some quality time, with his old man. We share an inherent love for music (albeit we most certainly have different tastes). He likes alternative. I can handle some, but not all. But, as you may guess, I love the classics. He does some, but not all. You see, this was one simple little activity, one little TV show that we could both agree to watch together; one that we both enjoyed (besides sports) whereby, we could spend a few minutes together, critiquing performances of people we had never heard of before. For that reason, it was, and still is, a quality family show.
But, as my son grew and started doing his own thing, the show (in my opinion) began to stink. It got repetitious, boring, and I began to think that the talent pool had been flushed out. That is, until this year. I think that this year was, and still is, the best Idol ever. Anyone of these final five (or so) could have seriously challenged for, or won the competition outright, in any of the past years.
So forgive me just a moment, if I voice a concern (or two) about this show, in spite of the rave reviews, I give it.
Let me first say that when you think about all of the things that really matter in this world, it really isn't such an important thing. Threats exist (some may not want to admit it, but they still exist, nonetheless). People are forced to adhere to ideologies that would never permit a show like Idol. And, many people suffer harsh lives as a result of not living in the right country and having the freedom to watch a show, like it.. So, I freely admit that I probably should not waste the time it will take, to write this post. Yet, I cannot help it.
Still not important, you say? Well, think about this a second. Since there seems to be a disconnect between the leaders of this country and the people, what else is worthy of my time? Oh, I wish I could say that George Bush's plan for the border is going to work. I'd love to say it. But in reality, sending 6000 National guard troops to stand there, watch 2000 miles of border, and call an already understaffed agency to do the detaining, really doesn't mean much. At least it doesn't, when you understand the reality of the situation. Add to that, they aren't going to be there forever (at least, that's what Bush told Fox on Sunday), then maybe (just maybe) you can see my point.
One of the few things in the TV world that I can now sit and enjoy with my wife (her musical tastes are different than mine too), and now, I am getting the feeling that this entire process might be rigged.Why do I think that?
Well, last week, one of the best singers ever in the history of this competition, was voted off. I do not think much of it usually. But I have just found it so unusual that Katherine McPhee has been in the bottom 2 or 3 for a few weeks now, and someone always seems to sink right past her, week after week. I didn't think much about it, until last week.
Chris Daughtry was an alternative singer, but found a way to take songs from other genres and turn them into his own, with his own style and flair. He did it in such a way, that everyone I know, thought he very well could have/ should have been still there, after tonight. But in a shocker, he was voted off. Last week and for several weeks now, Katherine has clearly put on the weakest performances, in several ways. Song choice, oversinging the song, I could go on. But from where I sit, she should have been gone last week, if not before.
But, she isn't.
Tonight, it was announced that by an almost evenly split three-way vote, Elliott Yamin had the lower vote total and was canned; in spite of the fact that he has put together an impressively strong surge, at the end. Again, his performances were much stronger and much better than Kat's. But, who goes home? Not Kat.
Look, I do not know if this is true or not, but a lot people have claimed since last week that they voted for Chris last week, and was thanked by an automated voice for voting for Taylor Hicks (the clear favorite) or, you guessed it, Katherine McPhee. What gives with that?
Now, before we go any further, let me say unequivocally that Katherine is very talented and has a great voice. I will never say otherwise, because it simply would not be so. She has a wonderful voice. But, her performances, from a musical and vocal perspective, just haven't been up to snuff for this level of the competition. Why do I care?Well the truth is, if I cannot count on government leaders to give me something to feel good about, once in a great while, then I must find it elsewhere, when I need escape from the world for a brief moment. And when Hollywood, for once, can put on a quality show that features a musical singing competition and can capture my interest, I hope to have a legitimate competition, not a farce. I do not want to think that they are manipulating the vote, so as, to have one male and one female, left on the final week. If I thought that for one moment, I would think that the one girl that would have deserved to still be in it, would be Mandesa. She was a far better singer and performer, than Kat. And, if I wanted to watch something with a predetermined outcome, I would much rather go back to watching professional wrestling. Now, there is something that brings back some real memories of my son and me, bonding in front of the TV, when he didn't mind being with his old man. That phase lasted much longer than the Idol phase. That was when I was the King of the World. At least to him, I was.UPDATE: 5/19/06 This web site linked to this article for a brief period of time, yesterday. But now, the link is mysteriously gone. I would say that someone, somewhere, for some reason, didn't want this question to be asked. They definitely didn't want this article to be read. It seems that Hollywood likes to stir controversy in other disciplines, but when they themselves are the center of it, it is quite a different story. Can you spell, hmmm?
Ralph Peters thinks so and tells us why, here. We need to know this enemy better. Everything we hear is second-hand. Whether in a business negotiation or a bid to prevent a nuclear catastrophe, there's no substitute for sitting down face to face with the other guy and talking.
Why?Talking to someone doesn't mean you can't kill him later; on the contrary, it lets you better judge how to slip in the knife.
That is but one reason, he gives several others. While, all are intriguing, one thing he fails to consider is, we do not have a lot of bargaining power. We do not do business with Iran, like Europe does. They have the economic leverage, all we have is military leverage. That fact alone, will beg these questions: 1. What will they want from us in talks?2. Will they talk in good faith or will they use this as another stall tactic?3. Will they be sizing us up, as Peters suggest we do?But Peters does make some good points, worthy of some additional thought and consideration. Give this one a read.
It's not enough, but we'll take it for now. But, one has to ask the questions: What next? How long will they be there? What is the realistic objective here? I mean, just yesterday there were reports that President Bush assured Vincente Fox that the troops are just temporary.I think that somebody is being fed a line, here.UPDATE:TSW has a response too , and it looks to be every bit as skeptical.
From WRAL comes this report, with a hat tip to Drudge.
The thing to note here is the defense attorney allowed his client to speak. There must be an awful ot of evidence the defense is sitting on, because they all sound confident, very confident. And quite frankly, the more I hear about the evidence that has been made available to the media, the more I am inclined to believe that this is just another Tuwanna Brawley case that has been taken too far.
Skeptical? Then, think about this a minute. The evidence that has been presented in the media so far, is highly stacked against this accuser. Credible alibis, no matching DNA, stories changing, past accusations, and so on, are making this look like this is nothing more than a grandstanding DA, running for re-election. That's all.
He has to dig in now, he has no other choice. He's carried this way farther than an average experienced DA would have dreamed of. To reverse himself now, would be political suicide. Radical elements have fueled this from the beginning and Mr. Nifong has rode this wave, high. They know he needs their support and he is placating them, solely for that purpose.
What will you bet that after the November election the charges get dropped?
If I haven't bored the majority of you by now, there are a few more things that would be necessary to create and sustain a viable third party. But in case you haven't read them yet, here are the three posts that preceded this one:
Intro: Then And Now, a post by my good friend Mustang of Social Sense. Which in turn, inspired these:
Part I: The Foundation
Part II: The Frame
Now that the foundational structure of our third party is in place, there are things that will make it functional and give it more purpose. But before I get into that, there are some things to note.
There have been more than two parties for a long time, yet, just two of them have the lion's share of the wealth and the support. Libertarians, Socialists, Communists, the Constitution Party (et al.), all have ran candidates for President. None have ever been serious contenders, maybe with the exception of Eugene V. Debs of the Socialist Party, in the early 1900s.
The most serious challenges have been issue-oriented and have involved a big name from within the two major parties.
Besides Perot, there have been two other fairly serious presidential campaigns that challenged the two-party system, in my lifetime. In 1968, George Wallace and in 1980, John Anderson ran for president under third parties; with Wallace in the American Independent Party and Anderson in the National Unity Party.
Centrism was the focal point of Anderson's campaign. It failed because voters were just not that apathetic, yet. Besides that, a man named Ronald Reagan had revived a common sense approach to politics, known as conservatism. All ears were on him. After four years of liberal Presidential politics, there was a sense of apathy alright. There was double digit inflation (interest rates too), Americans were being held hostage by a terrorist state, and the American dream was fast heading for the tank. But Reagan gave a message of vision and hope. People bought into it. And as a result, Anderson's candidacy was doomed from the start.
Anderson played on the fears that the Dems were generating about Reagan, being a warmonger and would start to push buttons, asking questions later. People were not happy with Carter at all. With the exceptions of his Georgia cronies and the "pie-in-the-sky" liberals that were a distinct minority (as they are now), his popularity was low, very low. But, those pie-in-the-sky liberals played the warmonger card on Reagan and Anderson believed he could actually offer a "not Carter" candidate (one that was terribly inept as a chief executive), and a "not Reagan" candidate (one that would use reason, instead of bombs).
Centrism was not at the forefront of George Wallace's 1968 bid, though. In fact, he was further to the right than Nixon on many issues. Nixon was the centrist candidate in this one. Using a "law and order" campaign and promises of "throwing the bureaucrats' brief cases into the Potomac River", Wallace went for the hard right support and won five southern states. He was considered a fringe candidate, because of his segregationist views. He came down on the wrong side of this and other people's issues in many people's minds.
These people had no intention of starting a viable third party, they only wanted to be President. They may have used issues of the day to engineer support for their candidacies, but they gave no thought to how they would have had to deal with the system they bucked, in the process. They lacked the first two components and were content to run on a populist platform, alone.
Today, any viable third party would have to be on the right side of certain specific issues. These would be the core issues that the two major parties have danced around with no clear-cut stance or ignored altogether, for the specific purpose of maintaining power. They are the issues that are the most pressing of my lifetime. And if they are not dealt with properly, it will result in an overall deterioration of the health and well-being of this nation.
Two of the most important core issues are:
Homeland Security
This includes both domestic and foreign operations. The border is and should be at the forefront of this issue.The stand for contolled borders needs to be made firmly and surely. There are other issues of Homeland Security that have not been up to snuff, but to save time I will not go into details.
Taxation
They new party would need to be on the side of the Fair Tax. For too long, tthe federal government has been operating on an antiquated and unfair tax code. I suggest everyone read The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz anf John Linder. Read it and you'll see why.
There are many other issues that I could mention, but let's suffice it to say that when looking at each and every issue, by itself; we should look at what position, is the position, that allows the individual citizen to have the most freedom possible and still maintain law and order. Any law that strips people of their freedom, needs to be looked at as a bad law. It may sound like a contradiction to make that last statement, knowing that I want stronger, smarter, and better Homeland Security. But there are ways to do that and not strip the American citizen of any freedoms.
In fact, I cannot think of how the government has stripped me of any freedom, since 9-11. I haven't been subject to anything, unusual. My rights have not been violated. If they want to listen in on my conversations and be bored to tears, the only reason I would be mad, is because they would be wasting my tax dollars. I am zero threat. The truth is they aren't. They are listening to al-Qaida.
So after all of this, is it possible to start a viable third party? Yes. Is it probable? No.
Money is the biggest factor I have left out, in this entire rant. It takes a lot of money to even get a voice. And to get money, you need a voice that is already established enough in the current system. Someone that has an established machine that can make things happen right away. Someone that can jumpstart it, if you will. Beyond Tom Tancredo, there are not very many people that can carry a sufficient number of big donors, because those donors are the special interests that don't want the system changed, to begin with. Did you know that many special interest groups and individual donors will often give to both campaigns in a race? They play both sides angainst each other and no matter who wins, they can say they gave and hopefully gain favor.
Like I said, this is not to be considered exhaustive in any way, nor should it be considered to be textbook material, a thesis, or even a high school term paper. What I hope it will do, is show some more insight into the makings of a successful third party and how the deck is stacked against it. Unless, it is done right and a few breaks are caught along the way, the odds aren't good.The End
It is an essay by NRO's Victor Davis Hansen and it is entitled, In the Eye of the Beholder. It's a very good read and needs no comment from me.So, hit that link and enjoy.
The Boston Globe has an interesting article analyzing the rationale behind John McCain's commencement speech, at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. Let's not fool ourselves here. Not only does McCain need the religious right, they need him too. If the Republicans want to have as close to an assurance they will retain control of the White House as they possibly can, John McCain is their best bet. And many on the right know it.
But that does not mean, no one can win but him. They can. But, they will have a more difficult time of it, mainly because of McCain's appeal to centrists on both side of the aisle. Not all Republicans could have that kind of effect, many are polarizing figures (whether the distinction is deserved or not). And, many just don't stand the chance of standing up to the test of running against the Dems' "leftist" or "leftist-turned-centrist-for-the-election" candidate, because of the anti-incumbency sentiment that is growing.Maybe, just maybe, Jerry Falwell realizes there are a lot of things that could be worse than a John McCain presidency. Maybe his fear of a Hillary White House will cause him to think twice about digging into a trench on certain things, in 2008.
In What It Takes To Build A Viable Third Party. Part I: The Foundation , I spoke of the need for a firm foundation. Truth, honesty, and integrity were the chief components. (There are more, but I am trying not to write a text book here)
The next thing necessary is the frame.
You have heard the saying that all politics is local? Well, the framework of any political party must begin at the grass roots level. Too many people that have tried this have focused on winning election to some executive branch (president, governor, mayor), but rarely have you seen a high-profile candidacy for legislative office, at any level. Ross Perot had a golden opportunity to do this right. But, Ross being Ross, used the grass roots support that fell into his lap, for his own selfish purposes. It was all or nothing, with him. That shows that the whole foundation was wrong to start with.
The reason Jesse Ventura failed as he did, was the framework. The two major parties made up the state legislature. He belonged to the Reform Party initially, and later switched to independent. He had no allies. Both sides of the aisle pummelled him. His foundation was sound. I felt he was honest and sincerely wanted to do the right things, for the right reasons. And although he had good intentions, he did not have the structural support in place, necessary to govern effectively. No help from Perot or his little play toy, the Reform Party, either.
Look, if a person wants to concentrate on winning an executive office at some level, they must keep this in mind. It may make a statement (and rightly so), but the likelihood that anything will get accomplished, is not very good, unless there are some allies in the legislature. It may shock people, when an office is won by a third party. But, the shock soon wears off and the day-to-day business, must at some point begin.
For a viable third party to exist and have influence there will have to be efforts to seat officials, at all three levels in government. That throws things into more of a tailspin for the two major parties, much more so than winning and holding executive office. If the two big ones are evenly divided, both will be forced to kiss up to the third party, for much needed support and votes on legislation. That puts a minority third party in an optimal position to bargain. If the American people see that third party make their stands based on principle, it may encourage and energize people to vote more of that party's candidates into more offices, as a sign of confidence.
It's a tough sell, that is for sure. But, given the right circumstances, it could work. It will take more than just the foundation and the frame. In part three, I will elaborate further.
Les at Living In The Surreal World gets the hat tip for this one. It is safe for work.Rochester, Minnesota is well prepared to handle the arrival of Pat Kennedy at the Mayo Clinic. Read about it here.
The TCS article by Arnold Kling is entitled, The Real Enemy. Hat tip goes to RCP (as it does, so many times).
The progressive wing of the Dems have done their best to portray the U.S. as the root of all evil in the world, at each opportune moment. So much that we now have little programmed leftist robots shouting the old leftist phrasology, of the 60s leftist crowd. I watched the 70s Show the other night and Hyde went into a righteous indignation tirade, just like I remember so well. The McGovern wing of that party, in that day, was not much different than the Deaniacs, of this present day. Except it's not Nixon taking the brunt of their fury. Bush is their enemy.
They screech, they shout, they draw all kinds of attention to themselves, they have the bulk of the news media behind them and yet, they do not have a clue as to what they will do, if they were to win back one or both houses. (Except impeachment, of course.) They have used all of their energies and resources trying to prosecute the President for whatever they can, most of the time for the wrong reasons. We have been told repeatedly that there is a plan forthcoming, but as of yet, nothing has materialized. They have yet to articulate, a vision worthy of any realistic consideration. Yet they stand a realistic chance of getting back in power.
But being the altruistic soul that he sounds like he is, Mr. Kling tries to help the mainstream Dems a little, by a behavior modification technique known as, redirection. Since the Dems do not really understand who the real enemy is right now, he attempts to reach any and all reasonable elements that have fallen prey to the ones that have no clue on what we are facing, today. This article contains ten major differences between the U.S and that enemy, just in case they lose their way (somewhere along the way). But, I doubt they care much, if any at all. about what Mr. Kling has to say.
I hope you'll read it.
Several people in my circle of friends and acquaintances (in my community and the blogosphere) have been telling me of how they have lost confidence in the traditional two-party system that has been in place, since the birth of our great nation. Mustang of Social Sense is one and here he shares some history of this system and poses the all-important question, about it. Give this a read, before you read any further. (Don't forget to come back.)Think about what it would take to create a viable third party that is capable of representing the interests of normal people. These are people that seemingly are being reperesented, less and less, as days go on. Think about the foundational principles that it would have to built on, to prevent it from going the way of Perot's Reform Party and others that preceded it. Because, unless those principles are based soundly on truth, logic, and common sense; any effort that is undertaken will seem like just another populist movement that will be nothing more than a tiny blip on the radar screen. One that came and went. What are the principles?Truth, honesty, and integrity for starters. I know it sounds cheesy, but these are things that are sorely missing in our system, today. Just look at the many government officials that are found to be cheating, lying, stealing, and who knows what else? Think about that and then, think about the ones that haven't been openly caught (at least with enough evidence to charge, convict, and remove). These are the people that keep getting elected and re-elected. In Washington and all 50 state capital cities, there is a culture of self-interest unsurpassed by any other form of business entity (private or public). Greed, lust for power, and recognition are the driving forces behind this "it's all about me" value system. There are very few statesmen left in this system and those that have the ability to be such, are not willing to go through the garbage that government service always seems to offer, and attract. Those that are willing to go through that process, must endure the dirtiest of treatment by those that abuse the system. Statesmen (and stateswomen) are a dying breed and close to extinction. They are a distinct minority.So, before you can build a third party based on this foundation, you must have the best of intentions, to begin with. You cannot be in it for the power or the money. Because if you do, you spend the greatest amount of your time, scheming and plotting just to keep that power, get that money, and then cover your tracks to keep from getting caught. You will get nothing else done.This is where Ross Perot failed. It was all about him, under the guise of it being about the people. Oh, he said it was about the people, enough. I heard him too many times to count. But when things got rough, he took his ball and went home. He refused to help other candidates, like Jesse Ventura who ran under the RP (and won). He could not stand failure and because of this adverse quailty, he did not have the ability to understand that success and failure is not always immediately measurable.The truth is, he cared very little about starting a movement or a party, he only wanted to settle a vendetta against the elder Bush. He did, and Clinton was elected. He played on the apathy that many Americans were beginning to have, using them for signatures and numbers support. His motives were not pure, plain and simple. Anyone that would seek to make a serious go at a third party today, would need to recognize that this kind of motive is not welcome and not needed. This effort is not the thing that will yield instant rewards, therefore they must sacrifice their self-interest for the longer term goals.The length, depth and breadth of this subject is big. So, I will attempt to cover some other aspects of what is needed to have a viable third party that will meet the needs of the people, in future posts. But for now, I will let you chew on these prerequisites.What do you think? Can these principles ever work in this present system? Or am I fantanating again? (Fantanation: Cross between a fantasy and a hallucination.)
Furniture is moved. I now blog from my new study/office that was created by eliminating a bedroom. The office that was once a bedroom can still be used as a bedroom, should a major guest overflow occur.But the new family room?It's great. We now have a great area to sit and watch a 36" TV with Surround Sound, in comfort. The kitchen is adjacent to the new room and when in the kitchen, the new room sounds and looks like it could be a casual sports bar. Pics are forthcoming.Thanks for being patient and for keeping the blog warm while I was out, I should have a new post up, later today.
The new room we have been adding on is finished. So needless to say, furniture needs moving. Between work and that, I will not have time to blog very much, at least for a couple of days, or so. I hope to back at it by Friday. Feel free to peruse the archives or visit some of the blogs on the blogroll, if you feel inclined.Here is one many of my newer readers may have missed on liberalism. As always, thank you for reading Political Yen/Yang.
From RCP, comes this article by Victor Davis Hansen entitled, The Prison of the Present. It highlights the conceptual struggle of idealism vs. realism, by objectively assessing the the outcomes of U.S. wars, both past and present. It's an excellent read.Adding my take is simple. Gulf War I spoiled people by making it look like that every war could be won without casualties and the stumbling blocks, that lead to them. The leftist anti-war crowd that screams for utter perfection has forgotten that the objective was simply to extract the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Nothing more. Had NATO forces chosen to remove Saddam at that time, it could have been every bit as difficult, then, as it is now. Don't get me wrong, there was a lot of arrogance and miscalculation on the Defense Department's part. But, the objective of removing Saddam and allowing the Iraqi people a chance at democracy has been met. Whether is stays met or not, is another story. That's another chapter that hasn't been written yet.But, as for whether or not Saddam will ever threaten anyone else again, that part has been decided. He won't. And that my friends, is a good thing.
Things do not look good for any nominee that doesn't have full support of the majority party. In a position similar to Harriet Myers, Gen. Hayden is the nominee that faces a stiff struggle, this time.There are two ways of looking at this.One, the General can bring this agency back, using discipline and cleaning the hacks out. The CIA is no place for partisan bickering, agents and other employees need to leave politics out of the equation. The leaks for political purposes have severely compromised the effectiveness of this agency, at a time when we can least afford it. The other is, there will be some people ( I, being one of them) that question the prudence of having a military man leading a civilian agency. There is something very big brotherish about this. It's not the person that I am concerned about, as I do not know much about Gen, Hayden, up to this point. But the precedent, is highly questionable, in my opinion.
After months of listening to Iran's president make unprovoked threats toward Israel, it appears that they have now had enough. They have now broken their silence in this matter and have verbally fired back.From the Jerusalem Post:Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map."
"Teheran is making a mockery of the international community's efforts to solve the crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear program," Peres told Reuters, adding that "Iran presents a danger to the entire world, not just to us."
True.Peres urged China and Russia to join Western efforts to impose sanctions on Iran. The two countries have been reluctant to back such proposals in the UN Security Council. If all world powers are united against Iran, military action can be avoided, Peres said.
"We can prevent all of this threat, without weapons, if there will be unity," Peres said, adding that the Security Council had to act on the matter. "If the crucial moment comes and they are incapable of taking [action] or making a policy...then they endanger their existence as an important world body," he said.
Again, true.Look, Iran not only has China and Iran over a barrel (pun intended), it has the whole world hostage. All of us, including the U.S. will suffer if Iran makes good on its threat to send oil prices even higher than they already are. But wouldn't it be worth it if the world could unite, just this once, and call their bluffs? Wouldn't you be willing to pay a little more at the pumps to avoid nuclear war?The Saudis and other oil producers could (for once) show some guts and offer to step up production, if Iran were to cut off sales to countries that vote for sanctions. They say they do not want Iran to have nukes, but if they are sincere, let them do something to help. It won't completely neutralize the effects, but it will ease the situation, a little.Bottom Line: If the world will step up and unite on this one, nobody will need to be blown off of the map.Hat tip on this article goes to Drudge.
