The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Fifteen year old mustard gas insignificant while sixty year old mustard gas serious

After hundreds of canisters of mustard gas were found in Iraq, liberals downplayed the significance saying it was old and degraded. Today there is a story from Reuters about the ongoing project of the US destroying its mustard gas stockpile from WWII. When you read the Reuters story which is no doubt intended to focus on the fact that the US has chemical weapons. This is no secret, of course, but the MSM never misses an opportunity to give the US a knock.

The people disposing of this 60 year old mustard gas seem to be taking it very seriously:

Much of the round-the-clock process of removing explosive fuses, draining and then incinerating liquid chemical agents is automated. But workers in fully enclosed protective chemical suits regularly enter potentially deadly areas to repair, update and clean.

On a recent day, Rod Hollum, 51, and Nick Crosby, 27, donned masks, a backpack with an eight-minute back-up air supply and a white, vinyl suit fully sealed against the air but linked to outside oxygen.


"You're encapsulated inside," said Marc McLaws, a worker who helped Hollum and Crosby suit up.

"Some people get claustrophobic," he added. "Heat stress is a problem. You're constantly sweating. You can lose six or seven pounds over the two hours."

Before the two enter the area of potential exposure, they receive a briefing. "We either stirred something up, you guys did cleaning, or there is something," the briefer said about a hose leaking mustard agent. "Be extremely careful."


Being completely sealed in vinyl poses other risks. Half a year ago, one suited worker suffered a heart attack. "We had to cut him out," said McLaws, who said tearing through the single-use, $275 suit took three minutes. "It was a good result though: he lived."

Sounds like some serious stuff. I am no expert and it may be that the US has better storage processes than Iraq. If not, then I would find it odd how much more seriously the far older material is being treated.

Mike Malloy fired to dupe the masses?

Leftist radio Air America has just fired Mike Malloy. According to Mike Malloy's website:
There will be no Mike Malloy program today - or any day - on Air America Radio as we have been terminated. We are told its a financial decision.

We are as shocked as you are, especially since as recently as last Tuesday we were told we had the go-ahead to announce our return to NY airwaves and that our contract was "on the way."

We are told its a financial decision.

More details to follow as we hear them ourselves. presents the sentiments of a few lefties from Democratic Underground:

"I will not be listening to AAR if mike is not part of their line-up, I love Randi but not enough to tune in to an outlet that is destroying itself from within."

"I predict that Firing Malloy will be the end of Air America."

"Air America is dead to me."

"Shultz, Franken and the rest of the remaining lot ... are nothing but useless boring idiots IMO."
My take on this is that the demise of Air America has been happening for a long time. The only thing keeping it alive are periodic cash infusions from wealthy lefties. In my opinion this firing is a pre-emptive strike against themselves. When Air America finally goes down in flames, the history rewriters will point to Malloy's firing as the main cause. This is in contrast to the real causes Air America will go down: lack of talent and lack of sanity. I have listened to Air America from time to time. What is funny is that all of the other hosts make Jerry Springer look normal. Far left views simply cannot stand up to the format of Talk Radio. What works so well at making conservatives look good, makes the Air America liberals look like venom spewing quacks that are seething with hatred. Somebody wants a different reason for Air America to fail than the real reasons. So Malloy is the fallguy. No matter, they will all be given pink slips before long.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Hurt Walmart - Hurt the Poor?

Sebastion Mallaby of the Washington Post has a very good editorial on Walmart and how the left's shameless attacks might hurt the poor. Actually during my last few visits to Walmart I have been thinking along the same lines, but Mallaby beat me to the punch.

He first looks at the folly of the left's anti-corporation warpath:

Once upon a time, smart Democrats defended globalization, open trade and the companies that thrive within this system. They were wary of tethering themselves to an anti-trade labor movement that represents a dwindling fraction of the electorate. They understood the danger in bashing corporations: Voters don't hate corporations, because many of them work for one.

Then dot-bombs and Enron punctured corporate America's prestige, and Democrats bolted. Rather than hammer legitimately on real instances of corporate malfeasance -- accounting scandals, out-of-control executive compensation and the like -- Democrats swallowed the whole anti-corporate playbook.

In other words, to gin up voter rage, they throw the baby out with the bath water. Only this baby is very beneficial to the people they claim to champion. Just look at the droves of people applying for work at Walmart when a new store opens.
Hillary Clinton and Sen. John Kerry have attacked Wal-Mart for offering health coverage to too few workers. But Kerry's former economic adviser, Jason Furman of New York University, concluded in a paper last year that Wal-Mart's health benefits are about as generous as those of comparable employers.
So the whole anti-Walmart broohaha is not about wages or health care. It is about Democrats pandering to unions.
Research by Jerry Hausman and Ephraim Leibtag, neither of whom received funding from Wal-Mart, big-box stores led by Wal-Mart reduce families' food bills by one-fourth. Because Wal-Mart's price-cutting also has a big impact on the non-food stuff it peddles, it saves U.S. consumers upward of $200 billion a year, making it a larger booster of family welfare than the federal government's $33 billion food-stamp program.
Next time you are in Walmart, take a good look around you. Most of the stores I have gone in are flooded with low income minorities. The low prices found at Walmart are quite a benefit to these that are in need. But in order to pander to one of their special interest groups, they must harm another special interest group. Guess which group gives the Democrats the most money? Of course the unions do. Democrats also resent a non-government assistance to the poor. It robs them of power. So the so-called champions of the poor are willing to sell them out for a buck and for power.

Right now the Democrats are a very, very confused party. They have thrown all moderacy out of the window and every major policy point is completely under the thumb of their hard left members. They would not know consistency if it hit them on the head. Every day they must wake up and look at the slavery shackles they willingly donned in their utter hatred of George W. Bush. If we see how bad it is now, just wait if they assume power after November. They will be puppets to hard left groups of seething hatred. Somehow this will be good for America? I don't think so.

Monday, August 28, 2006

Logic and Intelligent Design

The Guardian is reporting a story that Pope Benedict and a group of "philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals" will be meeting to discuss a possible shift in Vatican policy regarding Intelligent Design. There are many items that jump out at me but since I am not Catholic, I will not criticize their faith in this forum. Instead I will take a logical approach to kick around the strangeness of the vitriolic criticism of Intelligent Design that seems to permeate society.

Many feel very hostile toward the concept of Intelligent Design (ID) and are very comfortable in criticizing it. For those that are atheist, I can accept that as being very consistent. However, a cursory look will uncover that in the US two of three confidently believe there is a God. As I said, I would expect the 1/3 to be against ID. What has me scratching my head is an environment where many of the 2/3 reject ID or are hostile toward it. Many tend to run to the mantra that ID is a cloak for creationism. I am sure that many who support ID are creationist. The simple definition of ID is that the elements of the universe are so complex that there must have been an Intelligent Designer behind it. There might be many offshoots of this that will vary on the Who and How, but the simple definition is accepted.

What has me scratching my head is the notion of those 2/3 who believe in God, yet think He would take no part in the direction or composition of the universe. The notion that He just sat "up there" watching everything just happen is amazing to comprehend. That is what one must believe in order to both believe in God and yet reject ID. After all, ANY guiding by God in how the universe or any component came about immediately qualifies as ID.

Since belief in God and ID logically go hand in hand, I would claim that any attack against ID is actually a covert attempt at ridiculing belief in God. In reality criticism of ID would undermine all major religions of the world that believe in a Deity. So the summary is twofold: why would a believer in God reject ID and why don't critics attack belief in God instead of ID?

15000 MORE Hezbollah Eyes and Ears

In the last post I pointed out a summary of the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict specifically related to how public opinion and United Nations actions were shaped in favor of the terrorist group Hezbollah. That summary combined with United Nation's actions led to a clear conclusion that any UN "peacekeeping" farce would really be a stockpile of human shields. In a future conflict Hezbollah would have many more UN personnel to fire their rockets next too. Israel would either be forced to withhold firing at a known enemy location, or they would be severely criticized for firing when UN human shields were killed.

The significance of the additional 15000 troops becomes even more disturbing in light of a Weekly Standard article BY Lori Lowanthal Marcus titled What Did You Do in the War, UNIFIL? The initial paragraphs in the story encapsulate some very serious charges against UNIFIL(bold emphasis mine):
DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon.

UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got.
So basically UNIFIL was the eyes and ears of Hezbollah during the conflict. We have seen the United Nations in recent decades in their impotence to contribute to human suffering, refuse to enforce resolutions against Iraq, call the most beneficial country on earth "stingy", suck up to dictators around the globe, go neck deep in the oil for food scandal, peacekeepers involved in raping innocent young girls or exacting sexual favors in exchange for food they were supposed to be delivering, and many other egregious acts. However, to embed themselves as an alleged "neutral force" and then deliver intelligence to favor a terrorist group has got to be very near the top of their "worst" list.

If UNIFIL can cause all these problems with only 2000 members, imagine what will ensue when this massive infusion takes place. It completely calls into question what possible value they can add to the situation. They will not be armed, or acting in any way to disarm or hinder Hezbollah from any attack against Israel. What good is their presence? They can only be there in a capacity of siding with a known terrorist group. In the event a conflict breaks out, they will be props for propaganda, human shields to deflect Israeli fire or media fodder if hit by Israeli fire, and they will act as the eyes and ears for Hezbollah reporting critical military intelligence.

Is there really such a thing as neutrality any more? All have the right to choose sides; whether it be the media, the United Nations or individual countries and people. What is most disgusting, however, is when an entity pretends to be neutral while overwhelming evidence shows the contrary. To profess neutrality in contrast to the facts only serves the purpose of further infiltration and the creation of an Army of Dupes to further the cause they side with. The biggest contribution anyone can do to make the world a better place is to expose these false neutralities so that the masses seeking the truth can determine clearly which side they would choose.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

United Nations to send 15000 Human Shields to Lebanon

It becomes more obvious each day that the United Nations is in the hip pocket of terrorists and dictators. Kofi Annan has definitely shown himself to be the lap dog of Hezbollah and Hamas. To refresh the memory: in the beginning of the conflict it seemed that most were willing to tolerate Israel's right to defend itself against an act of war by kidnapping two soldiers and shooting rockets at civilians. Then the criticism against Israel began to appear. The first was the ridiculous notion that war must be fought evenly with no disproportionate force. Then came the fraudulent antics of folks like Green Helmet and the professional Wailing Woman with their willing media accomplices to sway opinion to a point where they could criticize Israel. Then came the hit on the UN outpost where proof surfaced that Hezbollah was using the UN as human shields by firing at Israel in their proximity. Next came the accusations of Israel attacking Red Cross ambulances, where we saw the fastest rusting metal and fastest healing skin.

With all of the propoganda being swallowed hook, line and sinker around the world even the Bush administration was suckered into joining UN talks of enforcing a cease-fire. The UN unanimously passed a resolution for a cease-fire. The Lebeneze government was to disarm Hezbollah and then Israel was to withdraw, and both sides were to cease hostilities. Everybody agreed to it. The ink was not even dry when the Lebaneze government reneged on their word to disarm Hezbollah. Hezbollah starting rearming and regrouping like they do in every cease-fire.

Now we see the Great United Nations at its finest. The great hope of the world is now doing WORSE THAN NOTHING. In this Associated Press story Kofi is making it very clear that the UN forces will NOT be disarming Hezbollah.
But 13 days after Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire, questions remained about how to enforce the vague truce and prevent the area from exploding again. It was unclear how the United Nations would meet Israel's demand to prevent Hezbollah from rearming.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan stressed Friday it was not the peacekeepers' task to strip the guerrillas of their weapons, saying that was an issue for Lebanon's government and "cannot be done by force."

"The troops are not going there to disarm Hezbollah. Let's be clear about that," he said.
So he is simply throwing it back at the Lebaneze government. So the question remains why is the UN even sending in the 15000 troops. What exactly will they do? What can they do? The answer is nothing. In fact they can do worse than nothing. When Hezbollah can no longer sit still and refrain from lobbing rockets into the civilian population of Israel, the powder keg will go off again. By that time Syria and Iran will have successfully restocked Hezbollah with weapons and probably more fighters. When Israel continues its attack, Hezbollah will now have 15,000 more UN Human Shields to use. The odds of UN "peacekeepers" being killed in each strike by Israel will go up exponentially. So good job, UN. You have successfully made things worse. The world body, including the Bush administration, should have kept out of this conflict and let Israel do what needed to be done. By rooting out Hezbollah in southern Lebanon it would make Israel safer, and Lebanon and the region more stable. Sometimes with entities like Hezbollah, war is the only answer. The UN and the world body do not have the guts to utilize that answer.

Friday, August 25, 2006

NY Times subtle attempt to bolster LaCrosse case

The NY Times has a very lengthy piece on the Duke LaCrosse rape accusation story. For the most part it is very well written and goes into some tremendous detail. I was not able to determine if other news agencies were given the same access to the case files as the NYT or not. If not, that might be worthy of another post.

While casually reading through you tend to thing the NY Times is giving a fair and balanced view of the case. To the critical reader like me, I could not help but have a growing uneasy feeling as I read the story. I have concluded that for reasons I can only speculate on, the NY Times purpose of the piece was to take a completely losing case combined with a very irresponsible DA and smooth it over into something more palatable or more feasible.

The sublte approach is handled by focusing on the details that have a "hail Mary" prayer at bolstering the DA and his case while quickly glossing over some of the points that show the futility of the case. While the approach does not take mountains and valleys and turn them into a prairie, it does attempt for the untrained reader to turn them into smaller hills and lesser valleys.

Here are some of the points:
By disclosing pieces of evidence favorable to the defendants, the defense has created an image of a case heading for the rocks. But an examination of the entire 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution in the four months after the accusation yields a more ambiguous picture. It shows that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong’s case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury.
This is the theme statement of the article. It states very plainly my take on the piece: they are taking a case viewed as "heading for the rocks" and attempts to transform it into "a more ambiguous picture". Mountains into hills. I read most of the article twice and basically all I can see of this "evidence" is based upon the words and actions of the accuser. She said she was raped. She both claimed and "behaved" as if she were in great pain during the examination. She was viewed to have pain while sitting. In other words she claimed she was raped and then consistently behaved accordingly. So basically the bolstering here may be based upon whether the woman is a good actress or not.
The defense has argued that the accuser gave many divergent versions of events that night, and she did in fact give differing accounts of who did what at the party. But the files show that aside from two brief early conversations with the police, she gave largely consistent accounts of being raped by three men in a bathroom.
I am not sure the average reader would catch what I emphasized with bold print. This paragraph is a very deliberate approach to make the giving of inconsistent accounts seem ok and normal. What I see is that she did not have her story straight in the beginning, but later did. Maybe she thought about it more clearly. The fact is that I would think she would know how many guys raped her. Yet her inconsistency involves her claiming she was raped by a different number of men. While the story gives a credible explanation for the misclaim of 20 men, another paragraph glosses over the descrepency between the claims of 5 and then 3:
The account of being raped by five men comes from the notes of Gwendolyn Sutton, a Durham police officer who talked with the woman upon her arrival at the hospital. Officer Sutton’s report says the woman told her she had been dancing with three other women, “Nikki, Angel and Tammy.” Nikki was Ms. Roberts’s stage name, but there may have been a misunderstanding about the role of the two other women: Tammy was a dispatcher at Angel’s Escorts. The reference to five rapists has not been explained.
It simply was not explained. Here are two other glossover portions on the same subject:
The prosecutor’s file, however, shows that, except in some initial contacts with the police, she gave a consistent account during that night and since then of how many men raped her. In addition, some of the early reports cited by the defense appear to have been based on misunderstandings.
But the files show that aside from two brief early conversations with the police, she gave largely consistent accounts of being raped by three men in a bathroom.
Somehow there seems to be some kind of "Grace Period" being proposed here. As long as she is later consistent, initial inconsistency is OK.
The woman denied engaging in sexual activity with those clients, and no evidence has been offered to contradict her. She also told the police that she had last had sex about a week before the party, with her boyfriend. His DNA was the only positive match with samples taken from her body.
Perhaps it is because I am not an expert on this, but my reaction to the DNA still being present a week later is - Yikes. Ok, that may have been a little gratuitous on my part. Basically, I believe I have shown my point on the purpose of the piece. My speculation to why the author would do such a thing is rooted in my assumption that the NYT is a liberal establishment. The liberal establishment has been thrusting two points down our throat for years:

- A woman would never claim she was raped unless it were true
- Minorities are chronic victims

For these positions to be weakened by this case is unacceptable to them, so it is a matter of circling the wagons around their pet agenda items. Even if the DA loses the case, it is vital for liberals to place a question of guilt in the minds of the public. Long after these boys are found innocent, the liberal establishment will hound them with periodic references to the idea that they "got away with it because they were white and rich".

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Fastest rusting metal and healing skin

YET ANOTHER photo journalism hoax has been exposed. blog shows how the much tauted Red Cross ambulance that was supposedly bombed by Israel is a premeditated fraud assisted by the mainstream media. The expose opens up with:
On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles. Or so says the global media, including Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and thousands of other outlets around the world. If true, the incident would have been an egregious and indefensible violation of the Geneva Convention, and would constitute a war crime committed by the state of Israel.

But there's one problem: It never happened.
The accomplices in this fraud from July 23 - 30th are:

The Lebenese Red Cross Associated Press Britain's ITV news Time Magazine The Guardian The Austin American Statesman The Boston Globe Spero News The Age MSNBC The New York Times

As Zombie says:
By the beginning of August, the story had spread to the rest of the world's media outlets, and became accepted as an unquestioned fact about the war: Israel is targeting ambulances.
The problem (for the terrorist hoaxters) is that they have been so lulled to sleep by a media that fully cooperates with their fraudulent propaganda that they got careless:
Although at first the Red Cross workers kept reporters away from the vehicles, a "local cameraman" did take pictures of the damage starting just hours after the attack; and after a few days, at least one of the ambulances was towed and parked in front of the Red Cross offices in Tyre, where anyone could photograph it. As a result, there are plenty of images to choose from.
The series of photos and analysis really needs to be viewed at, but basically what the pictures show are that the supposed "perfect" circle in the middle from a missle is actually a circle on all these types of ambulances. There is a red dome on the top of every ambulance and this hole is right where the dome would be if it had not been removed. You can
even see the screw holes. Then add months of rust to the surrounding metal that supposedly materialized in a couple of days??

There are also photos of the interior compared to other photos of vehicles that actually were known to be hit by missles. It is very obvious that this interior damage is quite mild in comparison. Then there is the driver of the ambulance. There were photos of the man with bandages on his face in a hospital bed. Yet about 1 week later the same man is photographed and there is not the slightest mark on his face. Not even a scar. So we have the fastest rusting metal and the healing skin here or this was an obvious fraud.

The media is either completely aware of and assiting the fraud, or as stated in a previous analogy are like "pig farmers" unaware of the stench of fraud because they are so entrenched in an agenda. While the blogosphere has been all over the fauxtography scandals, I have seen nothing in the mainstream media. They are simply ignoring it. The arrogance that they feel they owe no explanation is astounding. When will it end?

AICS gets a new toy

Here is a picture of me on my new toy. The whole family enjoyed riding this on the sand dunes and on some trails through the woods. My favorite is the trails, but mostly because I have about a 40lb advantage over Chip and my oldest; and about a 100lb advantage over Olive Oil. While it had no problem zooming them around the dunes, it was a bit sluggish for me on the uphill treks. Going downhill or over the flats, it had no problem. It has a 350 CC motor. In any case, it was really a lot of fun. We wished we could have afforded 2 of them so we could ride together. It was amazing how many people at the dunes had 2-4 ORVs. One family had two 4 wheelers, 1 Dune Buggy and a Dirt Bike. Another guy had three brand new 4 wheelers. He came up to me and said he had never been out and was asking my advice on something. I told him I was a Newb.

Anyway, after quite a number of years of financial restraint (either by choice or necessity) we finally spoiled ourselved just a bit. While they are not the safest things, for sheer fun I highly recommend them.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Liberalism - Now or Never?

There is a fascinating editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Arthur C. Brooks called The Fertility Gap. The basic thrust of the piece is that conservatives have significantly more children than liberals. Here is the breakdown:
But the data on young Americans tell a different story. Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%.
While the liberal education establishment (elementary, secondary and college-level) works feverishly to brainwash our youth toward the progressive path, according to Brooks:
Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.
Brooks goes on to lay out the Democrats worse nightmare by showing in vivid detail that the trend is GROWING:
Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies.
So conservatives having more kids than liberals, and that the vast majority will become conservative adults is both promising and enlightening. I would assume that these facts come as no surprise to most Democrat strategists. This would explain some strange behavior surrounding the near term elections of '06 and '08 that goes beyond Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The broken grip of liberals on the media bolstered by Talk Radio and the Internet must truly strike fear into the Democrats. Their only hope of countering these expressions of free speech is to legislate an environment where they will decline in influence. This becomes less likely if voting trends favor conservatives. In order to be in a position to create an environment that offsets the Fertility Gap, Democrats must regain power NOW. They must regain the House and at least attempt an impeachment against Bush. They must get the Fairness Doctrine reinstated to replace the current market driven basis for radio programming decisions. They must get back control of redistricting so they can do what they have accused the GOP of doing (and worse). They must at all costs resist the trend of requiring voters to have a photo ID, and resist any kind of absentee ballot reform. They must above all get back the Presidency in '08 so they can get more liberal justices appointed that will continue their intrusion on the separation of powers.

The Fertility Gap is also a driving force in the liberal prevention of any meaningful immigration reform. (It does not explain why the GOP is also reluctant to enforce the borders). Illegal immigration and the subsequent free giveaways (from your checkbook and mine) are critical in the liberal plan to offset the Fertility Gap. It will help in the short term, and that may be all they need. The ultimate goal is to relinquish our sovereignty to the United Nations and submit to both the Kyoto Protocol and a global income tax. Once that is accomplished it will be too late. They will be pushing hard now and in '08 to position themselves to meet their goals. The must mitigate the Fertility Gap before '12 or it will likely be too late. It is truly NOW or NEVER.

BBC joins Hezbollah reckless child endangerment activities

In spite of a landslide of criticism on the methods and actions of photo-journalism during the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, the BBC pushes ahead with a reckless photo. As each of these photos is covered by the blogosphere it is becoming obvious that the photo-editors are so mentally in step with terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that they simply have no capacity left to detect how much the photos they publish expose them. It is like a pig farmer who cannot detect the awful smell of his farm, while all guests detect it when they are within a few miles of the place.

The BBC posts a photo of a child next to a large bomb that did not explode. According to the BBC story itself:
The shell is huge, bigger than the young boy pushed forward to stand reluctantly next to it while we get our cameras out and record the scene for posterity.
So we see a clear admission by the author that it is a common strategy to pose children in their photos for propoganda purposes. It also shows that this BBC author is both complicit and lacking concern with placing the child in danger next to an unexploded bomb. So in summary the photo is staged, the child is placed in danger, and the fear of the child is ignored in order to get the desired picture. Such irresponsibility. Such gross misjudgment. Welcome to mainstream photo journalism.

Hat tip:

Anti-war crowd attempts to thwart democracy

The champions of the people - liberals - are at it again: trying to thwart the democratic process. Liberals never can seem to win when playing by the rules. When it comes to laws of land, if they cannot win legislatively they turn the Constitution on its ear and turn judges into lawmakers. If one of their Senators wins a primary and due to corruption can't win, they will use their Democrat appointed judges to force the name on the ballot; even if it is after the legal deadline. However, when a Republican wins a primary and then resigns from the race well within legal deadlines, the Democrats sue to force him to run.

Now the anti-war liberals are again trying to thwart the democratic process in Connecticut. Joe Lieberman has legally obtained the right to be on the November ballot. He believes he has something to offer to the 40%+ Democrats that voted for him in the primary, independents and GOP voters. Polls seem to say the same thing. So on the heels of Lamont's win, the anti-war crowd is gnashing their teeth over the fact that it looks like Lieberman will win the general election. According to them, democracy can rot as they are trying legal means to remove Lieberman's name from the ballot. According to the Washington Post:
A group whose members describe themselves as peace activists asked Sharon Ferrucci, Democratic registrar of voters in New Haven, to remove Lieberman from the party, arguing that he cannot be a Democrat while running under another party's banner.
This is, of course, absurd. It is simply another case of liberals attempting to thwart democracy to get their own way. I am no fan of Joe Lieberman's voting record where he votes the party line over 90% of the time. I can't even say he is consistently a man of principle as he sold some of his principles down the river during his run with Al Gore in 2000. However, he has the right to run as an independent. Anybody who tries to change that is saying to the voters of Connecticut that they have no right to vote for him.

My advice to this "peace" group is to stop trying to rob people of their Constitutional rights and get out and campaign for their candidate. Go out and show the country how a "McGovern-like"
movement has taken control of the Democrat party and remind us all of 1972. Of course liberals like these don't like working by the rules and in the open. They want to do their dirty work and move on to the next target.

Monday, August 21, 2006

World view only has eyes for Hezbollah

There is an old popular song where the words are dreamily crooned "I only have eyes for you". Such is the case for Kofi Annan and other world viewers when it comes to Hezbollah. As I watched events unfold last week culminating in a UN cease-fire resolution and "agreement" on both sides, it seemed many conservatives were disappointed at the turn of events. I understood where they are coming from. While I was on vacation and did not write about it, I had a different take on the deal. It was an opportunity for good on several fronts.

It was first and foremost an opportunity to disarm Hezbollah. In the amazing PR spin antics of Hezbollah during the conflict, they had spun themselves into a corner so far they had to "agree" to the cease-fire. They have an ARMY of DUPES that must be fed the line that they really are not terrorists, but "freedom fighters" with "humanitarian" interests. Why they build hospitals and schools and other things. (Somehow all the hospitals and schools and charitable deeds by the US government and private groups is meaningless). By all their antics including staging photos of dead children and wailers, Hezbollah gave the impression they were "for the people". So when the opportunity to cease hostilities "for the people" came along they were embarrassed into agreeing to it. They must be awfully confident that their army of dupes will cover for them when they break the agreement.

It was an opportunity for the world body (besides the US) to step up to the plate to deal with radical Islam. While the world did not have the fortitude or resolve to do anything about the problem of terror facing the world, they sat on the sidelines and chanted their cries of "Unilateralism" like monkeys in a zoo. This was the chance for countries like France, Germany, Russia and China to step up to the plate and actually contribute to world peace instead of acting against it by their chronic appeasement. France has especially been a disappointment. While I have engaged in poking fun at France's reputation for surrender, I recognize the history France and the US have enjoyed from our beginning. I concurred with LA Sunsett that this was a great opportunity for France to step up and shine. I also concur with him that their backing out of the deal is a huge disappointment.

Knowing the world would disappoint us all, I saw this as yet another opportunity to show how utterly impotent the United Nations is. They pass resolutions that they are either unwilling or utterly powerless to enforce. I think of the ridicule I have endured in my life for my religious faith. Yet when I think of all those around the world who have placed their faith in the United Nations, I realize that belief in the United Nation's ability to do any good whatsoever is nothing short of religious faith. It is truly a religous faith much more worthy of ridicule than mine.

A major point of the cease-fire agreement was that Hezbollah would be disarmed by the Lebenese army. When Hezbollah then told the Lebenese government not to even think about it, they caved. Somehow they concluded that concealed weapons is a great substitute for actual disarmament. (The Army of Dupes swallowed this with a straight face). Without the disarmament of Hezbollah, the cease-fire agreement is DEAD. Additionally, Hezbollah has begun to re-arm itself with arms from Syria and Iran. As I have stated before, this is their tactic during a cease-fire: to catch their breath and regroup. The army of dupes have fallen for it yet again.

So when Israel tries to enforce the cease-fire agreement (in the absense of the UN and France) by raiding an arms restocking initiative, what does Dopi Annan do? Does he admit his impotence? No. Does he call Hezbollah for their breach of the agreement? No. He criticizes Israel, of course. Kofi, like the Army of Dupes, looks at terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas like looking at a lover over a candlelight dinner. While violins play sweet music in the background, Kofi's foot strokes the leg of Hezbollah under the table and he whispers lovingly "I only have eyes for you."

Sunday, August 20, 2006

AICS has returned

I have returned from a fun and mostly restful vacation. While gone I had sporadic internet availability so I was able to drop in from time to time to see how things were going. I must say that Return to Westernesse has made a fantastic debut here at the Logic Lifeline. The posts were frequent and very well written. R2W also had good responses to comments left here. I may or may not go back and add to the comments.

Sundays and Mondays are always difficult for me to post. If I can, great; otherwise it may be Tuesday before I am back to full speed. Thanks to the readers who keep coming back and commenting here, regardless of agreement.

Friday, August 18, 2006


Reuters yesterday printed an article titled, "California on the Brink of Global Warming Breakthrough." The California legislature is hashing out the most aggressive global warming policy to date in the U.S., a policy that would put a very high cap on greenhouse gas emissions. The legislature believes they will be able to come up with something that the governor will feel comfortable signing into law, and Schwarzenegger is confidently optimistic as well. Schwarzenegger's position is, of course, being emphasized as putting him squarely in opposition to Bush on this issue. (The media loves that.)

I have a prediction: This legislation, touted as a BREAKTHROUGH in global warming, will not be effective in reducing the global temperature by even one degree.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Misplaced outrage

Haley Joel Osment, famous child actor from The Sixth Sense, was formally charged today with possession of marijuana while driving, and a blood alcohol level greater than 0.15, having crashed his car back in July. I remember reading a little blurb about the incident when it happened, and now that he's been charged, I'm wondering, Where's the outrage? Yes, the outrage that we saw following a similar situation with Mel Gibson. I mean, both men were well over the legal limit and chose to get behind the wheel of a several-thousand pound vehicle, essentially carelessly wielding a deadly weapon. Both could very easily have plowed into an innocent pedestrian or a family with two small children in the back seat heading home from grandma's house. But I don't see any outrage in either case about this dangerous behavior. Instead, in a nation that guarantees free speech (stretched to include freedom of expression), people are more offended because a person says things that indicate he doesn't really like Jews, than they are about a person recklessly putting many people's lives in jeopardy with his detestable behavior. This is just one instance of misplaced outrage I've noticed in recent days.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Our legal system gets a belated chance at justice

The biggest story this evening is that JonBenet Ramsey's killer has finally been found and arrested. We can only hope that our criminal justice system will not fail JonBenet like it has for the past ten years, and like it failed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, the children of Andrea Yates, and many others that could be named. But if the system does fail her, at least we can be assured of an infallible justice system in the afterlife.

"It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

Illegal alien uses church and citizen son to continue to break the law

Elvira Arellano, an illegal alien and former deportee in Chicago, fled into the St. Adalbert United Methodist Church on the west side of the city to avoid once again being deported. Elvira has a son, born in the U.S., and therefore, a citizen. I have seen this story reported on the TV news, and it is usually framed as this woman, if deported, being forced to be separated from her son. No one seems to understand that just because this boy is a U.S. citizen, that doesn't mean his mother can't take him with her when she goes. Yes, he has the benefit of citizenship because he was born here. I have no problem with that, since that has been the law for years. I do, however, have a problem with people claiming the mother should be allowed to stay so that she does not have to be separated from her son. The fact is, she is a law-breaker and a fugitive. Tell all the people who followed the law and waited their turn in line to come here, that this woman deserves special treatment. She has a choice - leave with her son, or leave alone.

Will our legal system excuse murder yet again?

Mary Winkler was recently released from jail on $750,000 bond. You may remember that she is alleged to have killed her husband, a pastor in TN, back in March. There's been a lot of talk since her release about her motive for the murder, as well as her mental condition. Some have made the claim that there was emotional abuse on the part of her husband. And ABC News interviewed her lawyers, who said that there is a lot of pressure on pastors' wives - pressure because they have no outlets, no confidants with whom they can share all the secrets to which they are exposed as a result of being married to men in the pastoral position. With this kind of talk, I smell another not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-defect defense, and I am reminded of the complete injustice that was done recently, when Andrea Yates was awarded a new trial and found not guilty for the same reason.

Every time someone gets off based on this defense, I am troubled. We have come to the point in our legal system at which we say that if a person's brain seems to be working differently during the course of a murder, then the person is not responsible for his crime. A seemingly normal person suddenly snaps and commits horrible atrocities, and we say, "There must have been something wrong with their brain, or they couldn't have possible done this." Of course something was wrong with their brain! They snapped under pressure and committed murder. Whatever was going on their head does not exonerate them. They are still guilty of the crime they committed. Just because we can't find a reasonable explanation for their behavior doesn't mean we should excuse it.

I have a wife and three children. And I seriously hope that if I shot or stabbed my wife to death, or held everyone of my children underwater long enough to drown them, that someone would have enough sense to string me up from the highest tree in town or but a bullet through my head. (Of course, I speak figuratively, since we don't really execute anyone for their crimes anymore. We just put a needle in their arms and let them die peacefully in their sleep.) It's time we realize that we are just making excuses for criminals, thereby creating more criminals who realize they can get away with murder by claiming to have gone temporarily insane just prior to the commission of a crime. Those who commit murder should lose the privilege of living.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Japanese scientists setting us back millions of years

AP reports that Japanese researchers hope to produce offspring of the woolly mammoth using sperm from the frozen animals found in Siberia, and implanting it in modern descendants of the extinct animals, such as elephants. There are, of course, problems with degradation and radiation, but the scientists are hopeful that soon, they can overcome any obstacles.

Well, I'm confused. I thought that Darwin's sacred teaching of survival of the fittest proves that the modern descendants of the woolly mammoth are a better, stronger, higher species than their predecessors. In other words, if we reverse millions of years of natural selection by mixing the lower form with the higher, won't their offspring be a lower form of life than the modern species? How is that progress? If we seriously set back the evolutionary process after all these billions of years, are we jeopardizing delaying the next level of evolution by millions of years?

But I guess questioning the ethics of such a procedure is an inconsequential argument since there is no creator, no higher being controlling the universe, and therefore, no one to answer to for our actions. What's the difference whether we, as mankind, seek to alter the course of the most powerful cosmic force in the universe - the evolution of mankind by natural selection?

Monday, August 14, 2006

Hezbollah and Israel both claim victory - is it possible?

ABC news with Charles (formally known as Charlie) Gibson did a report on the different sides claiming victory in the month-long war. Arguments were made for Israel, Hezbollah, or Lebanon being the victors. Hezbollah claims victory because they persevered against Israel for a month without being completely wiped out. Israel claims victory because they pushed Hezbollah back 18 miles further away from their border than they had been at the start of the war. Some claim victory for Lebanon because they now have an opportunity to start fresh and strengthen their government's authority. These arguments come from a lack of understanding about what winning really is. Nobody won the war - it ended in a ceasefire, not a surrender. Ceasefires do not win wars - one side's acceptance of unconditional surrender makes that side the victor in any conflict. Look at all the great wars throughout history that ended with a clear-cut victor. Those wars were always decided not by ceasefires, but by surrender of one army to another. This is a well-understood rule of warfare. So why is ABC (and several others) making such a big deal about who actually won this war? My guess is that since Israel did actually gain ground in the conflict, and Hezbollah gained nothing, many would like to give Hezbollah credit for something, so they pose the idea of both sides being victors. Or maybe some people think victory consists of laying down your weapons and agreeing to stop fighting. In that case, I guess France was a great victor over Germany in WWII.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Ahmadinejad - Running for U.S. office?

I just finished watching Mike Wallace's 60 Minutes interview with Iran's President Ahmadinejad. A lot of people think this man is crazy. To me, he seems like he could be running for a Democratic seat in Congress, or he could even be a Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Here are some of the ways he resembled a Democratic Party candidate when Wallace asked him what he thought about President Bush.

  • he showed concern for the economy, saying that Bush could save it, but chooses to wage war instead
  • was deeply troubled about the fact that one percent of the American population is in prison
  • showed he could feel the pain of 45 million Americans without healthcare
  • claimed to hold the moral high ground on the teachings of Jesus, asking Bush how he could claim to be a follower of Christ when he liked to wage war so much
  • pointed out how the U.S. is oppressing Iraq rather than offering them security
  • all but called for a timeline now that Saddam has been off the scene for three years

In addition to all this, when asked about his views on Israel, he filibustered (Wallace actually accused him of this.) Like some in the Democratic Party, Ahmadinejad seems to be taking advice from Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. When asked about Israel, he claimed that it was a "fabricated government" and a "murderous regime." (OK, maybe "fabricated" isn't close enough to "fictitious," and "murderous regime" isn't close enough to "Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world" to make this claim.) Nevertheless, the more Ahmadinejad talked, the more he sounded to me like a highly-respected member of today's Democratic Party.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Don't like Israel's actions in Lebanon? Just Blame Bush!

AFP reports thousands protesting the "US backed" Israeli action in Lebanon and Palestinian states. The protest in Washington took place outside the White House. Quotes from several of the protestors showed that the bulk of their anger was aimed at Bush and the US, even though Bush is not the one invading Lebanon. This, of course, should not be surprising, since Bush has been blamed for virtually everything. He's been blamed for 9/11, though he did not personally fly planes into buildings. He's been blamed for Katrina, though he claims he couldn't get his hurricane-making machine working that week. He's been blamed for global warming, though he claims winter is one of his favorite seasons. And now there are reports that Hawaii's Mt. Kilauea is erupting as it has been for the past 23 years. This, of course, can be pinned on Bush as well, though he claims that Hawaii is his favorite place to visit outside the US.

Profiling - What rights are actually being violated?

AICS, Thank you so much for the invitation and the kind words. They mean a lot to me (probably more than you know.) And thank you, regular visitors, for the words of invitation (and challenge.) What I have enjoyed so much about this blog is the free flow of ideas that is allowed and encouraged here. It is a pleasure being able to debate issues and even get into heated arguments, and still know that we're all welcome back. It's a lot easier to do it here than at family get-togethers where it seems all too easy to make enemies just talking about politics and religion.

One of AICS's latest posts dealt with the inevitability of profiling and the suggestion that we begin now. Whenever racial profiling comes up in whatever context (terrorism, law enforcement, etc.) people get up in arms about people's rights being in jeopardy. My question is, whose rights are being violated by profiling? Again, we're not talking about rounding people up and throwing them in prison based on their race, as the great hero of the liberal left, Franklin Roosevelt, did during WWII. We're simply talking about taking common sense measures to target a group of people who potentially pose the greatest threat in a given situation. I would appreciate it if someone would point out to me the article in the Constitution that guarantees the right of an individual not to be searched a little more thoroughly at an airport or train terminal based on his profile. If I, a white Christian male, were visiting or lived in a country that was predominantly of different ethnicity, and over the previous ten years or so, many terrorist attacks had been carried out in that country and others by white Christian males, I would expect to be treated with more scrutiny than those who did not match my description. Would my rights be violated in such a situation?

The fact is, profiling takes place all the time, and we don't complain. Young male drivers pay higher insurance premiums than young female drivers because studies have shown that they are involved in more collisions. School teachers are subjected to an FBI background check when they apply for a teaching job, while most people applying for other jobs are not subjected to such a check, because many school teachers have abused their position. Is there anything wrong with this type of profiling? If not, then why is there such an outcry over racial profiling? Profiling, racial or otherwise, should be used in any situation in which one group shows more of a propensity for dangerous behavior than other groups.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Welcome ReturntoWesternesse to the Logic Lifeline

When the Logic Lifeline completed the first year, I began to evaluate the direction I wanted to take for the next year. Among those ideas I decided I wanted to extend the offer for someone I know very well and respect very much to become a second contributing member to the Logic Lifeline. I have extended that offer and it has been accepted.

I introduce to the readers a new member contributor who has selected the alias ReturntoWesternesse. You have seen some of his input to this blog as a shortened version of his alias: R2W. I will let him provide what details about himself that he wishes. I will say that while we have similar ideologies, we do not think exactly the same on everything. In trusting his judgement I have given no guidelines on what or how to write posts here. Each of us is responsible to defend our posts, but will likely join the frey as opportunity and desire occurs.

This is a great time to begin as I will be departing on vacation tomorrow morning. I may not have fulltime access to the internet or opportunity to write much. R2W will keep things warm here while I am gone. So welcome ReturntoWesternesse and let the fun begin when you are ready.

Profiling WILL come - make it NOW

The Washington Examiner has an editorial recommending the use of profiling to narrow down the search criteria at airports now that the searching will take so much time. Since there is no technology to detect explosive material in items like toothpaste and hair gel, hand searches are required. According to the Examiner:
We recognize that the vast majority of Muslims do not share the Jihadist obsessions with killing Americans, Brits and other Westerners. But there is one undeniable fact about the 1993 World Trace Center bombers, the Sept. 11 murderers, the Madrid bombers, the London subway bombers and the present liquid bomb plotters — all are clearly identifiable as being from Muslim nations. We’ve yet to see bombers who look even remotely like a gray-haired governess from Southampton, a harried middle-aged U.S. sales executive from Los Angeles or a haggard dad and mom with kids in tow returning home to Atlanta.
We all have seen the photos of the 9-11 terrorists. We have seen names and/or faces of those identified as being involved in terrorist activities. Now there is a list out of those identified as being involved in this plot. Here is the list as presented on
Umir Hussain, 24, London E14
Muhammed Usman Saddique, 24, London E17
Waheed Zaman, 22, London E17
Assan Abdullah Khan, 22, London E17
Waseem Kayani, 28, High Wycombe
Waheed Arafat Khan, 24, London E17
Cossor Ali, 24, London E17
Tayib Rauf, 21, Birmingham
Ibrahim Savant, 26, London E17
Osman Adam Khatib, 20, London E17
Shamin Mohammed Uddin, 36, Stoke Newington
Amin Asmin Tariq, 23, London E17
Shazad Khuram Ali, 27, High Wycombe
Tanvir Hussain, 24, London E10
Umar Islam, 28, (born Brian Young) High Wycombe
Assad Sarwar, 25, High Wycombe
Abdullah Ali, 26, London E17
Abdul Muneem Patel, 17, London E5
Nabeel Hussain, 21, Waltham Forest
Let's see. No John Smith, Susan Jones, Tom Brown. No Jose Rivera. No Jiang Wu. No Hans Schroeder. You get the idea. So far all have been Muslim Middle-Eastern men. With this undeniable fact in mind it is only obvious that this is the pool we should be focusing our security efforts on. Note I used the word "focusing" and not "limiting". Of course there is a potential threat from anybody.

This group has earned the right to be the most inconvenienced by security. I say that not only because this is the sole group involved in modern terrorism. I also say it because those of this group NOT involved in modern terrorism have remained virtually silent withholding any significant denouncement of these activities. If we do hear from this group it is to demand they not be treated differently. Groups like CAIR when they do belch out any statement it is like yesterday's criticism of President Bush for using the apt term "Islamic Fascists". Since groups like CAIR and the Muslim Middle-Eastern men in the US refuse to organize a significant counter to the thinking that it is acceptable to kill innocent people, it is time they are given a motive. Since the protection and saving of human life is not enough to get these groups off their backsides to police themselves, maybe some major inconvenience will. Of course these thick-heads will react by protesting the profiling instead of protesting murders of innocents.

Wake up America. We almost lost another nearly 4000 people in this foiled attack. The days where we can reject profiling and sit around holding hands and singing Kum Ba Ya are over. The MENTALITY that targeting innocent civilians is justified has taken over radicals and the numbers in that "radical" category is growing as world appeasement gives them encouragement.

If we do not begin profiling, the chance of a successful attack will grow. When successful attacks rise, there will come a day when profiling will become palatable even to a liberal. It will come, so why does it need to take more death to drive us to what we already know we need to do. Profiling WILL come - make it NOW.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

The mentality of CIVILIAN TARGETING must be eradicated

I have seen a disgusting statement frequently being written in the comments section of blogs that says: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". I wonder how many would view as freedom fighters those who would blow up planes in mid-air when one of their loved ones is on the flight. Picture your mother and your sister flying back from a trip to London. They have had a wonderful time seeing the rich history, wonderful London sights and the beautiful English countryside. While you wish you could have gone, you were not able to afford the trip but you are happy they could enjoy it. They get on the flight laughing and talking about their favorite parts of the journey. When the flight reaches maximum altitude, they are just dosing off to sleep when a terrorist sets off a bomb that rips a hole in the side of the aircraft depressurizing the cabin. Your mother and sister are swept through the hole and gone forever. They harmed nobody, they were not involved in the Middle-East conflict and they were definitely not part of any military.

An analogy I gave my kids when growing up is walking through an untrod field. In Illinois where I live we have fields where the grassy vegetation grows up to our chests. In a virgin field it takes quite an effort to walk through one, pushing the grass down as you go. The next trip through is a little easier but it still takes effort. Finally after enough trips a hardened path is created and nothing will easily grow there while the traffic continues. The world body in their hatred of the US and Israel has allowed this path to form where the TARGETED taking of innocent civilian life by random opportunity to become acceptable behavior.

The stance of the world body must be that this terrorist activity is unacceptable under ANY and ALL circumstances. Even the least of this behavior must be met with strong retribution against those who do this and those who support it from a financial or authoritative standpoint. No excuse for such activity can be acceptable. At no time can such activity be met with ambivalence or apathy. The inconsistent and ineffective leadership of Kofi Annan is a perfect example the UN being a part of the problem. Kofi slams Israel for a rocket hitting a UN post where an eyewitness tells of Hezbollah firing next to it to draw the fire. Yet when a Hezbollah rocket hits a UN post, Kofi has no words of rebuke at all.

The foiling of the plot in the UK actually risks an apathetic viewpoint by the world. One would think that that attacks of 9-11, Bali, Spain, the London Subway and others would be enough to forever know that this mentality must be met aggressively without pause or yielding. Yet there have been no successful terrorist attacks in the US or the UK since. Memories grow short. People begin to be distracted with other things. Another successful attack might wake people up in the short term, but soon they will begin to yawn again. It takes diligence, courage and focus to remain on permanent guard. The leadership in the world and the blurring of facts in the media sway people from this. Slowly, but surely the path is being created and hardened that CIVILIAN TARGETING is an acceptable practice.

Of course when this "acceptable practice" comes to the doorstep of you and me, at some point it will no longer be acceptable. In a final analogy look to the forest fire. In old forests the dead and dry growth accumulates and becomes a time bomb. A lightning strike will set off the "powder keg" and start a blaze that will destroy many thousands of acres of forest. This is what will happen in the world if they appease this mentality until it hits the right point. People will take so much and no more. All thoughts of appeasement, tolerance and understanding will be out the window and the wrath of the West will be unleashed with far less control than desired. Today forest rangers practice a controlled burn. By safely burning off the dry kindling, the whole forest can be saved. The world body needs to do a controlled burn to eradicate this mentality. While they can try diplomacy, it is obvious that this mentality does not react well to diplomacy. In fact it is encouraged by it, because it is viewed as weakness. So what are you going to do? Encourage the "powder keg"? Nothing? Or particpate in the controlled burn?

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

It is a good thing the rest of the world cares about Palestinian kids

Little Green Footballs blog is posting on an interesting picture. The focus there is on an initial photo release and then a subsequent resubmission that removes cropping. The photo itself cropped or not is worth posting about. It shows a Palestinian fighter shooting at Israel while being surrounded by other men and several young boys.

We have seen quite a lot of reaction around the world when the children of Palestine or Lebanon are hurt or killed when they are caught in a military strike. I have stated many times about the tactics of Hezbollah and Hamas fighting right next to residential areas, hospitals and schools. Here is a powerful photo of a fighter right out in the open fighting next to children. So I think it is good that well intentioned people around the world care about Palestinian children because from this photo it is obvious that the Palestinians have no regard for their own children.

If I looked out of my window and saw my kid standing next to a gunmen firing at the enemy I would go out and at the least box the gunman's ears for endangering my child. At worst I would do severe bodily harm. In fact I have bellowed at fools who have done things that put my kids in harms way, though their life was not in danger. Why do these people not likewise care for their own? I am sure I will be jumped on by some declaring adamantly that they certainly do care about their kids. You cannot tell by this photo, though.

Media mountain of trash - Part II

This is part II of analysis of more media fraudulant photos. The first was a staged body recovery from the wreckage of an attack in Tyre, Lebanon. The second photo Michelle Malkin exposes is from the cover of US News. It is supposed to be a fiery/smoky photo of a downed Israeli jet. A member of Hezbollah stands in front of the blaze holding his gun and trying to look cool in his sunglasses. However, when the photo is blown up we see what is really going on. The place is actually a garbage dump. You can see many unburned tires on the right leading up to the fire. So basically, this is a tire fire. When tires burn, they give off this dramatic fiery blaze with billowing smoke (no photoshopping required).

This photo moves out of the arena of a picture being taken and changed later. From the position of the where the picture is taken the smell of burning tires cannot be hidden. They were likely gagging on it. To see that the stage was set, then add a photo of a Hezbollah fighter in almost a heroic context is premeditated manipulation beyond measure.

The two photos in part I and II were shown in multiple outlets. Photo I was shown in the New York Times and NPR(at least NPR clarified the young man was "hurt"). Photo II was on the cover of US News and also in Time magazine. So now when it comes to photo fraud we have Reuters, AP, NYT, NPR, US News and Time caught. There is no clear attempt to aggressively root out this problem (as the firing of Hajj is merely a band-aid). The mountain of trash is being piled up and it is only a matter of time before it is figuratively set ablaze. The world and media sympathy is so chokingly obviously against Israel and in favor of terrorist groups. Their minds are so cemented in this template that they either are complicit in fronting the fraud or incapable of detecting it. A bank teller handles genuine currency all day, day after day. When a counterfeit is placed in their hand, it is easy to for them to detect it. It should be the same with the media. The results we are seeing is evidence that instead, they are too often handling counterfeits which robs them of the sensitization required to detect it.

We often hear of how the media is manipulated by tyrranical governments. How sad it is that in a free society instead of the government forcing manipulation we have the media doing it voluntarily to support the slavery of an agenda they have traded their freedom for. It is a poor trade in my book.

Media mountain of trash - Part I

The media is continuing to hemorrage credibility with photo after photo after photo being exposed as fraudulant. Today Michelle Malkin with help from Gatewaypundit and Hot Air associates has two major case studies showing photos that go well beyond the terms "staged" and "doctored". The first photo from the New York Times website shows a young man from the Lebanon city of Tyre being pulled out of some war wreckage. The photo and caption gives the appearance the young man is dead. Michelle has other photos showing the same young man walking around in the rescue operation looking just fine. In addition to his looks he can be identified by his distinctive shorts and hat.

Even if the other photos of the man walking around did not exist, to the critical eye the photo is enough to show it is clearly staged. He has no apparant injuries that would cause death or even render him unconscious. He wears no shirt at all and he has no dust from any explosion on his chest. Neither his front in this photo or his back in later photos show any injury at all. He does, however, have cement dust on his hands - perhaps from moving things around to stage the scene? If you look at the surrounding wreckage that he is lying in, it is a very uncomfortable looking spot with jagged edges of this or that all over. If he fell where he was struck, he would simply land on the ground no matter how uncomfortable. Instead his back and legs are conveniently in places where the least or no pain or discomfort will be caused. His right foot seems to be pushing against something to keep the stone from digging into his back. The most obvious giveaway (that should have tipped the photo editor) is the young man's hat. We see him wearing it in other photos. Here it is neatly tucked in his arm as he lays "dead". If he was wearing it when the bombs struck, how did it get neatly in his arm? If he was holding it at the time, how did it remain in his arm and not fall to the ground?

Such an obvious fraud and the NYT "fell" for it. The next photo example will be added in Part II of this two-part series.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Got a Wail of a tale to tell you lads

In yet another bust of the non-stop middle east propoganda machine the blog Drinking From Home shows Hezbollah's use of the wailing women to manipulate public opinion. In this post DFH shows that the SAME woman is wailing outside of her demolished home on two different dates: July 22 and August 5th. If you click over to the post you will see that DFH goes to great lengths to show it is the same person by comparing facial a facial scar and a facial mark in the exact same place.

Building on the concept of professional wailers, DFH adds this post showing wailer after wailer. Some of these look like they might be the same person. In either case several of the photos are by the same Reuters photographer, Adnan Hajj recently fired for doctoring the smoke and aircraft photos. The scenes are very similar leaving little doubt that they were staged.

While Reuters did fire Hajj, they removed all his photos from public access making further investigation into the depth of the deception impossible for the public. Neither Reuters, nor the rest of the media seem to be putting much distance between themselves and these practices that are beginning to appear routine. With Jason Blair, the CBS forged documents and other caught media credibility gaps, one would think they would become rabid about rooting this out. I would admonish them to get serious about eliminating these practices or they will be the ones wailing before too long.

Hat tip and photo montage: EIB

Oh the possibilities

Reuters (oh that is rich) is reporting that a German scientist is working on an anti-stupidity pill that is having good results in mice. While the pill may not have the exact name, I thought it would be fun thinking of all the possibilities we could use this anti-stupidity pill the further mankind. While I am sure we all could use a boost to better ourselves, when an initial batch comes off the assembly line where could it be used for the most good?

We could send a batch over to the UN so they could become anti-stupid instead of anti-US and anti-Israel. Perhaps it would allow the UN to realize that it is better to fight terrorism than appease it.

We mix up a batch of "rainbow stew" and serve it to the radical peace marchers. These are the ones who would be marching against the US fighting an invading army on our soil. The ones who on talk radio who can't even admit WWII was a moral war.

If polls are correct about 1/3 of the US population could use a good dose so they can realize it was Islamic terrorists and not the US government that brought down the Twin towers on 9/11. Actually, if they just laid off the drugs for awhile the pill might not be needed.

If we sent some to CNN and MSNBC, Fox News might actually have some competition. They would realize that their attempts at hiding their liberal bias are not fooling anybody. Better yet if the dose is strong enough they would not have a liberal bias.

OK, there is my list. What can anybody add without getting personal at another LL reader?

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Yet another fake news photograph

I have said time and again if one must lie, they are likely in the wrong as they feel the facts are not enough to prove their point of view. We have seen the media time and again purposefully doctor news stories and photographs in order to skew things to their agenda. This time it is Reuters who has been caught red-handed doctoring a photograph. Ynet covers the story:
Reuters withdraws photograph of Beirut after Air Force attack after US blogs, photographers point out 'blatant evidence of manipulation.' Reuters' head of PR says in response, 'Reuters has suspended photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to photograph.'
Basically, the photographer manipulated the photo by taking smoke from within the photograph, copying it and pasting it in another area of the photograph to give the appearance of the smoke being worse than it really was. The first thing one wants to do is commend Reuters for taking action against the photographer. However, that would place all of the guilt on the photographer. As Ynet continues:

Johnson added: "Smoke simply does not contain repeating symmetrical patterns like this, and you can see the repetition in both plumes of smoke. There’s really no question about it."

Speaking to Ynetnews, Johnson said: "This has to cast doubt not only on the photographer who did the alterations, but on Reuters' entire review process. If they could let such an obvious fake get through to publication, how many more faked or 'enhanced' photos have not been caught?"

A series of close ups are then posted on the blog, showing that "it’s not only the plumes of smoke that were 'enhanced.' There are also cloned buildings." The close ups do appear to show exact replicas of buildings appearing next to one another in the photograph.

Looking at the photograph it is plain to see that the smoke plumes are clones. How did the photo get through the editing process? There is a culpibility further in the organization than the photographer. If you use the same logic as used in Abu Graibh, you would come to the conclusion that the organization all the way to the top has an agenda that the people at lower levels felt comfortable doing this.

As for the photographer, the story does not quite end there. There is yet one more thing we need to know about him. According to Ynet:
Adnan Hajj, the photographer who sent the altered image, was also the Reuters photographer behind many of the images from Qana – which have also been the subject of suspicions for being staged.

"A photographer who would blatantly falsify an entire 'news' image would certainly not be above posing and staging photographs of rescue workers," Johnson concluded.
How interesting. What a tangled web we weave. It is beyond comprehension how these organizations continue to get away with these things and still have anybody believe a word they say. I guess there are a lot of people out there who prefer to be media dupes.

I thought it was Hezbollah not Lebanon

MyWay is reporting that Lebanon has rejected the UN cease-fire resolution. Huh?! I thought Lebanon was an innocent party here and that it was Hezbollah (who happens to be in Lebanon) fighting against Israel. According to MyWay:
The Lebanese parliamentary speaker, a prominent Shiite who has been negotiating on behalf of Hezbollah, rejected the U.S.-French draft of U.N. cease-fire resolution on Sunday because it did not include the government's plan for ending the fighting.

Nabih Berri said Lebanon would not accept any terms that did not include a government plan calling for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli troops.

Oh, so it is a parliamentary speaker negotiating for Hezbollah. Not if you continue reading:
"Lebanon, all of Lebanon, rejects any talks and or any draft resolution that does not include the seven-point government framework," Berri said at a news conference in Beirut.
So it is all of Lebanon that is rejecting a cease-fire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel. When this first started we were asked (and continue to be asked) why Israel is punishing Lebanon for Hezbollah's actions. We later heard the head of Hezbollah admit he had conferred with the Lebaneze prime minister before taking the two soldiers and beginning it rocket campaign. Now Lebanon is negotiating for Hezbollah and taking a personal interest in the agreement. So are they separate entities or cohorts in this conflict?

The agreement at first seems to reward Hezbollah for its behavior:
The seven-point proposal calls for a mutual release of prisoners held by Israeli and Hezbollah and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. It foresees the Lebanese government taking control of southern Lebanon with the help of an international force.
So the reason they claimed for kidnapping the soldiers (being a prisoner exchange) is being rewarded by making it a part of the cease-fire agreement. So Israel giving back hundreds of prisoners in exchange for two is being rejected by Lebanon. One wonders why. Then you go on to read:

The U.S.-French proposal, which was expected to go to the floor of the U.N. Security Council early this week, calls for Hezbollah to stop all military operations and for Israel to stop its offensive drive against Lebanon. The proposal would allow Israel to strike back if Hezbollah were to break a cease-fire.

There it is. The agreement allows Israel to go back in and continue to kick their rear if Hezbollah were to break the cease-fire. In the eyes of a terrorist that simply is not fair. The terrorist insists upon having no rules imposed upon them, while demanding their enemies to have both arms shackled behind their backs. Somehow the world body thinks this a fine arrangement. The fact is that as I have said before, asking Hezbollah to honor a cease-fire is like a child with Attention Defecit Disorder being asked to sit still during a boring church sermon. It will not happen. They will not rest until Isreal is destroyed. So giving Israel the right to respond to what they are already planning is simply not acceptable. Apparently, "innocent bystander" Lebanon concurs.

Geneva Convention only for some?

Liberals have been very harsh on the US for policies they view as breaching the Geneva convention. However, it seems when one of their pets violate Geneva they have nothing to say. In 1977 the Additional Protocol I was added to the 1949 Geneva Convention. One of the things added under Protocol I dealt with "indiscriminate attacks". According to the Protocol I states:
“Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”
So in any military operation any military must only target non-civilian military objectives. Protocol I defines military objectives and does concede the reality that at times targeting military objectives, civilian collateral damage will occur. To target civilians or indiscriminately attack into a civilian population without any real military objective is a direct breach of Protocol I.

So while liberals get on their high horse and scream about the US breaching Geneva by classifying those captured and sent to Gitmo as enemy combatants instead of prisoners of war, they convey no such outrage at Hezbollah for their breach of Protocol I.

Of course, the pat answer will be that Hezbollah is not a part of the Lebaneze military and therefore are exempt. Legally this is true. When legal points are disputed by the US, however, it does not make a difference to the liberals. We have heard how innocent the Lebaneze government is claimed to be in this conflict. A distinction is made between Hezbollah and the Lebaneze government. If the US were to have a militia group gather and start shooting rockets against Mexico because of the illegal immigration problem do you think the US government would be allowed to claim that it is the militia and not them so they have no reponsibility?

Time and again we see the liberal side being inconsistent with reality. How they respond to events depends upon who is doing the action and to whom the action is done and why the action is done. If liberals would strip away who, why and to whom when it comes to the actions of Hezbollah; if they were consistent they would be outraged by the tactics used. They would not simply claim to be outraged when asked about it, they would be vocally outraged. It is time for reason and consistency.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

More proof of Hezbollah fighting from residential areas

Powerlineblog has linked to a video showing a Hezbollah fighter bringing rockets into a residential home. Then you see the rockets being fired at Israel from inside the house. The best part comes when the house is very accurately targeted by an Israeli bomb. We only hope Hezbollah did not drag any women and children into the building prior to firing.

Are you tired yet of being a dupe for terrorists?

I am going to have neck problems from shaking my head so much lately

Here is yet another head shaker. Watch this video to see UN ambulances carrying Hamas troops in Gaza. When fighting breaks out a UN ambulance pulls up and a group of Hamas soldiers hop right in the back. I am simply out of words to express how much the entities that liberals trust the most: the media and the UN are simply right in bed with terrorists. The world body is completely duped. It is time to supply the antidote.

Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt

Modern Day Shibboleth?

There is a story in the Bible where two areas were at war. They placed guards at a key pass point that asked everyone who came by to say the word "Shibboleth". The enemy pronounced the word wrongly as "Sibboleth" so they then knew to kill them.

The American Thinker has a post that reminds me of that story. Instead of a word, it is a map. According to American Thinker:

The disputed Shebaa Farms area (named on the map as Chebaa Farms) is marked on the map. The map clearly and unambiguously places it in Lebanon. Shebaa Farms is Syrian territory occupied by Israel as a result of its decisive victory in the Six Day War of 1967. The international community, including the United States, considers Shebaa Farms to be Syrian territory.

With the U.N. completely certifying Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, there is no longer any credible claim that Israel continues to occupy Lebanese territory. However, Hezbollah still claims that Shebaa Farms is Lebanese territory, in an attempt to legitimize its “resistance” against Israel. It is very significant that AP’s map places Shebaa Farms in Lebanon, apparently disregarding the almost unanimous opinion of the international community in favor of claims made by Hezbollah.

So basically AP is using a map that is in line with Hezbollah claims. A.T. claims that AP is either being sloppy or attempting to legitamize the violent actions of Hezbollah. I have been told that the Jews control the media and that the media is run by Zionists. All one needs to do is read it to see that the media knocks Israel every chance it gets. There just never seems to be an end to the media siding with the terrorists either.

The Pallywood video

Many others are posting on this, but since it supports some points in my previous posts I wanted to also link to it. It is a video called "Pallywood", which would mix Palistinians with Hollywood. Go to You-Tube here or here and view 18 minutes of footage that clearly shows the deception of the Palistinians and how the media willingly goes along with it by using cut footage. Somebody has gained access to the raw footage which clearly shows a premeditated and orchestrated PR manipulation. The video shows continuous action on the part of Palistinians near an Israeli post to create the appearance of havoc and chaos, as if attacked by the Israelis, and filmed for the consumption of the world body.

Several scenes show the ever ready ambulances that pull up clearly on queue. One scene shows a dramatic firing into a hole in a building. Scenes from the raw footage shows Palestinians walking around in it before. An onscreen map by the narrator shows that the hole in the wall is on the far side of the building that is between them and the Israeli post. Anyone shooting into the hole could not possibly hit anything. Some scenes show military personal being told what to do by civilians in street clothes. Often in between action scenes, people are relaxed and moving freely around. The best scenes, though, are when during a "funeral procession" of an alleged victim of Israel; the victim falls off the stretcher. Instead of being picked up and put back on, the "victim" gets up and climbs back on the stretcher - all captured by an unmanned Israeli drone.

As I have pointed out before, those who would target innocent civilians (regardless of the cause) would certainly have no trouble lying about the facts. They would have no problem staging scenes designed to extract world sympathy, yet devoid of truth. The world is clearly being duped by these who would stop at nothing to get what they want.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Prager - World opinion is worthless

Dennis Prager is one of the underappreciated talk show hosts. In Chicago, it is mostly because he goes up against Rush Limbaugh. Prager's opening monologues are usually very solid and it is tough to pull away to go listen to Rush (when I get the opportunity to listen at all that is).

In the last few years we have seen liberals wringing their hands over world opinion going against the US over its policies in the mid-east. I have been ruminating over a post to counter such lame thinking. Not because I am an arrogant American that thinks we can do without the rest of the world, thank-you. Instead it is because the world body has shown time and again that it is incapable of consistently formulating an opinion worthy of concern. Personally I have suspected some people think ill of me for one thing or another. People rarely say what they think so you must go on observation. It really boils down to my respect for the person that determines my concern over their opinion of me. Frankly there are some people, that if they thought highly of me, I would think there was something I was doing wrong.

Dennis Prager has written a column titled World Opinion is Worthless that really encapsulates the points I wanted to make. He opens with a very bold statement:
If you are ever morally confused about a major world issue, here is a rule that is almost never violated: Whenever you hear that "world opinion" holds a view, assume it is morally wrong.
While some reading that will react by choking on their coffee, Dennis supports this with another strong statement:

"World opinion" has little or nothing to say about the world's greatest evils and regularly condemns those who fight evil.

The history of "world opinion" regarding the greatest mass murders and cruelties on the planet is one of relentless apathy.

While you are trying to think of something to dispute that statement, Prager provides a list of supporting evidence to his claim:

Ask the 1.5 million Armenians massacred by the Ottoman Turks;

or the 6 million Ukrainians slaughtered by Stalin;

or the tens of millions of other Soviet citizens killed by Stalin's Soviet Union;

or the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their helpers throughout Europe;

or the 60 million Chinese butchered by Mao;

or the 2 million Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot;

or the millions killed and enslaved in Sudan;

or the Tutsis murdered in Rwanda's genocide;

or the millions starved to death and enslaved in North Korea;

or the million Tibetans killed by the Chinese;

or the million-plus Afghans put to death by Brezhnev's Soviet Union.

Ask any of these poor souls, or the hundreds of millions of others slaughtered, tortured, raped and enslaved in the last 100 years, if "world opinion" did anything for them.

The world eventually stepped up to the plate to fight Nazi Germany, but not primarily to help the Jews. When the US wanted to step up to irradicate the sources of some of these atrocities listed, the world body was there to pressure them to stop or limit their completion of the job. Prager sums up how the world treats those who cause such atrocities and those who try to stop them:
In fact, "world opinion" is constantly upset with America and Israel, two of the most decent countries on earth, yet silent about the world's cruelest countries.
I realize there are strong claims out there of how Israel treats their neighbors. I faithfully read the blog of one considered a friend here but our opinions are night and day. I search for confirmation of the actions implied and have not yet found it. Yes, I see that Israel like the US has caused collateral damage when targeting the enemy. Yet all I can see is that the enemy hides like women among the civilians. To simply let the enemy live is not an option as it will cause even greater death. I also see a huge PR campaign against Israel that is shamelessly supported by US news organizations who when it comes to terrorists suddenly lose the curiosity that drives them to do extreme things like produce fake documents as news and reveal national security secrets.

As I have already produced much of Prager's column I would encourage a full read of the rest. He concludes the piece by giving four very strong arguments that explain why world opinion is so poorly shaped. I will show his final closing statement in case some won't go there to read:
That "world opinion" at this moment allegedly loathes America and Israel is a badge of honor to be worn proudly by those countries. It is when "world opinion" and its news media start liking you that you should wonder if you've lost your way.
He basically states the same thing I referred to on the personal level, applying it to the international level. I am not an isolationist, nor do dislike the tapestry of culture the rest of the world provides. Those who know me, know I relish the opportunity to experience firsthand the various nuances of world culture. However, when it comes to solutions to world problems I would truly feel like I had lost my way if we were in agreement. How often we have seen concensus lead us to harm, whether at the personal level, at the corporate level, the national level or the international level. Majority opinion only means that the majority is right or the majority is wrong.